The book «Introduction to Psychology». Authors — R.L. Atkinson, R.S. Atkinson, E.E. Smith, D.J. Boehm, S. Nolen-Hoeksema. Under the general editorship of V.P. Zinchenko. 15th international edition, St. Petersburg, Prime Eurosign, 2007.
Article from chapter 12. Individual differences
Unlike Anderson’s theory, Sternberg’s triarchic theory considers individual experience and context, as well as the basic mechanisms of information processing. Sternberg’s theory includes three parts, or sub-theories: a component sub-theory that considers thought processes; experimental (experiential) sub-theory, which considers the influence of individual experience on intelligence; a contextual sub-theory that considers environmental and cultural influences (Sternberg, 1988). The most developed of them is the component subtheory.
- Component theory considers the components of thinking. Sternberg identifies three types of components:
- Metacomponents used for planning, control, monitoring and evaluation of information processing in the process of solving problems.
- Executive components responsible for the use of problem solving strategies.
- Components of knowledge acquisition (knowledge), responsible for coding, combining and comparing information in the process of solving problems.
These components are interconnected; they all participate in the process of solving the problem, and none of them can function independently of the others.
Sternberg considers the functioning of the components of intelligence on the example of the following analogy task:
A lawyer treats a client as a doctor treats:
a) medicine;
b) patient
A series of experiments with such problems led Sternberg to conclude that the encoding process and the comparison process are critical components. The subject encodes each of the words of the proposed task by forming a mental representation of this word, in this case, a list of features of this word, reproduced from long-term memory. For example, a mental representation of the word “lawyer” might include the following features: college education, knowledge of legal procedures, representing a client in court, etc. After the subject has formed a mental representation for each word from the task presented, the comparison process scans these representations in search of matching features that lead to the solution of the problem.
Other processes are also involved in analogy problems, but Sternberg showed that individual differences in the solutions to this problem fundamentally depend on the efficiency of the coding and comparison processes. According to experimental data, individuals who perform better in solving analogy problems (experienced in solving) spend more time coding and form more accurate mental representations than individuals who perform poorly in such tasks (inexperienced in solving). At the comparison stage, on the contrary, those who are experienced in solving compare features faster than those who are inexperienced, but both are equally accurate. Thus, the better performance of proficient subjects is based on the greater accuracy of their encoding process, but the time it takes them to solve a problem is a complex mixture of slow encoding and fast comparison (Galotti, 1989; Pellegrino, 1985).
However, it is not possible to fully explain the individual differences between people observed in the intellectual sphere with the help of the component subtheory alone. An experiential theory has been developed to explain the role of individual experience in the functioning of the intellect. According to Sternberg, differences in people’s experiences affect the ability to solve specific problems. An individual who has not previously encountered a particular concept, such as a mathematical formula or analogy problems, will have more difficulty using this concept than an individual who has already used it. Thus, individual experience associated with a particular task or problem can vary from complete lack of experience to automatic task completion (i.e., to complete familiarity with the task as a result of long-term experience with it).
Of course, the fact that an individual is familiar with certain concepts is largely determined by the environment. This is where contextual sub-theory comes into play. This subtheory considers the cognitive activity required to adapt to specific environmental contexts (Sternberg, 1985). It is focused on the analysis of three intellectual processes: adaptation, selection and formation of environmental conditions actually surrounding the subject. According to Sternberg, the individual first of all looks for ways to adapt or adapt to the environment. If adaptation is not possible, the individual tries to choose a different environment or to shape the conditions of the existing environment in such a way that he can more successfully adapt to them. For example, if a person is unhappy in a marriage, it may be impossible for him to adapt to his surroundings. Therefore, he or she may choose a different environment (for example, if he or she separates or divorces his or her spouse) or tries to shape existing conditions in a more acceptable way (for example, by going to family counseling) (Sternberg, 1985).
Other theories of intelligence
- Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences See →
- Anderson’s Theory of Intelligence and Cognitive Development See →
- Bioecological theory of Cesi See →
Theories of intelligence: results
Despite these differences, all theories of intelligence have a number of common features. All of them try to take into account the biological basis of intelligence, whether it be a basic processing mechanism or a set of multiple intellectual abilities, modules or cognitive potentials. See →