Tuesday, February 20 , 2018, 11:17 am | Fair 54º

 
 
 
 
Advice

Findings by UCSB Researcher Trump Long-Held Childhood Intelligence Assumption

The winner of a decades-old debate about what scientists call the fadeout effect — one of the most persistent research mysteries in intelligence and psychological development — may finally have been decided.

Following a meta-analysis of experimental methods to determine whether or not the benefits of early interactions designed to raise intelligence remain over time, UC Santa Barbara postdoctoral researcher John Protzko found that the positive effects on intelligence actually diminish after a particular intervention ends.

Protzko’s study marks the first quantitative analysis of the fadeout effect across nearly every known intervention that has attempted to improve early intelligence.

The findings, which appear in the journal Intelligence, have important implications for the long-term benefits of programs such as Head Start, a federal initiative that promotes school readiness of children under 5 from low-income families through education, health, social and other services.

“Many theories of cognitive development and the relationship between the environment and intelligence are not able to account for the fadeout effect,” said Protzko, who is a member of the META (Memory, Emotion, Thought, Awareness) Lab in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences at UCSB.

“Reciprocal interaction models, for example, put forward that no such fading would occur. It turns out that when you raise children’s intelligence, they may not go out and select into new, more cognitively demanding environments," he said. "Other traits may be driving what environments children select into.”

The 44 randomized controlled trials that Protzko analyzed for the study included a total of 7,584 young children. He found that those in the experimental groups lost their IQ gains, rather than the control group catching up.

According to Protzko, this trend provides a clear demonstration that intelligence fades over time.

“That actually tells us a lot about the role of the environment in the development of intelligence,” Protzko said. “It shows that intelligence is reactionary. While providing interventions will raise intelligence, once they’re over, intelligence reacts by adapting to the new, lesser demands.         

“If you take kids and put them in a Head Start program, for example, then they’ll be smarter and their academic achievement will be better,” Protzko added. “But when you take that away and put them back in with everybody else, they’re going to adapt to that new system. It doesn’t work in any permanent sort of way.”

Protzko is careful to reiterate that his work in no way posits that early interventions are doomed to fail or that they are of no value.

“This paper doesn’t argue that intelligence cannot be raised,” he said. “Instead, it urges that a critical assumption long held — that increases to intelligence are permanent — be questioned and rejected. I believe it is still a good thing to intervene and try to change the trajectory for these children.”

All of the studies included in the analysis were done on young children, Protzko noted.

“To know if the fadeout effect is applicable to other demographics like adolescents, young adults or the elderly, there would need to be a push toward long-term follow-up — two, three, four, five years, maybe even longer — for these groups as well,” he concluded.

Julie Cohen writes for the UCSB Office of Public Affairs and Communications.

 
  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.



Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >