Sibship: Intelligence and Behavior
The Psychological Clinic Copyright, 1931, by Lightner Witmer, Editor Vol. XX, No. 4 j? June, 1931 :Author: Arthur Phillips, Ph.D.
Executive Officer, The Psychological Clinic, University of Pennsylvania A. Statistical Study In the files of the Psychological Clinic, founded by Dr Lightner ^Vitmer at the Universitj7 of Pennsylvania in 1896, are records ?f nearly 9,500 cases, examined in the general mental, speech, and vocational guidance clinics of the institution.
The writer of this article some time ago turned to these files in 3- study of sibship, behavior and intelligence. From the index of cases, alphabetically arranged, desired data were taken from the cards of children belonging to families two or more of whose children had been examined in the Psychological Clinic. These cards were found between the letters A and Gr, which contain approximately one-third the cases examined. There were 102 families, represented by 226 children, all of whom had received a BinetSimon intelligence quotient. Birth order data for these cases had been accurately kept. Of the total number of children 55.3 per cent are bo3rs, 44.6 per cent are girls.
Table 1 Range Mean (mos.) S.D. Skewness C.A.. m.a. I.Q.. 2-6 to 16-7 2-9 to 18-5 45.2 to 180.0 112.3 117.3 106.8 36.00 40.68 25.83 -.64 + .45 -.02
Table 1 gives statistical data for chronological age, mental age, and intelligence quotient for the 226 children examined. The mean mental and chronological ages are given in months. It is to be noted that the mean intelligence quotient of the group is 6.8 points above par. The distribution of the intelligence quotients is skewed to the lower end; there is a slight piling up of cases with high I.Q.’s. The variability in mental ages is greater than the variability in chronological ages. I. Birth Order and I.Q.
Table 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 Y N 67 16 19 6 6 6 110 Ma 108.89 94.37 98.68 103.78 123.42 108.06 106.00 Mb 112.97 105.60 109.73 107.46 121.18 111.36 119.51 28.17 21.05 22.43 25.41 21.81 21.05 20.61 23.56 Da ? b - 4.08 -11.23 -11.15 - 3.68 + 2.24 - 3.30 -13.51 D a diff. .94 1.47 1.65 4.10
Table 2 presents seven comparisons, six of which are between birth orders. The seventh lies between all younger and next older children in the entire group. Columns 1 and 2 give the ordinal numbers of birth order; column 3 gives the number of comparisons; columns 4 and 5 give the mean intelligence quotient of birth orders in columns a and b; columns 6 and 7 give the standard deviations; column 8 gives the difference between the I.Q.’s in columns 4 and 5; column 9 gives the D/a diff.
In the first six comparisons, social and economic factors are equalized. Every older child is matched by the next younger child of the same family. Fifty-nine of the 67 pair of first and second born were examined on the same date, the mean difference in ages being 2.5 years. Size of family is fairly well controlled as 42 pair are the only children in the family at the time of the examination, and 20 pair are from families with only three children.
All the comparisons are in favor of the older child except one, the fourth and fifth born, where the number of cases is but 6, as it is in the last three birth orders compared.
The difference between the mean I.Q. of the first born and second born is 4.08. The D/a- diff. is .94. The chance that there is a true difference greater than zero is about 83 in 100. The ratio between the difference and the sigma of the distribution of differences is only 30 per cent of what it should be in order to insure a difference always greater than zero.
In the case of the seventh, where 110 comparisons were secured by pairing in 102 families each child against the next older, the difference in mean I.Q. between the younger and the older children is 13.51 points. The ratio between the difference and the sigma ?f the distribution of differences is 4.10. The reliability of the difference found in this comparison may be regarded as established.
Concerning the nature of this group of younger-older comparisons the following data are of interest:
1. Nationality of Families: American 70 Jewish 21 Italian 9 Colored 2 Total 102 The average I.Q. of the 157 American children is 112.5; of the 44 Jewish children, 104; of the 21 Italian children, 73.7; of the 4 colored children, 78.6. 2. Size of Family: 42 families have 2 children 3 families have 7 children 28 ” ” 3 ” 4 11 11 8 11 5 ” ” 4 ” 1 family has 9 9 ” ” 5 ” 1 ” ” 10 ” 7 ” ” 6 ” 2 families have 12 68.6 per cent4of the families have 2 or 3 children. 3. In the 102 families, 7 still births, 1 miscarriage, 2 insane, 1 feebleminded were reported.
