家庭环境对小学高年级学生社会智力的影响应用心理学外文翻译毕业论文

1、原文：Social Intelligence社会智力Intelligence, as defined in standard dictionaries, has two rather different meanings. In its most familiar meaning, intelligence has to do with the individuals ability to learn and reason. It is this meaning which underlies common psychometric notions such as intelligence t

2、esting, the intelligence quotient, and the like. In its less common meaning, intelligence has to do a body of information and knowledge. This second meaning is implicated in the titles of certain government organizations, such as the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, and its British

3、counterparts MI-5 and MI-6. Similarly, both meanings are invoked by the concept of social intelligence. As originally coined by E.L. Thorndike (1920), the term referred the persons ability to understand and manage other people, and to engage in adaptive social interactions. More recently, however, C

4、antor and Kihlstrom (1987) redefined social intelligence to refer to the individuals fund of knowledge about the social world.1、The Psychometric ViewThe psychometric view of social intelligence has its origins E.L. Thorndikes (1920) division of intelligence into three facets, pertaining to the abili

5、ty to understand and manage ideas (abstract intelligence), concrete objects (mechanical intelligence), and people (social intelligence). In his classic formulation: By social intelligence is meant the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls - to act wisely in human relations (

6、p. 228). Similarly, Moss and Hunt (1927) defined social intelligence as the ability to get along with others (p. 108). Vernon (1933), provided the most wide-ranging definition of social intelligence as the persons ability to get along with people in general, social technique or ease in society, know

7、ledge of social matters, susceptibility to stimuli from other members of a group, as well as insight into the temporary moods or underlying personality traits of strangers (p. 44).By contrast, Wechsler (1939, 1958) gave scant attention to the concept. Wechsler did acknowledge that the Picture Arrang

8、ement subtest of the WAIS might serve as a measure of social intelligence, because it assesses the individuals ability to comprehend social situations (see also Rapport, Gill, & Shafer, 1968; Campbell & McCord, 1996). In his view, however, social intelligence is just general intelligence applied to

9、social situations (1958, p. 75). This dismissal is repeated in Paparazzos (1972, p. 209) fifth edition of Wechslers monograph, in which social intelligence dropped out as an index term.Defining social intelligence seems easy enough, especially by analogy to abstract intelligence. When it came tomeas

10、uringsocial intelligence, however, E.L. Thorndike (1920) noted somewhat ruefully that convenient tests of social intelligence are hard to devise. Social intelligence shows itself abundantly in the nursery, on the playground, in barracks and factories and salesroom (sic), but it eludes the formal sta

11、ndardized conditions of the testing laboratory. It requires human beings to respond to, time to adapt its responses, and face, voice, gesture, and mien as tools (p. 231). Nevertheless, true to the goals of the psychometric tradition, the abstract definitions of social intelligence were quickly trans

12、lated into standardized laboratory instruments for measuring individual differences in social intelligence (for additional reviews, see Taylor, 1990; Taylor & Cadet, 1989; Walker & Foley, 1973).The George Washington Social Intelligence TestThe first of these was the George Washington Social Intellig

13、ence Test, (GWSIT; Hunt, 1928; Moss, 1931; Moss, Hunt, Omak, & Running, 1927; for later editions, see Moss, Hunt, & Omak, 1949; Moss, Hunt, Omak, & Woodward, 1955). Like the Stanford-Benet Intelligence Test or Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the GWSIT was composed of a number of subtests, which c

14、an be combined to yield an aggregate score. The subtests are:Judgment in Social Situations;Memory for Names and Faces;Observation of Human Behavior;Recognition of the Mental States Behind Words;Recognition of Mental States from Facial Expression;Social Information; andSense of Humor:The first four s

15、ubtests were employed in all editions of the GWSIT. The Facial Expression and Social Information subtests were dropped, and the Humor subtest added, in later editions.Hunt (1928) originally validated the GWSIT through its correlations with adult occupational status, the number of extracurricular act

