Bogomaz, Sergey A.

Budakova, Anna V.

English

Tomsk State University Repository

Межрегиональная общественная организация «Ассоциация когнитивных исследований»Центр развития межличностных коммуникацийБалтийский федеральный университет имени Иммануила КантаСЕДЬМАЯ МЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ КОНФЕРЕНЦИЯ ПО КОГНИТИВНОЙ НАУКЕ20–24 июня 2016 г., Светлогорск, РоссияТезисы докладовTHE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCEON COGNITIVE SCIENCEJune 20–24, 2016, Svetlogorsk, RussiaAbstractsСветлогорск201632The results supporting the validity of the ap-proach, as well as the prospects for its practical ap-plication are discussed.Specific features of the method that enhance the potential of experimental studies into cognitive pro-cesses are considered. The potential of the method to identify image elements those are in most de-mand for recognition is demonstrated by perceiving familiar objects (which element priority assessment seems to be problematic under the conditions of si-multaneous perception).Barabanschikov V. A., Zhegallo А. V. 2013. Registratsiya i analiz napravlennosti vzora cheloveka [Registration and anal-ysis of the human gaze direction]. M.: Institut psihologii RAN (in Russian).Henderson J. M., Brockmole J. R., Castelhano M. S., Mack M. 2007. Visual saliency does not account for eye move-ments during visual search in real-world scenes. Eye move-ments: A window on mind and brain, 537-562.Mack A., Rock I. 1998. Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Rämä P. & Baccino T. 2010. Eye fixation–related potentials (EFRPs) during object identification. Visual Neuroscience, 27, 187-192.Rayner K. 1998. Eye movements in reading and informa-tion processing: 20 years of research. Psychological bulletin, 124, 372-422.Theeuwes J., Kramer A. F., Hahn S., Irwin D. E. 1998. Our eyes do not always go where we want them to go: Capture of the eyes by new objects. Psychological Science, 9, 379-385.Velichkovsky B. M. 2006. Kognitivnaya nauka. Osnovy psi-hologii poznaniya [Cognitive science. Basics of the psychology of cognition]. T.1. M.: Smysl (in Russian).Zoest van W., Donk M. 2004. Bottom-up and top-down con-trol in visual search. PERCEPTION-LONDON, 927-938.Jarbus A. L. 1965. Rol’ dvizheniy glaz v processe zreniya [The role of eye movements in vision]. M.: Nauka (in Russian).COGNITIVE ABILITIES, SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENTA. V. Budakova, S. A. Bogomazfarmazonka2009@yandex.ru, bogogmazsa@mail.ruDepartment of Psychology, Tomsk State University (Tomsk, Russia)Educational achievement at the end of compul-sory schooling represents a major tipping point in life, which makes understanding its causes and cor-relates important for individual children, their fam-ilies, and society[1].Differences among children in their educational achievement and mathematical effectiveness, espe-cially culminating at the end of compulsory school-ing, propel children on different lifelong pathways that affect higher education, occupation, and even health and mortality [2, 3].For these reasons, it is important to understand the factors of differences among children in their  educational mathematical achievement.The aims of the study was to investigate the re-lationship between social intelligence and Mathe-matics General State Exam performance in 17 year old high school students and to investigate wheth-er intelligence, spatial abilities and mathematical abilities interact with performance in General State Exam.The study was conducted on personality and in-tellectual characteristics and mathematical achieve-ment in a sample of 870 first-year university stu-dents, school graduates, for 230 of whom Social intelligence was also measured.The General State Examination in mathematics (GSE) (wich they pass in the end of compulsory schooling) was the indicator of mathematical effec-tiveness.To examine the social intelligence we applied the Evaluation of Choice in Conflict Situations Questionnaire [4]. Test measuring the behavior strategies in conflict: competition, avoidance, com-promise, collaboration, concession, help of others and acrimony. Reliability of the test was measured. Cronbach α > 0,783 (for all strategies).We measured cognitive abilities also: intelli-gence, spatial abilities and mathematical abilities.Intelligence was measured by the Raven’s ma-trices test. Spatial ability were measured by the Mental rotation test. And spatial working memory were measured by the Corsi Blocks test. Mathe-matical abilities was measured by the Number series test. And “Semantics” test, in which par-ticipants had to choose an appropriate math term as a synonym to another term. Also was used test Number sense.Social intelligence and mathematical effective-nessNegative correlation between social intelli-gence and results of maths GSE. With the strate-gy «compromise» (r=0.144, p=0.03) and summ of index of social intelligence (r=0.142, p=0.02). The tendency to make compromises in conflict weakly correlates with results of GSE.No significant predictors were found in the re-gression with with dependent variable General State Exam and predictors strategies behavior in conflict (social intelligence).Cognitive abilities and mathematical effective-ness33Regression analyses