II. Coefficients of Correlation Table 3 B N PE.r 67 16 19 110 .11 .17 .11 .11 .08 .16 .15 .06
Columns A and B give the ordinal numbers of the siblings compared. Column N gives the number of cases. The number of cases is too small to indicate the degree of relationship, though some tendency to likeness is noted. There is some indication that the relationship between the first and second born is as great as that which prevails between younger and older children when each younger is paired with the next older member of the family.
III. Age and I.Q. Table 4 1. Regression of I.Q. on Age C.A. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 N. 1 10 9 13 23 25 23 19 21 20 17 19 15 6 5 Av. I.Q. 180.00 137.00 115.39 120.39 119.76 110.79 102.40 96.05 110.23 109.00 93.24 93.43 90.63 88.34 93.00 2. Regression of Age on I.Q. I.Q. 40-19 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 140-149 150-159 160-169 170-179 180-189 N. 2 5 14 17 22 35 28 31 32 21 9 6 1 2 1 Av. C.A. 9.5 15.4 10.1 11.1 10.1 10.1 9.0 9.1 8.5 8.9 7.4 6.1 7.0 5.5 2.6
Grouping ages 2, 3, and 4 in part 1 the average I.Q. is 125.00. The intelligence quotients, from this point on to age 16, decrease in amount with an increase at the ten and eleven year levels. This may be a reflexion of the defective standardization of the Binet-Simon battery?too easy at the lower levels and too difficult at the higher levels. However, the number of cases in each group is small. The difference between the five older groups is slight. The regression of age on intelligence quotient seems to indicate that bright children are brought to the clinic younger, while dull children arrive older than average children. The average age of 19 children with I.Q.’s of 140 and above is 6.5. The average age of the 21 children with I.Q.’s of 40 to 69 is 10.4.
IY. Size op Sibship and I.Q. Part 1, Table 5, appears to show that the intelligence quotients of children in families with not more than two or three children are likely to be higher than that of children from families with more than three children. There is not a great deal of difference in
Table 5 1. Regression of I.Q. on Size Size 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 N. S7 68 12 24 15 7 11 2 4 4 Av. I.Q. 115.00 103.09 86.82 97.08 89.00 92.26 75.00 90.00 82.50 82.50 2. Regression of Size on I.Q. I.Q. 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 110-119 120-129 130-139 140-149 150-159 160-169 170-179 180-189 N. 4 6 14 18 21 38 30 33 30 21 9 5 o Size 4.0 5.1 5.2 4.2 4.3 4.6 3.6 3.3 2.3 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.0 3.0
I-Q. in families with four, five, six, and seven children. A significant decrease over the preceding four classifications appears in families with eight children. The last three classifications are too small to fall under consideration.
If, as it is likely, about 75 per cent of the children who are brought to the Psychological Clinic are problem children, then the regression table would appear to indicate:
That problem children are found predominately among children with more than average I.Q.
2. That problem children are found predominately in families with not more than two or three children.
The second conclusion is based on the fact that 37.1 per cent of the 234 cases are found in families with two children, 29 per cent in families with three children. It may be that the small family is a good breeding ground for problem children. This fact needs further investigation.
Part 2 appears to show that size of sibship increases with diminishing intelligence quotient beginning with I.Q. classification 150-159 and extending with some irregularities to I.Q. GO-69. In interpreting the above table, it must be remembered that there is a large preponderance of boys in the 102 families studied, the boys exceeding the girls by 10.7 per cent.
The children brought to the Psychological Clinic are largely problem children. An analysis of 65 cases seen in Dr Witmer’s Clinic in the summer session of 1930 shows that 78.4 per cent were brought as problems of behavior or intellectual deficiency; 21.6 per cent, because the parents desired to obtain the mental status of their children. Behind this latter reason often some problem lay hidden. Frequently siblings are brought with the problem child. It is Dr. Witmer’s custom in such cases to examine the siblings, so that data on intrafamily relations may be secured. The figure quoted in the foregoing paragraph would seem to indicate that problem children brought to the clinic show a preponderance of boys. This need not mean that boys are more often problem children than girls. It probably means that boys are brought in larger numbers. Girls who are problem children are more often shielded than boys.
Y. Effect of Sex on Siblings Table 6 No. of Cases Per Cent Case a boy Next older sibling a boy 39 59.0 Next older sibling a girl 27 40.9 Case a boy Next younger sibling a boy 36 59.0 Next younger sibling a girl 25 40.9 Case a girl Next older sibling a boy 27 50.0 Next older sibling a girl 27 50.0 Case a girl Next younger sibling a boy 28 48.2 Next younger sibling a girl 30 51.7 Table 6 shows the relation of the sex of the next older and next younger child in families of cases brought to the Clinic. All the comparisons are between children who have been examined in the Clinic. The nationality and size of the families have been given above.
As far as conclusions may be drawn from a limited number of cases, the table confirms the findings of Prof. Tliurstone.1 For the sex of the next older or next younger child to be a boy is more unfavorable to the adjustment of a child if the child be male than if it be female. The portion of boys with a boy as a next older sibling exceeds the portion of girls with a boy as the next older sibling by 9 per cent. The portion of boys with a boy as the next younger sibling exceeds the portion of girls with a boy as the next younger i Tliurstone, L. L., and Jenkins, Bichard, Order of Birth, Parent-Age, and Intelligence. University of Chicago Press, 1931. Pp. 32-37. sibling by 10.8 per cent. For the sex of the next older child or the next younger child to be a girl is more unfavorable to the adjustment of the child if the child be female than if it be male. The portion of girls with the next older sibling a girl exceeds the portion of boys with the next older sibling a girl by 9.1 per cent. The portion of girls with the next younger sibling a girl exceeds the portion of boys with a girl as the next younger sibling by 10.8 per cent.
Summary
1. The mean intelligence quotient of the 226 children considered is 106.8. The distribution shows a slight degree of negative skewness. 2. In the comparison of first and second, first and third, second and third born, the younger child appears to be handicapped. There are about 82 to 85 chances in a hundred that the obtained difference is greater than zero. 3. In the comparison between all younger and next older children there is an apparent handicapping of the younger children. The observed difference is completely reliable as indicating that a difference greater than zero has been found. 4. There is some indication that the degree of likeness of the first born and second born is as great as that between all younger and next older children in an intrafamily comparison. 5. There is a tendency for bright children to be brought to the Psychological Clinic younger; for dull children to be brought older than average children. 6. It would appear that problem children are found predominately among children of more than average I.Q. and in families with not more than two or three children. 7. As far as observations on a limited number of cases go, it would appear that for the sex of the next older or next younger child to be a boy is more unfavorable for the adjustment of the child if the child be a male than if it be a female; for the sex of the next older or next younger child to be a girl is more unfavorable to the adjustment of a child if it be a female than if it be a male. 8. Size of sibship appears to increase with diminishing intelligence quotient. 9. There appears to be a preponderance of boys over girls in cases brought to the Psychological Clinic. B. Clinical Study
Eleven pair of siblings were examined in the Psychological Clinic in the months of May and June 1931. Nine pair were the only children in the family; two were from families with but three children. All were first and second born with the exception of one pair which consisted of the second born and the third born children. In one pair, the first born child was suffering from what was afterward diagnosed at the University Hospital as arachnoiditis. He was so distractible and unmanageable that it was impossible to obtain an intelligence quotient. The brother was a normal child with an intelligence quotient of 105.6. Leaving this pair out of consideration, the average intelligence quotient of the younger children was 123.5, and of the older was 124.3. The intelligence quotients of the younger children range from 105 to 150, those of the older children from 111.5 to 137.5. Five of the younger were superior in intelligence to the older and five of the older were superior to the younger. The average difference in intelligence quotient in favor of the older child in five comparisons was 16.6; the average difference in intelligence quotient in favor of the younger child in five comparisons was 22.9, making the average difference in intelligence quotient between the members of the ten pair 19.5.
In eight pair there was a problem child, a case of maladjustment at home or school. They were all boys. Only five presented serious problems. One was a boy of three years, four months, who had become unmanageable. The second was a boy of six years, six months, who was disobedient, uncooperative, infantile in orientation, and displayed temper tantrums. The third was a boy of nine, of more than average intelligence, who was doing unsatisfactory work in school, showing lack of concentration of attention and such troublesome conduct in annoying his school mates that he was becoming a nuisance. The fourth was a boy of fourteen years, ten months, whom his teachers described as having an odd turn, who was difficult to handle, always reluctant and hesitating in obedience, too polite to be finally disobedient, yet a rebel in spirit. He cooperated only with such teachers as he liked; for others he refused to work. He was failing in school. His intelligence quotient was above average. The fifth was a boy of seven years, eight months, of superior intelligence, with an intelligence quotient of 141, in the second grade, doing passing work. He spent most of his time in school in annoying the children about him. In fact he was showSIB SHIP: INTELLIGENCE AND BEHAVIOR 105 ing considerable distaste for school and often stated that he did not consider school worth while. Outside of school he spent his spare time in reading articles in the Readers’ Digest and in constructing mechanical toys and airplanes. Two boys presented minor problems. Their parents regarded them as lacking in initiative and diffident. One of them was regarded as considerably duller than his sister though he exceeded her in intelligence quotient by nineteen points. In four of the cases the next older sibling is a girl, in two cases the next younger is a girl, and in one case the next younger is a boy. The problem cases in this small group are found in a situation contrary to the conclusion reached by a study of a larger group of 226 children. The boys under consideration make an unfavorable adjustment when the next younger or the next older is a girl. This fact points in two directions: (1) It is unsafe to generalize from too few cases. (2) It is not wise to apply generalizations indiscriminately. There is no indication in the case histories that Would throw light upon the question as to whether the next younger or next older children had any direct influence in producing a Problem child, but there is indication in several of the cases that the parents’ attitude toward both their children was influential in producing personality traits.
Not only is there the difference in intelligence quotient that has already been pointed out between the two members of each sibling group, but there are decided personality contrasts in the case of eight of the pair. A girl popular with her school teachers and her companions, possessing much social grace as well as intellectual ability, is paired with a younger brother who is diffident, slow to adapt himself to new situations, and somewhat lacking in initiative. The girl is three years and three months older than her brother and excels him by 24.4 points in intelligence quotient. The second pair consists of a girl who is well poised, self-confident, aggressive, conscious of her superiority, and a boy who is unmanageable, not disciplined, asocial, and definitely spoiled. The age interval is six years and two months and the difference in intelligence quotient is 19.4 in favor of the girl. The third pair consists of a girl, physically attractive, socially well oriented, a favorite with her father and mother, a leader among her companions, and a boy, deliberate, more accurate than speedy, who is considered not as alert or brilliant as his sister. The age interval is two years and two months. The boy excels his sister in intelligence quotient by 19 points. In the fourth pair the boy was again discounted in favor of his sister. The mother describes him as diffident, timid, lacking in initiative. He proved to be one of the accurate, deliberate type who analysed out situations mentally before making any move to solve them. He has the attitude of one repressed when in the presence of his mother but in school asserts himself by annoying his mates in his spare time. The girl, the younger of the pair, on the other hand, is a prime favorite with her mother because she “conforms beautifully.” The method of training the boy has been that of severe discipline; the girl has been stimulated by approval. The boy is two years older than his sister and excels her in intelligence quotient by 22.3 points. In the fifth pair the girl is a well-balanced personality with a talent for sociability and hospitality, generous in thought and action toward others. Her brother is disobedient, rebellious, infantile, and possessed of an unstable temper. The girl is four years and nine months older than her brother and surpasses him in intelligence quotient by 15 points. In the sixth pair the girl is seriousminded, deliberate in her actions, reserved in her manner, careful in her work, possessed of superior self-control, while the brother is a school problem, lacks concentration of attention and is disposed to avoid tasks that require effort. He has been antagonistic both to the teachers and his work, obstinate, and even at times insolent. The boy is one year and four months older than his sister and is inferior to her in intelligence quotient by 12.7 points. He stands in the family between two girls; his older sister, not examined in the Clinic, is reported to be of the conformed type and is doing well in school. The only case of a behavior problem where a boy is the next younger sibling is our seventh pair. This boy from the beginning of his school days has been maladjusted and has proved difficult to handle in the school room, reluctant in carrying out orders, deliberately refusing to work for teachers whom he disliked. He has an