16、ivities pursued by college students, and supervisor ratings of employees ability to get along with people. However, some controversy ensued about whether social intelligence should be correlated with personality measures of sociability or extraversion (e.g., String, 1930; Thorndike & Stein, 1937). M

17、ost important, however, the GWSIT came under immediate criticism for its relatively high correlation with abstract intelligence. Thus, Hunt (1928) found that aggregate GWSIT score correlatedr= .54 with aggregate score on the George Washington University Mental Alertness Test (GWMAT), an early IQ sca

18、le (see also Broom, 1928). A factor analysis by R.L. Thorndike (1936) indicated that the subtests of the GWSIT loaded highly on the same general factor as the subtests of the GWMAT. Woodrow (1939), analyzing the GWSIT with a much larger battery of cognitive tests, found no evidence for a unique fact

19、or of social intelligence. R.L. Thorndike and Stein (1937) concluded that the GWSIT is so heavily loaded with ability to work with words and ideas, that differences in social intelligence tend to be swamped by differences in abstract intelligence (p. 282).The inability to discriminate between the so

20、cial intelligence and IQ, coupled with difficulties in selecting external criteria against which the scale could be validated, led to declining interest in the GWSIT, and indeed in the whole concept of social intelligence as a distinct intellectual entity. Spearmans (1927) model ofgafforded no speci

21、al place for social intelligence, of course. Nor is social intelligence included, or even implied, in Thurstons (1938) list of primary mental abilities.Social Intelligence in the Structure of IntellectAfter an initial burst of interest in the GWSIT, work on the assessment and correlates of social in

22、telligence fell off sharply until the 1960s (Walker & Foley, 1973), when this line of research was revived within the context of Guilfords (1967) Structure of Intellect model. Guilford postulated a system of at least 120 separate intellectual abilities, based on all possible combinations of five cat

23、egories of operations (cognition, memory, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation), with four categories of content (figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral) and six categories of products (units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications). Interestingly,

24、 Guilford considers his system to be an expansion of the tripartite classification of intelligence originally proposed by E.L. Thorndike. Thus, the symbolic and semantic content domains correspond to abstract intelligence, the figural domain to practical intelligence, and the behavioral domain to so

25、cial intelligence.Within Guilfords (1967) more differentiated system, social intelligence is represented as the 30 (5 operations x 6 products) abilities lying in the domain of behavioral operations. In contrast to its extensive work on semantic and figural content, Guilfords group addressed issues o

26、f behavioral content only very late in their program of research. Nevertheless, of the 30 facets of social intelligence predicted by the structure-of-intellect model, actual tests were devised for six cognitive abilities (OSullivan et al., 1965; Hoepfner & OSullivan, 1969) and six divergent producti

27、on abilities (Hendricks, Guilford, & Hoepfner, 1969).OSulivan et al. (1965) defined the category of behavioral cognition as representing the ability to judge people (p. 5) with respect to feelings, motives, thoughts, intentions, attitudes, or other psychological dispositions which might affect an in

28、dividuals social behavior (OSullivan et al., p. 4). They made it clear that ones ability to judge individual people was not the same as his or her comprehension of people in general, or stereotypic understanding (p. 5), and bore noa priorirelation to ones ability to understand oneself. Apparently, t

29、hese two aspects of social cognition lie outside the standard structure-of-intellect model.In constructing their tests of behavioral cognition, OSullivan et al. (1965) assumed that expressive behavior, more particularly facial expressions, vocal inflections, postures, and gestures, are the cues from

30、 which intentional states are inferred (p. 6). While recognizing the value of assessing the ability to decode these cues in real-life contexts with real people serving as targets, economic constraints forced the investigators to rely on photographs, cartoons, drawings, and tape recordings (the cost

31、of film was prohibitive); verbal materials were avoided wherever possible, presumably in order to avoid contamination of social intelligence by verbal abilities. In the final analysis, OSullivan et. al developed at least three different tests within each product domain, each test consisting of 30 or

