Mindâculture interactions: How writing molds ... - ResearchGate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 S. Kazi et al. / Intelligence xxx (2012) xxx–xxxfamiliarization phase. All but the cognitive and the selfawarenesstasks were computer administered. All children, inboth countries, were familiar with the computer, as this ispart of their education.3.3.1. ReliabilitiesThese batteries were very internally consistent in bothethnic groups. Cronbach's alpha for each of the four set ofbatteries described above was estimated separately for eachethnic group. The alpha values for Greeks were .98, .50, .87,and .87 for speeded performance, working memory, cognitive,and self-awareness measures, respectively; the correspondingvalues for Chinese were .96, .66, .86, and .84, respectively. Thelower alphas of the working memory measures are due to thevery small number of tasks involved.4. Results4.1. Age and ethnic differencesA series of analyses of variance (univariate and repeatedmeasures analysis of variance) were run, in order to specify theeffects of age, nationality, and their interactions. An overview ofthe statistically significant results is presented in Tables 2 and3. These analyses are related to our first prediction concerningpossible performance differences between the two ethnicgroups in the various processes.4.1.1. The development of processing efficiencyTo specify the possible influence of age and nationality onthe various aspects of processing efficiency, a series of analysesof variance were run on the various speeded performancemeasures. Specifically, a 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities)univariate analysis of variance was run on performance attainedon the Simon task, the simpler of the speed of processing tasksused here. Results showed that reaction times decreased withage in both ethnic groups and that the Greeks were faster thanthe Chinese (see Table 2 and Fig. 2).A 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities)×3 (the three SSSs)×2(match vs. shift) repeated measures analysis of variance wasrun on the matching-control task. This analysis indicated thatresponse times decreased systematically with age in bothethnic groups and that quantitative recognition was faster thanobject recognition which was faster than figure recognition.Also, matching tasks elicited faster responses than controltasks, although their difference diminished with age, indicatingincreasing control with development (see Table 2 and Fig. 2).Finally, a 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities)×3 (languages)×2(same vs. different symbols) repeated measures analysis ofvariance was run on the letter and ideograms task. It can be seen(Table 2 and Fig. 2) that the Chinese were always faster inlogograph comparisons and they outperformed the Greeks in theother languages in the two younger age groups. It is noted thatthis analysis was re-run with the speed measures as covariates.This manipulation did not significantly affect the differencebetween the two ethnic groups.It is noted that inspection of error rates did not reveal anydifferences between nationalities in the Simon, (F(1,299)=2.682, p>.05, η 2 =.01, Mean=.199 and .162, for Greeks andChinese, respectively), the matching (F(1,299)=1.426, p>.05,η 2 =.01, Mean=.181 and .156, for Greeks and Chinese,respectively), or in the shift task (F(1,299)=.942, p>.05,η 2 =.00, Mean=.247 and .229, for Greeks and Chinese,respectively). However, there were significant differencesbetween the two ethnic groups in the reading tasks, whichare consistent with the findings above that Chinese childrenwere more proficient in reading in Arabic (F(1,299)=8.516,p=.004, η 2 =.03, Mean=.290 and .231, Std. Error=.015and .014, for Greeks and Chinese, respectively), Chinese(F(1,299)=15.335, pb.0001, η 2 =.05, Mean=.339 and.266, Std. Error=.014 and .013, for Greeks and Chinese,respectively), and Latin (F(1,299)=7.822, p=.005, η 2 =.03,Mean=.261 and .202, Std. Error=.016 and .015, for Greeksand Chinese, respectively).4.1.2. The development of working memoryTo specify the possible influence of age and nationality onworking memory, a 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities)×3(spatial memory vs. words vs. pseudowords) repeated measuresanalysis of variance was run. Table 2 and Fig. 3 show thatworking memory capacity increased with age in all dimensions,reaching the expected capacity of about 3 units at the age of7years(Pascual-Leone, 1970). Chinese children outperformedGreek children on the corsi and the pseudowords tasks. Therewas no noticeable difference on the words tasks, althoughGreeks tended to outperform Chinese in the two older agegroups. Τhis analysis was re-run with the speed and thereading speed measures as covariates. This manipulation didnot significantly affect the difference between the two ethnicgroups.4.1.3. The development of cognitive abilitiesTo specify the possible influence of age and nationalityon cognitive abilities, a 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities) ×4(problem solving in quantitative, spatial, analogical, and deductivereasoning) repeated measures analysis of variance wasrun. Table 3 and Fig. 4 show that problem solving improvedsystematically throughout the age span studied in both ethnicgroups. Chinese outperformed Greeks in all domains, but theiradvantage was larger in spatial and analogical reasoning. Thisanalysis was re-run with speed, control, and working memorymeasures (the corsi and the words tasks) as covariates. Thismanipulation diminished significantly the difference betweenthe two ethnic groups (η 2 of ethnicity dropped from.05 to .03). This effect was caused only from working memory(corsi: F 1, 260 =8.39, pb.004; words: F 1,260 =10.72, pb.001) .4.1.4. The development of self-awarenessTo specify the possible influence of age and nationality onself-awareness, a 4 (age groups)×2 (nationalities)×2 (awarenessof the similarity vs. awareness of difficulty)×2 (within vs.across SSSs comparisons) repeated measures analysis ofvariance was run. Fig. 5 shows that awareness of cognitiveprocesses improved systematically in both nationality groups.Chinese outperformed Greeks, especially in the evaluation ofsimilarity of cognitive processes belonging to different cognitivedomains (see also Table 3). This analysis was re-run withspeed, control, working memory (the corsi and the wordstasks), and the four cognitive measures as covariates. Thismanipulation completely annihilated the difference betweenthe two ethnic groups (η 2 of ethnicity dropped from.05 to 0). This effect was caused only from reasoning (deductivePlease cite this article as: Kazi, S., et al., Mind–culture interactions: How writing molds mental fluidity in early development,Intelligence (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.001