unpleasant disposition and is characterized by a spirit of rebellion and lack of cooperation. His younger brother has an entirely different disposition, is interested in his school work, tries hard to succeed; while not aggressive, he has a good measure of ambition to do well. He is four years and five months younger than his brother and exceeds him in intelligence quotient by 12.6 points. A third child in the family examined recently is a girl of five years and one month with an intelligence quotient of 157. In three of our pairs of siblings there appeared to be very little difference in personality between the two members. One pair consisted of a quiet mannered boy and girl, reflecting the culture and refinement of a superior Quaker home. They were both a trifle shy, slow to make new acquaintances, with little interest in group activities. Both were athletic, enjoyed swimming, riding horseback, rowing a boat. Both were in need of social contacts with children of their own age and intellectual level. The girl is two years and ten months older than her brother, who excels her in intelligence quotient by 26.5 points. The ninth pair consisted of two sisters, both of whom excelled in the social graces and reflected the background of a home of intellectual and social excellence. They both showed considerable nonchalance, unwillingness to assert themselves in the tests, refusal to go on with a task unless more help, further directions were given. With both it was hard to establish rapport on any serious basis. They both were physically attractive and thoroughly likeable children. The older child exceeded her sister in age by four years and ten months and was her inferior in intelligence quotient by 19 points. The last pair consists of two boys who were brought to the Clinic in order to determine their mental status. Neither one of them was a problem. They were both well trained children, unspoiled by too much attention at home, and quite unaware of their superior intelligence. They were receiving careful and wise training from their parents and were making a good adjustment both with reference to one another and with reference to their companions in school. The age interval was two years and ten months; the intelligence quotients, 150 and 128. A detailed study of the second, third, fourth and seventh pair follows.
Helen and IIarold (No. 9330 and No. 9331) Helen and Harold, ages 9 years and 6 months and 3 years and 4 months respectively, were brought to the Psychological Clinic because the parents wanted to determine their mental status and obtain educational guidance. The social and economic background is good. The father is an insurance agent; the mother, a clerical assistant in the public schools. She explained that she did not exactly have to engage in commercial work, but that she disliked housework, and went to business to ” justify herself.” The children were brought to the Clinic by the maid.
Helen obtained a Binet-Simon I.Q. of 139.4. Iler discernment 108 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC span, audito-vocal, was 8, visual, 9, reverse, 5. On the Witmer Cylinders, her first performance was superior to 20 per cent; her second, to 30 per cent. Iier first performance on the Dearborn Formboard was superior to 60 per cent; her second, to 50 per cent. She succeeds better in psychomotor tests that are not mechanical predominately. She is in the 5B grade in school. Iier arithmetic proficiency is 6A, spelling 5B, reading of high school competency. Helen is superior to the median at 11 years in height, and slightly inferior to the median at 13 in weight. She is sixteen per cent overweight for her height. She is well poised and self confident, speaks of her superiority to other girls in some respects and admits frankly that in other things they excel her. She is fond of outdoor games and likes to play with boys rather than with girls.
Diagnosis: Normal mentality. General competency, superior to 99 per cent. Type, intellectual. Language ability. Recommendation : Treatment accorded a normal child. Superior educational facilities. Prognosis for high school and college favorable. Harold obtained a Binet-Simon I.Q. of 120. His discernment span, audito-vocal, was 4. On the Witmer Formboard, a test at the four-year level, his rating was superior to 90 per cent on first and second trials. He showed good distribution of attention and analytical discrimination. He failed the Witmer Cylinders? standardized at the six-year level.
The real reason for bringing this boy was because he was proving unmanageable. The mother said he was “beyond her.” His conduct in the Clinic suggested the undisciplined rather than the naughty boy. Placed with a group of children who are being taught in the Clinic, during the play hour, he proved unsocial. He preferred to play alone. His contact with other children in the group resulted in a primitive quarrel. He acted liked a child who was accustomed to get what he wanted when he wanted it. The mother admitted that his father spoiled him; that she gave him too little attention; that the present maid who brought the children to the Clinic (the mother was employed) was able to keep the boy wTithin limits, but that she could not make him mind.
Average or slightly above in height and weight, with light curly hair, bright eyes, clear skin indicative of good health, abundant energy, he is a very attractive child, but suffering from lack of contact with his parents, being handed over to the companionship of a maid. He is intelligent enough to know when he must obey and when lie dare take liberties. The little lad needs to know that his happiness depends upon conformity to the demands of his environment; otherwise he will become unmanageable and pass from under social control, make his life difficult for himself and burdensome to others. He needs the discipline of obedience in a few essential things. Intelligent guidance rather than sternness is demanded in his case.
