Variations in Psychological Attributes Class 12 NCERT Solutions

Concept used. Intelligence is the psychological construct used to explain why people differ in their ability to understand ideas, learn, reason and cope with the world. The point of this question is to show how the meaning of the word has shifted over time, from a simple "power of the mind" to an active capacity to both fit into and reshape one's surroundings.

The everyday idea of intelligence is loose: we casually call a person intelligent if they show mental alertness, ready wit, quick learning and a good grasp of relationships. Psychologists wanted something sharper, so they built formal definitions.

1. The early, dictionary-style view. The Oxford Dictionary treats intelligence as the power of perceiving, learning, understanding and knowing. Early theorists leaned on the same words. Alfred Binet, one of the first psychologists to study it seriously, defined intelligence as the ability to judge well, understand well and reason well.
2. The functional, adaptation view. David Wechsler, whose tests are the most widely used, shifted the focus to what intelligence is for. He defined it as the global and aggregate capacity of a person to think rationally, act purposefully and deal effectively with the environment. Here the test of intelligence is how well a person adapts to their surroundings.
3. The modern, environment-shaping view. Later psychologists like Howard Gardner and Robert Sternberg pushed the idea further. For them an intelligent person does not only adapt to the environment, they also actively modify or shape it to meet their goals. Intelligence becomes a two-way relationship between the person and the world.

Psychologists characterise intelligence as the capacity to understand the world, think rationally and use resources effectively to meet life's demands. Definitions have grown from Binet's "judge, understand and reason well" to Wechsler's adaptation-based "global and aggregate capacity", and finally to the Gardner-Sternberg view that intelligence also lets a person shape and modify the environment.

Concept used. The nature-nurture debate asks whether a trait comes from inherited biology (nature) or from upbringing and surroundings (nurture). For intelligence, the modern answer is not "one or the other" but a complex interaction of both. Heredity sets a range, and the environment decides where inside that range a person actually lands.

Evidence that heredity (nature) matters. The strongest evidence comes from twin and adoption studies:

1. Identical twins reared together have intelligence scores that correlate about 0.90, very close to identical.
2. Identical twins separated early and reared in different environments still correlate about 0.72, which is high and points clearly to inheritance.
3. Fraternal twins reared together correlate about 0.60, siblings reared together about 0.50, and siblings reared apart only about 0.25. As shared genes fall, the correlation falls with them.
4. Adopted children's intelligence is more similar to their biological parents than to their adoptive parents, another sign that genes carry weight.

Evidence that environment (nurture) matters. The same studies also show the surroundings doing real work:

1. As children grow, their intelligence level tends to move closer to that of their adoptive parents, the home is leaving its mark.
2. Children from disadvantaged homes adopted into higher socio-economic families show a large rise in their intelligence scores.
3. Environmental deprivation lowers intelligence, while rich nutrition, a supportive family and quality schooling raise it.

Intelligence is the product of a complex interaction of heredity and environment, not of either one by itself. Twin and adoption data (identical twins reared apart still correlate about 0.72) show heredity sets a range; the rise in scores of disadvantaged children adopted into better homes shows the environment decides where inside that range a person ends up.

Concept used. Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences rejects the idea that intelligence is one single thing. Instead he argues there are several distinct and independent types of intelligence. Being high on one does not make you high on another, yet the different types interact and work together to solve a problem. By studying extremely talented people, Gardner described eight intelligences.

1. Linguistic (word-smart): the ability to use language fluently and flexibly to express thinking and understand others. Strong in poets and writers.
2. Logical-Mathematical: the ability to think logically and critically, reason abstractly and manipulate symbols to solve problems. Strong in scientists and Nobel Prize winners.
3. Spatial: the ability to form, use and transform mental images and visual patterns. Strong in pilots, sailors, sculptors, painters, architects, interior decorators and surgeons.
4. Musical: the capacity to produce, create and manipulate musical rhythms and patterns, with great sensitivity to sounds and vibrations.
5. Bodily-Kinaesthetic: the ability to use the whole body, or parts of it, flexibly and creatively. Strong in athletes, dancers, actors, sportspersons, gymnasts and surgeons.
6. Interpersonal: the ability to understand the motives, feelings and behaviour of other people and bond with them. Strong in psychologists, counsellors, politicians, social workers and religious leaders.
7. Intrapersonal: the ability to understand one's own feelings, motives and desires, and know one's inner strengths and limits. Strong in philosophers and spiritual leaders.
8. Naturalistic: the ability to recognise the features of the natural world and make fine discriminations among flora and fauna. Strong in hunters, farmers, tourists, botanists, zoologists and bird watchers.

Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences holds that intelligence is not one entity but eight independent kinds: Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Musical, Bodily-Kinaesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal and Naturalistic. They are independent of each other yet interact to solve real problems.