32、 more separate items - by any standard, a monumental effort at theory-guided test construction. The six cognitive abilities defined by OSullivan et al. were:Cognition of behavioral units: the ability to identify the internal mental states of individuals;Cognition of behavioral classes: the ability t

33、o group together other peoples mental states on the basis of similarity;Cognition of behavioral relations: the ability to interpret meaningful connections among behavioral acts;Cognition of behavioral systems: the ability to interpret sequences of social behavior;Cognition of behavioral transformati

34、ons: the ability to respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social behavior; andCognition of behavioral implications: the ability to predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation.A later study by Chen and Michael (1993), employing more modern factor-analytic techniques, essentially conf

35、irmed these findings. In addition, Chen and Michael extracted a set of higher-order factors which largely conformed to the theoretical predictions of Guilfords (1981) revised structure-of-intellect model. A similar re-analysis of the OSullivan et al. (1965) has yet to be reported.In summary, Guilfor

36、d and his colleagues were successful in devising measures for two rather different domains of social intelligence: understanding the behavior of other people (cognition of behavioral content), and coping with the behavior of other people (divergent production of behavioral content). These component

37、abilities were relatively independent of each other within the behavioral domain, and each was also relatively independent of the non-behavioral abilities, as predicted (and required) by the structure-of-intellect model.Despite the huge amount of effort that the Guilford group invested in the measur

38、ement of social intelligence, it should be understood that the studies of OSullivan et al. (1965) and Hendricks et al. (1969) went only part of the way toward establishing the construct validity of social intelligence. Their studies described essentially established convergent and discriminant valid

39、ity, by showing that ostensible tests of the various behavioral abilities hung together as predicted by the theory, and were not contaminated by other abilities outside the behavioral domain. As yet, there is little evidence for the ability of any of these tests to predict external criteria of socia

40、l intelligence.Tests of the remaining three structure-of-intellect domains (memory, convergent production, and evaluation) had not developed by the time the Guilford program came to a close. Hendricks et al. (1969) noted that these constitute by far the greatest number of unknowns in the Structure o

41、f Intellect model (p. 6). However, OSullivan et al. (1965) did sketch out how these abilities were defined.Convergent productionin the behavioral domain was defined as doing the right thing at the right time (p. 5), and presumably might be tested by a knowledge of etiquette.Behavioral memorywas defi

42、ned as the ability to remember the social characteristics of people (e.g., names, faces, and personality traits), whilebehavioral evaluationwas defined as the ability to judge the appropriateness of behavior.智力，作为标准的字典中定义的，有两个，而不同的含义。在其最熟悉的含义，智力与个人的学习和推理能力有关。常见的心理概念，如智力测验，智商等就是以这个意义为基础的。在另外个不太常见的意义中

43、智力与结构化的信息和指知识相关。这第二个意思牵连具有某种性质的政府机构，如美国中央情报局和英国同行MI-5和MI-6。同样地，这两种意义都和社会智力这一概念相关。社会智力是最初由E.L.桑代克（1920）提出的概念，该术语的意思是一个人理解并成功与他人沟通相处的能力，以及成功适应社会交际的能力。然而，最近Cantor和Kihlstrom（1987年）重新定义了社会智力这一概念，他们认为社会智力是指个体的社会基础知1、测量学的观点社会智力的测量学观点是以桑代克（1920）将社会智力划分成三个维度起源的。理解和管理想法的能力（抽象智力）、具体事物（机械智力）、人（社会智力）。在他的经典阐述中，“社

