Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:09:52.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Trait Complexes, Cognitive Investment, and Domain Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Philip Ackerman
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Margaret E. Beier
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Elena L. Grigorenko
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

The study of expertise has a long and varied history across over one hundred years of modern psychology. Along the way, various approaches and perspectives have been applied to examination of two central questions: “Who becomes an expert?” and “How does one become an expert?” Traditional experimental psychology researchers have focused on describing the processes involved in acquisition of expert performance (for example, Bryan and Harter, 1899), or on specifying the methods one should adopt for successfully acquiring expert performance (for example, James, 1890/1950). In contrast, traditional differential psychology researchers have focused on differentiating individuals from some specified group (for example, novices) who will acquire expertise during the course of training or job tenure from those who will fail to acquire expertise, given the same exposure. Researchers from a third perspective, which is best characterized as an “interactionist” approach, have attempted to build representations that consider both trait differences and childhood and adulthood experiences as spurs to the development of expertise (for example, Snow, 1996).

The focus of our discussion in this chapter is mainly on the differential and interactionist approaches. That is, we seek to understand the development of expertise as an interaction between individual characteristics (abilities, personality, interests, self-concept, and so forth) and the environment, as jointly influencing which persons develop expertise and which persons do not. In addition, we concern ourselves with the direction of investment of cognitive resources, which in turn determines the domains of expertise that are developed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 288–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (1994). Intelligence, attention, and learning: Maximal and typical performance. In D. K. Detterman (Ed.), Current Topics in Human Intelligence; Volume 4: Theories of Intelligence, pp. 1–27. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (1997). Personality, self-concept, interests, and intelligence: Which construct doesn't fit?Journal of Personality, 65(2), 171–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L. (2000). Domain-specific knowledge as the “dark matter” of adult intelligence: Gf/Gc, personality and interest correlates. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B, P69–P84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., Bowen, K. R., Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2001). Determinants of individual differences and gender differences in knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 797–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ackerman, P. L., & Lohman, D. F. (in press). Education and g. To appear in H. Nyborg (Ed.), The Scientific Study of General Intelligence – Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Elsevier Science
Ackerman, P. L., & Rolfhus, E. L. (1999). The locus of adult intelligence: Knowledge, abilities, and non-ability traits. Psychology and Aging, 14, 314–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1999). Learner profiles: Valuing individual differences within classroom communities. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, and R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and Individual Differences: Process, Trait, and Content Determinants (pp. 413–436). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Baltes, P. B., & Schaie, K. W. (1976). On the plasticity of intelligence in adulthood and old age: Where Horn and Donaldson fail. American Psychologist, 31, 720–725CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, G. V., Alexander, R. A., & Doverspike, D. (1992). The implications for personnel selection of apparent declines in predictive validities over time: A critique of Hulin, Henry, and Noon. Personnel Psychology, 45, 601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, N. (1949). Consistency and variability in the growth of intelligence from birth to eighteen years. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 75, 165–196Google Scholar
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence and non-ability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (in press). Determinants of health knowledge: An investigation of age, gender, abilities, personality, and interests. To appear in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Brainard, J. (2001, February 19). U. of California's President Proposes Dropping the SAT Requirement. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47
Bryan, W. L., & Harter, N. (1899). Studies on the telegraphic language: The acquisition of a hierarchy of habits. Psychological Review, 6, 345–375Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1982). The measurement of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 29–120). New York: Cambridge University Press
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 153–193CrossRef
Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company
Cattell, R. B. (1971/1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. (Revised and reprinted from Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin). Amsterdam: North Holland
Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2000–2001. Washington, DC: Author
Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: How females and males perform in educational settings. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books
Gleick, J. (1992). Genius: The life and science of Richard Feynman. New York: Pantheon Books
Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessing typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: a theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Honzik, M. P., MacFarlane, J. W., & Allen, L. (1948). The stability of mental test performance between two and eighteen years. Journal of Experimental Education, 17, 309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253–270CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, J. L., & Donaldson, G. (1976). On the myth of intellectual decline in adulthood. American Psychologist, 31, 701–719CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, J. L., & Donaldson, G. (1977). Faith is not enough: A response to the Baltes-Schaie claim that intelligence does not wane. American Psychologist, 32, 369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulin, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. (1990). Adding a dimension: Time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive relationships. Psychological Bulletin 107 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance, and supervisor ratings. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover Publications
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 74(4), 657–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?!Intelligence, 14, 389–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. C., & Humphreys, L. G. (1977). Predictions of academic performance in graduate and professional school. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harkness, A. R., & Silva, P. A. (1993). The natural history of change in intellectual performance: Who changes? How much? Is it meaningful?Journal of Child Psychological Psychiatry, 34(4), 455–506CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, P. L. (1976). Interactive effects of student anxiety, achievement orientation, and teacher behavior on student achievement and attitude. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
Porteus, A. W. (1976). Teacher-centered vs. student-centered instruction: Interactions with cognitive and motivational aptitudes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Self-report knowledge: At the crossroads of ability, interest, and personality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 174–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1999). Assessing individual differences in knowledge: Knowledge structures and traits. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 511–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press
Snow, R. E. (1963). Effects of learner characteristics in learning from instructional films. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN
Snow, R. E. (1976). Research on aptitudes: A progress report. Stanford University Aptitude Research Project, Technical Report No. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Snow, R. E. (1989). Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and individual differences. Advances in theory and research (pp. 13–59). New York: W. H. Freeman
Snow, R. E. (1996). Aptitude development and education. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 536–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1914). The theory of two factors. Psychological Review, Vol. 21(2), 101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1927). The nature of “intelligence” and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan and Co
Spearman, C. E. (1938). Measurement of intelligence. Scientia, Milano, 64, 75–82Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1939). “Intelligence” tests. Eugenics Review, 30, 249–254Google ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 347–354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Watson, J. B. (1926). What the nursery has to say about instincts. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925 (pp. 1–34). Worchester, MA: Clark University PressCrossRef
Watzman, H. (2000, January 21). Israeli colleges will begin using an alternative to national admissions tests. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, A53Google Scholar
Willingham, W. W. (1974). Predicting success in graduate education. Science, 183, 273–278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willingham, W. W., & Cole, N. S. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Wittmann, W. W., and Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants (pp. 77–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×