Concept used. Robert Sternberg's triarchic theory (1985) belongs to the information-processing approach. Instead of measuring intelligence as one number, it asks how an intelligent person processes information. Sternberg defines intelligence as "the ability to adapt, to shape and select environment to accomplish one's goals and those of one's society and culture", and he says it comes in three basic types.

1. Componential (analytical) intelligence: the analysis of information to solve problems. People high on it think analytically and critically and do well in school. It has three parts, a knowledge-acquisition component (learning how to do things), a meta or higher-order component (planning what to do and how to do it), and a performance component (actually doing it).
2. Experiential (creative) intelligence: using past experiences creatively to solve new problems. People high on it combine different experiences in original ways to make new discoveries and inventions, and they quickly spot which information is crucial in a situation.
3. Contextual (practical) intelligence: the ability to deal with everyday environmental demands, also called "street smartness" or "business sense". People high on it adapt to their environment, select a better one, or modify the existing one to suit their needs, so they tend to succeed in life.

The triarchic theory helps us understand intelligence by breaking it into three processes instead of one score: componential (analytical, exam-style problem solving), experiential (creative, using experience to crack novel problems) and contextual (practical, coping with and shaping daily life). It shows intelligence is not just "book-smart" but also creative and practical.

Concept used. The PASS model (Planning, Attention-arousal, Simultaneous-successive processing) was developed by J.P. Das, Jack Naglieri and Kirby (1994). It is an information-processing theory which says intellectual activity rests on the interdependent functioning of three neurological systems, called the functional units of the brain. These units handle arousal/attention, coding (processing) and planning. The quotation in the question points to exactly these three systems.

1. Arousal/Attention. A state of arousal is basic to any behaviour because it helps us attend to stimuli. The right level of arousal focuses our attention on the relevant parts of a problem, too much or too little arousal interferes with attention. Example: a teacher announcing a test arouses you to attend to the right chapters.
2. Simultaneous and Successive Processing. This is the coding or processing unit. In simultaneous processing you grasp the relationships between things and integrate them into a whole pattern, as in Raven's Progressive Matrices, where you see how the parts of a design fit together. In successive processing you take in information serially, so recalling one item cues the next, as in learning digits, the alphabet or multiplication tables.
3. Planning. After information is attended to and processed, planning is activated. It lets us think of possible courses of action, carry them out to reach a target, and judge how well they worked. If a plan fails, we modify it, for example, reworking your study timetable when the first plan does not cover the syllabus in time.

These processes run on a knowledge base built up formally (reading, writing, experimenting) and informally (from the environment). Das and Naglieri turned the model into a real test, the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), with verbal and non-verbal tasks for ages 5 to 18, whose results can help remedy children's cognitive deficits.

The PASS model explains intellectual activity through three brain systems working together: Arousal/Attention (staying alert to relevant stimuli), Simultaneous-successive processing (coding information as a whole pattern or as a serial chain), and Planning (forming, executing and revising a course of action). The Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) puts the model to practical use.

Concept used. Culture is the collective system of customs, beliefs, attitudes and achievements of a group. The claim here is that what counts as "intelligent" is not fixed worldwide, it is tuned by cultural parameters. So yes, there are clear cultural differences in how intelligence is understood.

Why culture matters at all. A major job of intelligence is to help a person adapt to their environment, and culture provides that environment. Lev Vygotsky argued that culture gives the social context in which people live, grow and understand the world. While elementary mental functions (crying, walking, sensitivity to smells) are universal, higher mental functions like problem solving and thinking are largely culture-produced.

1. Technological intelligence (Western view). Technologically advanced societies raise children to value skills of generalisation, abstraction, speed, minimal moves and mental manipulation. They prize attention, observation, analysis, performance, speed and achievement orientation. Western intelligence tests look exactly for these skills. This is called technological intelligence.
2. The non-Western contrast. Many Asian and African societies do not value technological intelligence as highly. Beyond individual cognitive competence, they look for skills to relate to others, social and emotional skills, self-reflection and a collectivistic orientation rather than personal achievement and individualism.
3. Integral intelligence (Indian tradition). Indian thought offers integral intelligence, a holistic view that gives equal weight to cognitive and non-cognitive processes and their integration, and stresses connectivity with the social and world environment. The Sanskrit word buddhi (J.P. Das) is wider than the Western term: it includes mental effort, determined action, feelings and opinions alongside knowledge and discrimination. Indian tradition names four competencies of intelligence: cognitive capacity, social competence, emotional competence and entrepreneurial competence.

Yes. Intelligence is conceptualised differently across cultures. Western, technologically advanced societies prize "technological intelligence" (analysis, speed, achievement), many non-Western societies value social and emotional competence and self-reflection, and the Indian tradition holds an "integral intelligence" (buddhi) that connects cognitive and non-cognitive skills with the wider social world.