The diagnosis is normal mentality; general competency, superior to 80 per cent. The recommendation is immediate and cooperative training 011 the part of the parents, especially in the discipline of obedience, and reexamination when he is six years old.
Lucy and Donald (No. 9296 and No. 9297) Lucy, age 14 years and 3 months, and Donald, age 12 years and 1 month, were brought by their mother to the Psychological Clinic in order to determine their mental status. The father is in an important executive position with a Philadelphia construction firm. He left school at the age of 12 and educated himself by reading. Both children are in good physical condition. Lucy is superior to the 75th percentile at 16 and Donald to the median at 14 in both height and weight. They reside in a neighborhood from which the American population has fast retreated before a colored invasion, and attend a school where their associations are not of their social level and where there is very little challenge for the abilities which both children proved they possess.
Lucy obtained a Binet-Simon Mental Age of 16 years, 9 months, and an intelligence quotient of 118, which places her in a group of 10 per cent superior to 80 per cent and inferior to 10 per cent according to the Witmer standards. Her discernment span, auditovocal, is 7, visual, 10, and reverse, 6. On the Witmer Cylinders both performances were superior to 90 per cent; she showed good mental analysis, good analytical discrimination, and speed and accuracy of movement. She had good motor control and coordination. On the Dearborn Formboard her first trial was superior to 90 per cent, her second to 99 per cent. She apparently had the problem solved mentally before the instructions were completed, for she attacked the problem in the midst of the instructions. But for a slight difficulty with the diamond her performance was qualitatively excellent. She is physically attractive, tall and blond. Some years previ110 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC ous she suffered from an anemic condition but with dietetic care this has disappeared. She is fond of out-door sports, interested in the activities of the Girl Scout organization. She is an omnivorous reader though her reading has been largely undirected. In the tests she showed superior motivation, a desire to do and to surpass her best. She is mentally alert, quick in her analysis of situations, rapid in the execution of her movements. She is the favorite with her father and mother, who consider her superior to her brother. The diagnosis is normal mentality, general competency superior to 80 per cent. The recommendations were: first, that her reading should be directed; and second, that she should be encouraged to write by keeping a diary. The prognosis for high school and college is good.
Donald obtained a Binet-Simon Mental Age of 16 years, 7 months, and an intelligence quotient of 137. His Mental Age is only two months less than that of his sister and his Intelligence Quotient is 19 points higher. His discernment span, audito-vocal, is 7, visual, 8, and reverse, 5. His audito-vocal span is the same as his sister’s; she surpasses him by two points in the visual span and by one in the reverse. On the Witmer Cylinders Donald’s first performance was superior to 70 per cent, his second to 60 per cent. In this test, which may be regarded as predominately mechanical, he is inferior to his sister. On the Dearborn Formboard he is her superior on the first trial, for his first trial as well as his second was superior to 99 per cent. His first performance was qualitatively excellent. The boy rates high not only in intellectual capacity but also in motor ability. Though his sister surpasses him somewhat in the tests that, are mechanical he surpasses her in the tests where the intellectual element plays a larger part. He possesses both good mathematical and good language ability. In the psychological examination he was alert and interested. While his sister showed quicker attack on the problems presented, Donald was more deliberate, thought out his procedure and excelled in accuracy. The contrast between the two may be put in this fashion: Lucy is speedy, Donald is accurate; Lucy excels in the mechanical, Donald in the intellectual; Lucy is impulsive, Donald is deliberate. It is probably Donald’s deliberation before making a move that has given his parents the impression that he is duller than his sister. The diagnosis is normal mentality, general competency superior to 90 per cent. The recommendations are the same as in the case of his sister. It was suggested that, if possible, the family move from the neighborhood in which they are now living in order that both children might receive the developmental advantages that come from association with boys and girls of their own intellectual level. Carl and Mary (No. 9311 and No. 9312)
Carl, age 7 years and 8 months, and Mary, age 5 years and 8 months, were brought to the Psychological Clinic by their mother April 28, 1931, in order to determine their mental status and to know their mental possibilities. Their father is a college graduate, by profession a mechanical engineer. The mother, prior to the marriage, was a music supervisor in a school system. The father is in good health, but the mother, owing to a very serious operation, feels that her tenure of life is insecure, and showed herself anxious to do her utmost to prepare the children for the future. Both children are in good health at present. Carl is at the median for 10 years in height and weight, while Mary is superior to the median for 7 years in both respects. Carl obtained a Binet-Simon Mental Age of 10 years, 10 months, and an intelligence quotient of 141.3. His discernment span, audito-vocal, was 5, visual, 5, reverse, 5. On the Witmer Formboard and Cylinders his performances were superior to 90 per cent, while on the Dearborn Formboard his performance was superior to 30 per cent on first trial, and to 70 per cent on second trial at the 10-year level. In the psychomotor tests he displayed good powers of observation, form discrimination and analysis of the size, number, and relation of the parts in the tests involved. In Young’s Maze A his rating was superior to 80 per cent of boys of his age. In all these tests his time rating was increased, owing to his deliberateness in proceeding and the careful mental analysis that he made prior to the execution of moves. Consequently his performances were qualitatively excellent. False moves were rare. In both types of tests (academic and psychomotor) he displayed a well-balanced personality, his intelligence functioning equally well m both types of performance.