with dependent variable General State Exam and predictors cognitive abil-ities (Raven’s matrices, Mental rotation, Corsi Block, Number series, Number sense and Seman-tics). Model was significant F (7, 533)= 11.725 p<.001, and explaining 11.7% of the variance.Significant predictors were general intelligence, spatial abilities and working memory and math abilities. Results you can see in table 1.Dependent variable —  Math General State ExamB St.Err. Beta t Sig.Raven’s matrices 0,505 0,129 0,175 3,901 0,000Mental rotation 0,144 0,056 0,085 2,017 0,044Semantics 0,200 0,079 0,112 2,538 0,011Number series 0,481 0,170 0,132 2,831 0,005Number sense 0,051 0,052 0,042 0,967 0,334Corsi Block 0,100 0,100 0,016 0,361 0,718Table 1. Results of regression analyses with dependent variable General State Exam and predictors cognitive abilitiesCognitive abilities, social intelligence and math-ematical effectivenessWhen both social intelligence and cognitive abilities were include in the model- the model was not significant. It is likely that this result is due to lack of power as only 230 participants had both, cognitive and social measures collected.In research was investigated correlations of cog-nitive abilities, social intelligence andCognitive abilities and social intelligence are weakly correlated with performance in General State Exam. Cognitive abilities, together (as mea-sured in this study), explain ≈12% of the variation. The results open up a few questions for further re-search: what additional factors can explain the re-sults of GSE performance and is the GSE appropri-ate way to measure the mathematical effectiveness as a criteria for enter to the university?Исследование выполнено при поддержке гранта РГНФ N15-36-01374 «Изучение поисковой активности в условиях когнитивной деятельности с использованием системы регистрации глазодвигательной активности(айтрекер) и электроэнцефалографии»Krapohl, E., Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., Trzaskowski, M., McMillan, A., Pingault, J. B., … & Plomin, R. 2014. The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genet-ically influenced traits, not just intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(42), 15273-15278.Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. 2000. Prosocial foundations of children’s aca-demic achievement. Psychological science, 11(4), 302-306.Buchmann, C., & Dalton, B. 2002. Interpersonal influences and educational aspirations in 12 countries: The importance of institutional context. Sociology of education, 99-122.Shcherbakov, S. V. 2010. Diagnostics social intelligence of students. Actual problems of physiology, psychology and psy-chophysiology, 122-126.CHICKEN-AND-EGG PARADOX IN EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE AND COGNITION: THE EGG WINS?T. Chernigovskaya, O. Vasilevat.chernigovskaya@spbu.ru, ovasilev@sfu.caSt. Petersburg State University (Russia), Simon Fraser University (Vancouver, Canada)The problem of emergence of language in hu-man evolution, as well as its cognitive foundation, is extremely complex and interdisciplinary. Its suc-cessful solution requires collaborative efforts of anthropology, linguistics, psychology, genetics and neuroscience.Various points of view on cerebral basis for cog-nitive and linguistic competence in respect to hu-man evolutionary history are considered: nativism vs. connectionism, modular vs. network neurophys-iologic organization of language and cognition, the idea of a macro-mutation vs. a series of micro-mu-tations that have resulted in the appearance of hu-man language and cognition and consecutively giv-en rise to quick cultural development.As distinct from biology, evolutionary ideas in linguistics were not well recognized until recent-ly. In the XXth century, through the influence of Saussure and Jakobson up to Chomsky, language came to be viewed as a static system, regardless of how it may have evolved from protolanguages. The contribution of paleo-anthropological research to language evolution is well-acknowledged (Ca-valli-Sforca et al. 1994, Sia et al. 2013). A grow-ing interest is currently focused on the mechanisms underlying the complexity of human behavior and language (Hauser et al. 2002, Cartmill et al. 2014). Givón formulates general principles that control both language and biological evolution (Givon 2009): graduality of change; adaptive-selection motivation; functional change and ambiguity be-fore structural change and specialization; addition of new structures to older ones; local causation, and uni-directionality of change. Attempts have been made to discuss language development in terms of biology: neoteny, recapitulation, language hybrid-ization, mono- and polygenesis, etc.Generatists insist that it is only with genetic basis that formation of algorithms in the language ontogeny is possible. However, Chomsky considers the grammatical explosion a result of macro-muta-

Cognitive abilities, social intelligence and individual differences in mathematical achievement

http://vital.lib.tsu.ru/vital/access/services/Download/vtls:000576407/SOURCE1

Cognitive abilities, social intelligence and individual differences in mathematical achievement

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Tomsk State University Repository