Concept used. IQ (Intelligence Quotient) is a single number that expresses a person's intelligence relative to their age. It was devised by William Stern (1912) and is built from two ideas introduced by Binet and Simon: Mental Age (MA), a measure of intellectual development relative to one's age group, and Chronological Age (CA), the actual age from birth. The formula is: IQ = MACA × 100. The 100 is a multiplier that removes the decimal point.

1. Reading the formula. When MA equals CA, IQ is exactly 100. When MA is greater than CA (a bright child), IQ is above 100. When MA is less than CA (a slow child), IQ is below 100. For example, a 10-year-old with a mental age of 12 has an IQ of 1210× 100 = 120; the same child with MA of 7 has an IQ of 710× 100 = 70. The average IQ in the population is 100, whatever the age.
2. How the scores spread out. IQ scores follow a bell-shaped normal curve: most people cluster in the middle and only a few have very high or very low scores. The curve is symmetrical around the mean of 100.
3. The classification table. Psychologists slot people into descriptive labels by IQ band. Table 1.1 below gives the standard classification and the percentage of the population in each band.

IQ is mental age divided by chronological age, multiplied by 100 (IQ = MACA × 100), with a population average of 100. Psychologists classify people into bands from "Very superior" (above 130) down through "Average" (90–109) to "Intellectually disabled" (below 70), with about 50% of people in the average band and only about 2.2% at each extreme.

Concept used. Intelligence tests can be sorted by the nature of the items they use. A verbal test needs language-based responses, while a performance test needs the test-taker to physically manipulate objects. (A third category, non-verbal tests, uses pictures and is closely related to performance tests.) The differences run across several dimensions.

1. Mode of response. Verbal tests require subjects to give responses in language, either orally or in writing. Performance tests require subjects to manipulate objects and materials to carry out a task; written language is not needed to answer.
2. Who can take them. Because verbal tests depend on language, they can be given only to literate people. Performance tests do not need reading or writing, so they suit illiterate test-takers as well.
3. Examples. A typical performance test is Kohs' Block Design Test, where the subject arranges wooden blocks within a time limit to reproduce a given design. Verbal tests, by contrast, pose questions to be answered in words.
4. Cultural reach. A major advantage of performance tests is that they can be easily administered to people from different cultures, since they do not rely on a particular language. Verbal tests carry more cultural and linguistic bias.

Verbal tests need language-based answers (oral or written), so they suit only literate people and carry cultural and language bias. Performance tests need the manipulation of objects (e.g. Kohs' Block Design Test), need no reading or writing, suit illiterate people, and can be given across cultures with little language bias.

Concept used. Because IQ scores follow a normal curve, people spread out across a range. Most cluster near the average, while a few sit at each extreme. The two extremes have special names: intellectual deficiency (the intellectually disabled) at the low end, and intellectual giftedness at the high end. About 2.2% of people fall above 130 and a similar 2.2% below 70.

1. The intellectually disabled (low end). The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) defines intellectual disability as "significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behaviour and manifested during the developmental period". Three features follow: an IQ below 70, deficits in adaptive behaviour (the capacity to be independent and deal with one's environment), and onset during the developmental period (0 to 18 years).
2. Levels of disability. Disability is not all-or-nothing. It runs from mild (IQ 55 to about 70, can live fairly independently and hold jobs), through moderate (IQ about 35–40 to 50–55, trainable in self-care and simple communication), to severe (IQ about 20–25 to 35–40) and profound (IQ below 20–25), who need constant care for life.
3. The intellectually gifted (high end). Giftedness is exceptional general ability shown across a wide variety of areas; it differs from talent, which is remarkable ability in one specific field. From a teacher's view, giftedness combines high ability, high creativity and high commitment. Gifted children show early signs: large attention span, good recognition memory, preference for novelty, advanced logical thinking, fast information processing, high intrinsic motivation and independent, non-conformist thinking.

Individuals vary along the normal curve of intelligence. At the low extreme are the intellectually disabled (IQ below 70, with deficits in adaptive behaviour appearing before age 18), graded mild, moderate, severe and profound. At the high extreme are the intellectually gifted (about 2.2%), who combine high ability, high creativity and high commitment and show early signs of intellectual superiority.

Concept used. This question asks you to weigh two constructs. IQ (Intelligence Quotient) measures general cognitive ability, reasoning, memory and problem solving. EQ (Emotional Quotient) expresses emotional intelligence, the set of skills behind the accurate appraisal, expression and regulation of emotions, first described by Salovey and Mayer. A balanced answer argues that EQ tends to matter more for life success, while granting that IQ still counts.