His personality as described by his mother is characterized by diffidence, timidity, and a lack of initiative. This would appear to be a misunderstanding of this child’s nature. In all the tests in the Clinic he displayed considerable initiative. What was identified as deliberate forethought and planfulness would likely give the impression of slowness and lack of initiative. The picture that the school gives is that of a boy who in the second grade is doing adequate work, but who spends his spare time in annoying the children about him. The boy himself has recently shown some distaste for school and wonders whether it is worth while. Recently his mother found him reading an article on ” How I Breed Animals ” in the Readers’ Digest. In his spare time he also shows initiative in the construction of mechanical toys and airplanes, planning and constructing according to his own models. This boy is an intelligent individual who is somewhat repressed, probably because his mother was anxious to bring his life into conformity with the social standards. She admits severity in her discipline of the boy. The problem is to develop a conformed type of behavior without destroying his initiative. In all activities he shows the type of initiative that is based upon careful analysis and deliberate foresight. In school the probability is that his work is not difficult enough to challenge his attention. Instead of taking eight years to cover the grades, it is a fair presumption that this boy could cover the ground acceptably in five years.
The diagnosis was: normal mentality; general competency superior to 90 per cent and probably higher. He has a well-balanced personality. The recommendations were: treatment accorded the normal child with more opportunity for self-expression, and educationally more advanced work. Mary obtained an intelligence quotient of 119. Her discernment span was audito-vocal 6, visual 6, and reverse 3. She excelled her brother in the forward and visual span, but her intelligence quotient was 22 points lower. Neither did she show the same ability in the psychomotor tests as her brother. Her first trial on the Witmer Formboard was superior to 90 per cent, but on the second trial it was superior to but 50 per cent. On the Witmer Cylinders, a test at her own age level, she failed the first trial, but showed considerable trainability in the second trial with a rating of superior to 80 per cent. She also failed the Dearborn Formboard. In Young’s Maze A her performance was superior quantitatively to 60 per cent of children of her age, but she showed a striking difference of mental behavior to that of lier brother. She was more impulsive in her discharge of energy, and when she reached difficulty, instead of stopping to plan ahead, she retraced her steps to the beginning. The performance, however, for a 6year-okl child was qualitatively good. Her mother describes her personality as ‘’conforming beautifully.” She accepts responsiSIB SHIP: INTELLIGENCE AND BEHAVIOR 113 bility well, and responds to encouragement. The chief method of motivating her is to give her approval. Traces of this disposition were noticed during the testing, especially during the performance tests. Much time was lost in the performances by the child’s looking at the examiner and waiting for a word of approval before proceeding.
Mary is an attractive, pleasant, agreeable child and a good conversationalist. It was obvious that she had been spared the sternness and severity of discipline that had been given to her brother. She entered a private school at the age of 5 and has made reasonable progress in all subjects except reading. Her reading ability at the close of the first year was not any better than that which the modal child would make in one semester. For this there are two causes: first, her distractibility and lack of control of attention; second, an infantile mutilation of speech.
