- Moreover, a disposition general in principle is likely to operate that
way for some people. For example, as noted earlier, we validated our instru-
ments on several experts in critical thinking, all of whom performed vary well
across our diverse stories. They proved generally alert to a number of traps
that caught most of our subjects. - However, a disposition even if operative in general form is not likely to
serve well when a person’s domain knowledge is sparse. For example, one of
our critical thinking experts would certainly seek to examine the other side of
a legal case, but would likely lack the legal knowledge to do so well.
In summary, it is much too sweeping to ask whether dispositions are do-
main general or domain specific, yes or no. They may be relatively general or
relatively specific in principle, and when more general in principle may actu-
ally operate fairly generally or in more restricted ways depending on individ-
ual development.
Relationship to Abilities
In studies of such dispositional constructs as need for cognition (Cacioppo et
al., 1996) and incremental versus entity learning (Dweck, 1975, 1999), re-
searchers have often found a low or negligible correlation between the dispo-
sition and intellectual aptitude as conventionally mentioned. Our studies oc-
casionally examined this question. First of all, the investigation from the
1980s showed no correlation between my-side bias and IQ (Perkins et al.,
1991).
In the study of 94 sixth graders described earlier, the experimenters gath-
ered grade point averages for the students as a rough proxy for intellectual
aptitude (permission for a short-form vocabulary test could not be obtained)
and examined the relationships among the sensitivity measure, ability on the
task at hand in the sense of step 3 performance, and grade point average. Sen-
sitivity correlated with step 3 performance at .72 but with grade point average
at only .36. However, step 3 performance correlated with academic standing
at .61. The pattern of results suggests that sensitivity depends on somewhat
different cognitive resources than intellectual aptitude as reflected in school
grades (Perkins et al., 2000; Perkins & Tishman, 2001).
In the study of causes of low sensitivity, permission was obtained to use a
short-form vocabulary test as a proxy for intellectual aptitude. Detection
plus explanation in the conditions without underlining seemed the best gauge
of sensitivity, since this showed that subjects detected shortfalls without help
and understood what they had noticed. The correlations between detection
plus explanation scores and vocabulary scores were .32 without the list of
standards and .26 with the list, neither significant at the .05 level. Although
the study included no step 3 condition in the sense outlined earlier, the under-
368 PERKINS AND RITCHHART