1. Why IQ alone is not enough. A good IQ and a strong academic record do not guarantee success in life. The chapter notes many people who are academically talented yet struggle in family, workplace and interpersonal relationships. Their gap is often a lack of emotional intelligence, not a lack of brains.
2. What EQ adds. Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and manage one's own and others' feelings, to motivate oneself, restrain one's impulses, and handle interpersonal relationships effectively. These skills decide how well a person cooperates, leads, copes with stress and bounces back, the very things daily success depends on.
3. The reasoned verdict. Since success in life rests heavily on relationships, self-control and resilience, EQ is generally more related to success in life than IQ. A certain level of IQ is necessary to function, but beyond that, emotional intelligence makes the larger difference. The ideal, of course, is a healthy measure of both.

EQ would generally be more related to success in life. IQ secures the cognitive baseline, but real-world success depends on managing emotions, motivating oneself, restraining impulses and handling relationships, all of which are emotional-intelligence skills. Many high-IQ people fail in life for want of EQ, so beyond a necessary level of IQ, EQ makes the bigger difference, while both together are ideal.

Concept used. Three related but distinct ideas need separating here. Aptitude is an individual's underlying potential for acquiring a specific skill after training. Interest is a person's preference for engaging in one activity over others. Intelligence is general mental ability, the global capacity to understand and reason. Aptitude is special and skill-specific; interest is about liking; intelligence is general.

1. Aptitude versus intelligence. Intelligence tests assess a general mental ability that applies across the board. Aptitude refers to a special ability in a particular field. Psychologists noticed that people with similar intelligence often differ widely in acquiring particular skills, that difference is aptitude. A person with high mechanical aptitude can be trained into a good engineer; a person with high language aptitude into a good writer.
2. Aptitude versus interest. Interest is a preference for an activity; aptitude is the potential to perform that activity well. The two do not always go together. A person may be interested in a job but lack the aptitude for it, or have the aptitude but no interest in doing it. In both cases the outcome is unsatisfactory. To succeed, a person needs both aptitude and interest, a student with high mechanical aptitude and a strong interest in engineering is most likely to become a successful mechanical engineer.
3. How aptitude is measured. Aptitude is assessed with specially designed aptitude tests, which predict an individual's future performance given proper training and environment. These tests come in two forms:

• Independent (specialised) aptitude tests, which measure one area at a time, for example Clerical Aptitude, Mechanical Aptitude, Numerical Aptitude and Typing Aptitude tests.
• Multiple (generalised) aptitude tests, which come as test batteries measuring several separate but homogeneous areas at once, for example the Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), the General Aptitude Tests Battery (GATB) and the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). DAT is the most commonly used in educational settings and has eight subtests (verbal reasoning, numerical reasoning, abstract reasoning, clerical speed and accuracy, mechanical reasoning, space relations, spelling and language usage).

Aptitude is the potential to acquire a specific skill after training; interest is a preference for an activity; intelligence is general mental ability. Aptitude differs from intelligence by being special rather than general, and from interest by being potential rather than liking, and success needs both aptitude and interest together. Aptitude is measured by specially designed aptitude tests, either independent (e.g. mechanical, clerical) or multiple test batteries (DAT, GATB, ASVAB).

Concept used. Creativity is the ability to produce ideas, objects or problem solutions that are novel, appropriate and useful. The question is whether being intelligent and being creative go together. The short answer: a certain level of intelligence is necessary for creativity, but high intelligence does not guarantee it. The relationship is positive but only up to a point.

1. Why some intelligence is needed. All creative acts need a minimum ability to acquire knowledge and to comprehend, retain and retrieve it. Creative writers need facility with language, artists must understand the effect of a technique, scientists must reason. So a base level of intelligence is required for creativity.
2. Why intelligence is not enough. Beyond that base, intelligence does not correlate well with creativity. Terman (1920s) found that people with high IQ were not necessarily creative, and creative ideas could come from people without a very high IQ. Research shows both high and low creativity in highly intelligent children and in children of average intelligence. A person can be both creative and intelligent, but an intelligent person is not automatically creative.
3. The Sunita-and-Rita contrast. NCERT illustrates this with two students. Sunita tops her class, follows instructions and reproduces accurately but rarely produces her own ideas, she is seen as more intelligent. Rita is only average in studies but constantly improvises new ways of doing things, she is seen as more creative. The faster learner who reproduces accurately is intelligent; the one who devises new ways is creative.

Creativity and intelligence are positively related but only up to a point. A certain minimum intelligence is necessary to be creative, since creative work needs knowledge, comprehension and recall, but beyond that level the two do not correlate well. High intelligence does not ensure creativity (Terman's high-IQ group were not necessarily creative), so an intelligent person is not automatically a creative one.