The diagnosis in the case was: normal mentality; general competency superior to 80 per cent, and the recommendations were: that the analytico-synthetic method be used in teaching her to read, phonic analysis being taught in connection with the reading situation. William and Ronald (No. 9065 and No. 9066)
William and Ronald, ages 14 years and 10 years and 5 months, respectively, were brought to the Psychological Clinic by their mother in order to obtain their mental status. The social and economic background is good. The father is a successful business man with high school education. The mother is a Normal School graduate and taught school for 10 years. She is also greatly interested in ward and city politics. William obtained a Binet-Simon intelligence quotient of 105. His discernment span, audito-vocal, was 7, visual, 8, reverse, 5. In psychomotor tests, he proved to be relatively superior in the test that correlates best with intellect. On the Witmer Cylinders his rating on first trial was superior to 40 per cent and on second trial, superior to 30 per cent. On the Dearborn Formboard his rating on first and second trials was superior to 60 per cent. He was in the 8B grade in school. His reading proficiency was adequate for his grade, but in spelling and arithmetic his proficiency was 5B. His school teachers thought that he had an ” odd turn lie would not apply himself to anything uninteresting. His school history showed that he had trouble in learning to read, being unwilling to apply himself. Some teachers got good work out of him; others did not. His application varied with his own attitude to the teacher. He was a difficult child to handle. In fifth grade, he did well, rather poorly in the sixth though he made promotion. In the eighth grade, he progressed fairly well, enjoying history especially, though his motivation for school work was not keen. Part of the difficulty especially in arithmetic was due to the fact that he was trying to do the work of a grade for which he had not acquired the preparatory efficiencies. Promoted to the high school he was making grades of 7 and 6, and was definitely failing in Latin, perhaps in Algebra.
His personal talent was his artistic ability. When stories were read to him, as a child, he would illustrate them with childish drawings. He was selected out of his grade when he was 10 years of age as a boy worthy of special attention because of his artistic ability and sent to the Art School conducted by the Public School authorities. He enjoyed this instruction for one year, but was withdrawn in order that he might spend all his time on academic work.
William is slightly below the median for 12 years in height and weight?about two years undersize. His disposition is not very pleasing. He is reluctant, hesitant, too polite and well trained to be rebellious, yet a rebel in spirit. His non-cooperative behavior has made him a problem in motivation. Of average intellect, his school progress would be difficult enough, necessitating assiduous ^efforts to make a creditable showing. With his present lack of interest and motive, the prognosis for high school is not good. Diagnosis: Normal mentality. Median general competency. Recommendation: That he return to the Art School to continue his art studies and receive training along the line of his personal talent. Ronald obtained an intelligence quotient of 127.6. His discernment span, audito-vocal, was 7, visual, 10, reverse, 4. His first performance on the Witmer Cylinders was superior to 50 per cent; his second, to 80 per cent. His first performance on the Dearborn Formboard was superior to 60 per cent; his second, to 50 per cent. There is not much difference between the boys in psychomotor ability. Both succeed better where the task is more intellectual than mechanical.
In height and weight, Ronald is superior to the median at eleven years, but a few centimeters shorter, and a few pounds lighter than his brother. In disposition he is directly opposite. He has never been a school problem, is interested in his work, tries hard to succeed. He is in the fifth grade. His proficiency measures show that lie is competent for the work of the grade. The problem with a boy of his intelligence?an I.Q. of 134.6 was obtained five months after his initial examination?is to challenge his abilities. The danger is that this boy will learn to work at and be satisfied with less than his best, A report from his mother subsequent to his examination would seem to indicate that he was finding an outlet for his energy and imagination in reenacting the “gang movies.” Less conscientious about his school work than formerly, he spends more time in day dreaming. Both boys need the challenge of something that interests them. William with his artistic ability finds a good outlet in drawing and art work. For Ronald, there is no outlet as yet. School work does not challenge him. It should he harder or he will develop lazy day dreaming habits. Both boys are independent, able to give account of themselves in any situation. So they have been trained. Charles has been considered the family problem until now. From this time on, we venture the prediction that the honor will fall to Robert.
Diagnosis: Normal mentality. General competency superior to 90 per cent, type intellectual. Recommendation: Superior educational facilities. Reading program adapted to his intellectual status. Prognosis for high school and college good.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.