Contents
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
The four theories of intelligence discussed in this section differ in several respects.
Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences See → Gardner attempts to explain the wide variety of adult roles found in different cultures. He believes that such diversity cannot be explained by the existence of a basic universal intellectual ability, and suggests that there are at least seven different manifestations of intelligence, present in various combinations in each individual. According to Gardner, intelligence is the ability to solve problems or create products that have value in a particular culture. According to this view, a Polynesian navigator with developed skills in navigating the stars, a figure skater who successfully performs a triple “Axel”, or a charismatic leader who draws crowds of followers along with him are no less “intellectual” than a scientist, mathematician or engineer.
Anderson’s Theory of Intelligence and Cognitive Development See → Anderson’s theory attempts to explain various aspects of intelligence — not only individual differences, but also the growth of cognitive abilities in the course of individual development, as well as the existence of specific abilities, or universal abilities that do not differ from one individual to another, such as the ability to see objects in three dimensions. To explain these aspects of intelligence, Anderson suggests the existence of a basic processing mechanism equivalent to Spearman’s general intelligence, or q factor, along with specific processors responsible for propositional thinking and visual and spatial functioning. The existence of universal abilities is explained using the concept of «modules», the functioning of which is determined by the degree of maturation.
Sternberg’s triarchic theory See → Sternberg’s triarchic theory is based on the view that earlier theories of intelligence are not wrong, but only incomplete. This theory consists of three sub-theories: a component sub-theory that considers the mechanisms of information processing; experimental (experiential) sub-theory, which takes into account individual experience in solving problems or being in certain situations; contextual sub-theory that considers the relationship between the external environment and individual intelligence.
Bioecological theory of Cexi See → Cesi’s bioecological theory is a development of Sternberg’s theory and explores the role of context at a deeper level. Rejecting the idea of a single general intellectual ability to solve abstract problems, Cesi believes that the basis of intelligence is multiple cognitive potentials. These potentials are biologically determined, but the degree of their manifestation is determined by the knowledge accumulated by the individual in a certain area. Thus, according to Cesi, knowledge is one of the most important factors of intelligence.
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. In addition, three of these theories emphasize the role of the context in which the individual functions, that is, environmental factors that influence intelligence. Thus, the development of a theory of intelligence suggests further study of the complex interactions between biological and environmental factors that are at the center of modern psychological research.
How accurately do intelligence tests reflect intelligence?
SAT and GRE test scores — accurate indicators of intelligence
How can you know that two kinds of measurement point to the same thing? You calculate a statistic called correlation (which ranges from 0 to 1,0), and the higher the correlation, the more similar these kinds of measurements are. The tests of aptitude, achievement, intelligence, and cognitive ability are so highly correlated with each other that many experts believe that they are all the same tests. See →
Why IQ, SAT and GRE don’t measure general intelligence
Thousands of «validity» studies show that general intelligence tests predict a wide range of different behaviors, although not perfectly, but better than any other method known to us. Grades of first-year students are somewhat better predicted by IQ scores than by grades or characteristics obtained by students in high school. Grades obtained by students in their first year of graduate school are also better predicted by IQ scores than university grades and characteristics. But the accuracy of prediction based on IQ (or SAT or GRE) is limited, and scores for many candidates will not be as expected. Test makers argue that even limited predictability can help enrollment officials make better decisions than without tests (Hunt, 1995). See →
GDP. Chapter 13
In this chapter, we will consider three theoretical approaches to personality that have dominated the history of personality psychology throughout the XNUMXth century: psychoanalytic, behavioral, and phenomenological approaches. See →