44、会智力即是理解并管理男人女人、男孩女孩在社会关系中采取明智的行动” （第228页）。同样地，莫斯和亨特将社会智力定义为“与他人相处的能力”（第108页）。Vernon (1933) 提供了关于人的社会智力的最广泛的定义，“与一般人相处的能力、社会技能或者是适应社会的能力、社会事务的相关知识、来自其他组成员的刺激的敏感性，以及对暂时的情绪或陌生人相关人格特质的洞察能力”（第44页）。相比之下，韦氏（1939年，1958年），没有给与这个观念足够的重视。韦氏也承认，用图片排列的分测验的WAIS可以作为衡量社会智力的手段，因为它评估了人们理解社会情境的能力( 吉尔和谢弗, 1968；坎贝尔和麦科德,

45、 1996，见解一致)。然而，在他看来，“社会智力只是适用于社交场合的一般智力”（1958年，第75页）。在狗仔队（1972年，第209页）爆出的第五版韦氏的专著中再次消失，其中“社会智力”不再作为索引项。定义社会智力似乎很容易，尤其是将其作为抽象的智力。然而，当要测量社会智力时，桑代克有点沮丧地指出：“简便易行的社会智力测验是很难设计出来的社会智力大量地存在于幼儿园、操场上、兵营里、工厂里和交易市场里，但是它回避了标准化的实验室测验。人们需要做出反应，需要时间来适应，例如脸，声音，手势，和工具性的态度（第231页）。然而，为了达到真正的心理测量学的目标，社会智力的抽象定义被转换成用于测量个体

46、在社会智力方面的差异的标准的实验性测验（额外的评论，见泰勒，1990；泰勒和Cadet，1989年，沃克和福利，1973）。乔治华盛顿社会智力测验第一个是乔治华盛顿社会智力测验（GWSIT；亨特，1928年，莫斯，1931年；莫斯，奥马克和Running，1927年；以后的版本中，莫斯，亨特，奥马克，1949年；莫斯，亨特，奥马克和伍德沃德，1955年）。像斯坦福大学贝尼特智力测验，韦氏成人智力量表，GWSIT是由一些可以结合得出总分的分测验组成的，这些分测验是：社会形势的判断；名字和面孔记忆；观察人的行为；言语背后的心理状态识别；从面部表情识别心理状态；社会化信息；幽默感。前四个分测验适用于

47、所有版本的GWSIT。脸部表情和社会化信息分测验消失了，在以后的版本中添加了幽默这个分测验。亨特（1928年）最初是通过成人职业地位的相关性研究来验证GWSIT的，如大学生所追求的课外活动数量，主管和员工之间相处的频率。然而，一些随之而来的争议认为社会智力是否应与社会化的或外向的人格测验相关（比如String，1930年，桑代克和斯坦因，1937）。然而，最重要的是，因为与抽象智力具有相对较高的相关性，GWSIT受到了直接的批评。因此，亨特（1928）发现，GWSIT总得分与乔治华盛顿大学心理警觉性的测试（GWMAT）这种早期的心理量表（见Broom，1928年）的相关系数是R =0.54。R

48、L桑代克（1936）表示，GWSIT分测验的因素分析和GWMAT分测验的因素分析高度相同。伍德罗（1939），对GWSIT一个更大的认知能力测验进行分析，没有发现任何证据，表明独特的社会智力因素存在。RL桑代克和斯坦因（1937）得出的结论是：GWSIT在言语和思维能力上占有很大比重，社会智力的差异往往会被淹没在抽象的智力差异中。（第282页）。无法区分社会智力和智商，再加上选择外部标准来达到可验证量表的规范性的困难，这就导致了对GWSIT兴趣的下降，而事实上，整个社会智力的概念已作为一个独立的知识产权实体。当然，斯皮尔曼（1927）的G测验模型对于社会智力而言也没有什么特别之处。它既不是社会智力，甚至暗示了瑟斯顿（1938年）测验中的基本心理能力也不是。社会智力的智力结构自从一开始对GWSIT爆发了极大地兴趣后，在社会智力的评估和相关性的研究工作就一直急剧下降（沃克和福利，1973年），直到20世纪60年代吉尔福特智力结构模型测验才重新唤起研究者们的兴趣。吉尔福特推测至少存在120种独立的智力因子。这是基于五种操作（认知