S. Kazi et al. / Intelligence xxx (2012) xxx–xxx9Table 2Summary of results on speed and control of processing measures.AnalysesMain and interactioneffects of processesThe effect of age The effect of nationality The age×nationalityinteractionF df p η 2 F df p η 2 F df p η 2 F df p η 2Simon task 37.711 3, 240 0.0001 0.33 15.464 1, 240 0.0001 0.06 3.251 3, 240 0.05 0.02The 3 SSSs (quantitative vs49.959 3, 192 0.0001 0.44spatial vs categorical)×2types of processing (matchvs. shift)The SSSs 19.025 2, 191 0.0001 0.17The types of processing 410.151 1, 192 0.0001 0.68The SSSs×age 6.087 3,192 0.001 0.09The 3 languages (Latin vs.15.327 3,109 0.0001 0.30Arabic vs. Chinese)×2type of symbol (samevs. different)The languages 3.493 2,108 0.03 0.06The types of symbol 56.421 1,109 0.0001 0.34The languages×nationality 6.950 2,108 0.001 0.11The 3 types of memory 457.556 2, 291 0.0001 0.76 69.464 3, 292 0.0001 0.42 36.073 1, 292 0.0001 0.11(spatial memory vs. wordsvs. pseudowords)The types of memory×age 13.438 6, 584 0.0001 0.12The types ofmemory×nationality33.135 2, 291 0.0001 0.19Note: Only significant results are presented.reasoning: F 1, 256 =4.61, pb.03); analogical reasoning: F 1,260 =13.70, pb.001).4.2. The architecture of mental processesThe second hypothesis about the architecture of abilitiesclaims that the architecture of processes would basically bethe same in the two ethnic groups. To test this hypothesis, aseries of structural equations models were tested usingBentler's (1995) EQS program. These models were tested on20 measures standing for eight set of processes. Specifically,three measures for each of the following processes butquantitative problem solving, which was represented by twomeasures, were included in the analysis: (1) spatial and(2) quantitative problem solving, (3) inductive and (4) deductivereasoning, and self-awareness of similarity when comparing(5) similar and (6) different cognitive processes. Also, the(7) spatial (i.e., corsi) and the (8) phonological (i.e., wordsand of pseudowords) working memory measures wereincluded. In addition, age and speeded performance measureswere used in further tests of the model to be describedbelow (see Appendix B).The model shown in Fig. 6 implemented the architectureof mind specified in the introduction. Specifically, there wasone first-order factor for each of the eight sets of measuresspecified above. The two working memory factors were relatedto a second-order factor standing for working memory. Thequantitative and the spatial factor were related to a secondorderfactor standing for problem solving in the SSSs. The tworeasoning factors were related to a second-order factor standingfor inference. The two awareness factors were related to asecond-order factor standing for consciousness. All second-orderfactors were related to a third-order factor standing for g as itwas defined in the introduction. This is the basic model used asthe source for all other models tested here.This model was first tested on the performance of each ofthe two ethnic groups without any between groups equalityconstrains. The fit of the model was good, (χ 2 (330)=436.65,p=.001, CFI=.94, SRMR=.08, RMSEA=.04, 90% confidenceinterval for RMSEA=.026–.044). This result indicated that,overall, the proposed factorial structure did fit both ethnicgroups. One might object that a more parsimonious modelmight fit the performance attained by the two groups. To testthis possible objection, a series of simpler models were testedand compared to the model above. Specifically, we first tested amodel where there was only one working memory factorrelated to all three working memory tasks, only one cognitivefactor related to all 11 cognitive tasks and one awareness factorrelated to all six awareness tasks. These three factors wererelated to one second-order g.Thefitofthismodelwasmuchweaker than the fit of the basic model (χ 2 (334)=633.99,p=.001, CFI=.82, SRMR=.09, RMSEA=.06, 90% confidenceinterval for RMSEA = .052–.066). Alternatively, wetested a model which differed from the basic model only in nothaving the third-order g factor. Again, the fit of this model wasmuch weaker than the fit of the basic model, (χ 2 (331)=770.89,p=.001, CFI=.74, SRMR=.21, RMSEA=.07, 90% confidenceinterval for RMSEA=.065–.079). Therefore, the basic model is astrong basis for a more detailed comparison of the two ethnicgroups.The basic model did not speak about possible differencesbetween the two ethnic groups in the strength of the proposedrelations. To obtain this information, a fully constrained modelwas tested. That is, all relations in the model (i.e., the relationsof performance measures with first-order factors, of the firstorderfactors with their corresponding second-order factors,and of the second-order factors with the third-order factor)were constrained as equal across the two ethnic groups. The fitof this model was worse than the fit of the model which did notinclude any equality constraints, (χ 2 (348)=531.76, p=.001,Please cite this article as: Kazi, S., et al., Mind–culture interactions: How writing molds mental fluidity in early development,Intelligence (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.001
Page 3 and 4: S. Kazi et al. / Intelligence xxx (
Page 7: S. Kazi et al. / Intelligence xxx (

Mindâculture interactions: How writing molds ... - ResearchGate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

Mindâculture interactions: How writing molds ... - ResearchGate