14. The discussion of learning concepts here relies on two studies: T. Pachur, & H. Olsson, Type of learning task impacts per formance and strategy selection in decision making, Cognitive Psychology 65 (2012), 207– 240. The typical approach to studying conceptual learning in the laboratory is to provide one example at a time, with learners attempting to learn the likely classifi cation of this example (e.g., given a case with a par ticu lar set of symptoms, what is the likely disease?). This experiment modifi ed that procedure by presenting two examples simultaneously (e.g., two cases) and requiring learners to select which of the two would be most likely to refl ect a partic u lar classifi cation. This comparative approach stimulated less focus on memorizing the examples and better extraction of the underlying rule by which the examples were classifi ed.
A similar theme to the one above, except that the focus was on transfer in problem solving, appears in M. L. Gick & K. J.
Holyoak, Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive Psychology 15 (1983), 1– 38. Learners either studied one example of how to solve a par tic u lar problem or were required to contrast two different kinds of problems to fi gure out the common elements of their solutions. The learners who contrasted two problems were more likely to extract a general solution scheme and transfer that scheme to successfully solve new problems than were the learners who studied only one problem.
15. The reference on rule learners and example learners is M. A.
McDaniel, M. J. Cahill, M. Robbins, & C. Wiener, Individual differences in learning and transfer: Stable tendencies for learning exemplars versus abstracting rules, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143 (2014). Using laboratory learning tasks, this novel study revealed that some people tend to learn concepts by focusing on memorizing the par tic u lar examples and responses associated with the examples that are used to illustrate the concept (termed exemplar learners), whereas other learners focus on the underlying abstraction refl ected in the par tic u lar exemplars used to illustrate the concept (termed abstractors). Further, a par tic u lar individual’s concept- learning tendency persisted across quite different laboratory concept-
Notes to Pages 163–168 ê 279
learning tasks, suggesting that individuals may have a fairly stable predisposition toward exemplar learning versus abstraction across a range of conceptual- learning tasks. Of interest, an initial result was that the abstractors on average achieved higher grades in an introductory college chemistry course than did the exemplar learners.
7. Increase Your Abilities
1. A good introduction to Walter Mischel’s classic research on delay in gratifi cation in children is W. Mischel, Y. Shoda, & M. L. Rodriguez, Delay of gratifi cation in children, Science 244
(1989), 933– 938. For an accessible introduction for nonpsy-chologists, see Jonah Lehrer, “Don’t! The secret of self- control,”
New Yorker, May 18, 2009, 26– 32. For a 2011 update, see W.
Mischel & O. Ayduk, Willpower in a cognitive- affective pro-cessing system: The dynamics of delay of gratifi cation, in K. D.
Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (eds.), Handbook of Self- Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (2nd ed., pp. 83–
105)
(New York: Guilford, 2011).
2. Accounts of Carson are reprinted at the website maintained by historian Bob Graham, whose antecedents were among the original American settlers in California, www .longcamp .com
/kit _bio .html, accessed October 30, 2013, and are drawn from material published originally in the Washington Union in the summer of 1847 and reprinted in Supplement to the Connecti-cut Courant, July 3, 1847. Hampton Sides, Blood and Thunder (New York: Anchor Books, 2006), 125– 126, relates Fremont’s directing Carson on this journey.
3. Research on brain plasticity: J. T. Bruer, Neural connections: Some you use, some you lose, Phi Delta Kappan 81, 4 (1999), 264– 277. The Goldman- Rakic quote comes from Bruer’s article, which quotes from remarks she made before the Education Commission of the States. Further research on brain plasticity, with an emphasis on treatment of brain damage, may be found in D. G. Stein & S. W. Hoffman, Concepts of CNS plasticity in the context of brain damage and repair, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 18 (2003), 317– 341.
Notes to Pages 168–176 ê 280
4. H. T. Chugani, M. E. Phelps, & J. C. Mazziotta, Positron emis-sion tomography study of human brain function development, Annals of Neurology 22 (1987), 487– 497.
5. J. Cromby, T. Newton, and S. J. Williams, Neuroscience and subjectivity, Subjectivity 4 (2011), 215– 226.
6. An accessible introduction to this work is Sandra Blakeslee,
“New tools to help patients reclaim damaged senses,” New York Times, November 23, 2004.
7. P.
Bach-
y-Rita, Tactile sensory substitution studies, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013 (2004), 83– 91.
8. For work on myelination, see R. D. Fields, White matter matters, Scientifi c American 298 (2008), 42– 49, and R. D. Fields, Myelination: An overlooked mechanism of synaptic plasticity?, Neuroscientist 11 (December 2005), 528– 531. For a more pop u lar exposition, see Daniel Coyle, The Talent Code (New York: Bantam, 2009).
9. Some references on neurogenesis: P. S. Eriksson, E. Perfi lieva, T. Björk- Eriksson, A. M. Alborn, C. Nordborg, D. A. Peter-son, & F. H. Gage, Neurogenesis in the adult human hippocampus, Nature Medicine 4 (1998), 1313– 1317; P. Taupin, Adult neurogenesis and neuroplasticity, Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 24 (2006), 9– 15.
10. The quote comes from Ann B. Barnet & Richard J. Barnet, The Youn gest Minds: Parenting and Genes in the Development of Intellect and Emotion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998), 10.
11. The Flynn effect is named for James Flynn, who fi rst reported on the trend for increased IQs in the twentieth century in developed nations in J. R. Flynn, Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really mea
sure, Psychological Bulletin 101
(1987), 171– 191.
12. This section draws heavily on Richard E. Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It (New York: Norton, 2009.) 13. The study cited is J. Protzko, J. Aronson, & C. Blair, How to make a young child smarter: Evidence from the database of raising intelligence, Perspectives in Psychological Science 8
(2013), 25– 40.
Notes to Pages 176–187 ê 281
14. The cited study is S. M. Jaeggi, M. Buschkuehl, J. Jonides, & W. J. Perrig, Improving fl uid intelligence with training on working memory, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008), 6829– 6833.
15. The failure to replicate the working memory training result appears in T. S. Redick, Z. Shipstead, T. L. Harrison, K. L. Hicks, D. E. Fried, D. Z. Hambrick, M. J. Kane, & R. W. Engle, No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A randomized, placebo- controlled study, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142, 2013), 359– 379.
16. Carol Dweck’s research on growth mindsets is summarized in many places. See a nice summary by Marina Krakovsky, “The effort effect,” Stanford Magazine, March/April 2007. For two articles by Dweck, see H. Grant & C. S. Dweck, Clarifying achievement goals and their impact, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (2003), 541– 553, and C. S. Dweck, The perils and promise of praise, Educational Leadership 65 (2007), 34– 39. She also has a book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (New York: Ballantine Books, 2006).
17. Dweck quote is from Krakovsky, “Effort effect.”
18. The Dweck quotes are from Po Bronson, “How not to talk to your kids,” New York Times Magazine, February 11, 2007.
