Title-

Intelligence and It’s various explanations

Basic Concept :-

(I) Intelligence :
Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of an individual to act purposefully, to think
rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment.
- By DAVID WECHSLER

Intelligence is a word which is used every day in some context or the other by almost each
and every individual. The word 'intelligence' was derived from the Latin word 'intelligere',
which means 'to comprehend' or 'to perceive'. It is suggested that night owls scored was higher
limited to the cognitive domain. But now it on tests measuring inductive reasoning which is
assumed that, intelligence has many other dimensions as well. Different psychologists have
attempted to define intelligence by emphasising on its different aspects. While Terman laid
importance on the 'ability to think', Thorndike stressed on the 'ability to learn'. More recently,
psychologists have agreed that, individuals even adapt to various demands of the environment
by virtue of intelligence only.

(II) Types of Intelligence :

Early psychologist, Alfred Binet defined intelligence as the ability to judge well, understand
well, and reason well. Wechsler, whose intelligence tests are most widely used, understood
intelligence in terms of its functionally, i.e. its value for adaptation to environment. Other
psychologists, such as Gardner and Sternberg have suggested that an intelligent individual not
only adapts to the environment, but also actively modifies or shapes it.
  Thorndike’s Classification -

1. Concrete Intelligence –
It is the ability of an individual to comprehend actual situations and to react to them
adequately. The concrete intelligence is evident from various activities of daily life. This
type of intelligence is applicable when the individual is handling concrete objects or
medicines. Engineers, mechanics and architects have this type of intelligence.

2. Abstract Intelligence –
It is the ability to respond to words, numbers and symbols. Abstract Intelligence is
required in the ordinary academic subjects in the school. This is acquired after an
intensive study of books and literature. Good teachers, lawyers, doctors, philosophers etc.
Have this of intelligence.

3. Social Intelligence –
It means the ability of an individual to react to social situations of daily life. Adequate
adjustment in social situations is the index of social intelligence. Persons having this type
of intelligence know the art of winning friends and influencing them. Leaders, ministers,
members of diplomatic sources and social workers have it.

 R.B Cattell & J.L Horn’s Theory -

1. Fluid Intelligence –
Intelligence that reflects information processing capabilities, reasoning, remember
a set of numbers etc.

2. Crystalline Intelligence –
The accumulation of information, skills, and strategies that are learned through
experience and can be applied in problem solving situations. E.g. solution to
poverty, unemployment etc.

(III) Intelligence Test and Concept of IQ :

Intelligence Test is a questionnaire or series of exercises designed to measure intelligence. There
are many types of intelligence tests, and they may measure learning or ability in a wide variety of
areas and skills. Scores may be presented as an IQ (intelligence quotient), as a mental age, or on
a scale.
The test is scored in terms of intelligence quotient, or IQ, a concept first suggested by German
psychologist William Stern and adopted by Lewis Terman in the Stanford-Binet Scale. The IQ
was originally computed as the ratio of a person’s mental age to his chronological age, multiplied
by 100. Thus, if a child of 10 had a mental age of 12, then the child was assigned an IQ of
(12/10) X 100, or 120. A score of 100, for which the mental age equaled the chronological age,
was average; scores above 100 were above average, scores below 100 were below average. The
concept of mental age has fallen into disrepute, however, and few tests now involve the
computation of mental ages. Yet many tests still yield an IQ; this figure is now computed on the
basis of the statistical percentage of people who are expected to have a certain IQ. Intelligence
test scores follow an approximately “normal” distribution, with most people scoring near the
middle of the distribution curve and scores dropping off fairly rapidly in frequency away from
the curve’s centre. For example, on the IQ scale about 2 out of 3 scores fall between 85 and 115
and about 19 out of 20 scores fall between 70 and 130. A score of about 130 or above is
considered gifted, while a score below about 70 is considered mentally deficient or intellectually
disabled.

(IV) Classification of Intelligence Tests :

On the basis of size, the intelligence tests can be classified under two heads such as :

(a) Individual tests, and

(b) Group tests.

On the basis of language used, the intelligence test can be divided into two types namely :

(a) Verbal tests, and

(b) Non-verbal test or Performance test.

The classification of intelligence tests can be explained better through tabular form:
[ where I-stands for Individual

G-stands for Group

V-stands for Verbal

NV-stands for Non-Verbal ]

(1) Individual Verbal Tests :

In this type of intelligence tests one person appears the test at a time for whom it is meant. The
test is required to use language while attending the test items. Here the subject’s response may be
given to oral form or written form.

Examples:
 Stanford-Binet Test of Intelligence.
 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Verbal Scale).

(2) Individual Non-verbal Tests :

This test is administered to one person at a time for whom it is meant. It is designed for that
person who is unable to read and write the language of the test and it is meant for young children
also. It includes different activities like completing pictures, arranging pictures correctly, setting
blocks, cubes etc.

Examples:
 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (performance scale).
 Pintour Paterson’s Scale.

(3) Group Verbal Tests :

The group-verbal tests on intelligence are administered to a large number of subjects at a time
who can read and write the language of the test. The subjects are warned to make their pencils
and pens ready before administration of the test. Here time limit of the test is almost all equal to
every student.

Examples:
 Jalota’s Scale of Intelligence.
 Desai’s Verbal Group Test of Intelligence.
 CIE Verbal Group Test of Intelligence.
 Samoohika Buddhi Parikshan.

(4) Group Non-verbal Tests :

In this category tests are administered in a group. A large number of subjects who are illiterate,
deficient in language appear the test. This test has the features of both group and non-verbal tests
of intelligence.

Examples:
 Raven’s Progressive Matrices test.
 Cattle’s Culture Free Test.
 Pintner Patterson Scale of Performance Test.
 Bhatia’s Battery of Performance Test.
- The Battery consists of five sub-tests viz.:

 Koh’s Block Design Test.

 Alexandar’s Pass-Along Test.
 Pattern-drawing Test.
 Immediate Memory Test.
 Picture Construction Test.
Theoretical Explanations of Intelligence by various Psychologists :-

(I) Two-factor theory of Charles Spearman :

Spearman proposed a 'two-factor theory’ of intelligence in 1927. According to him, intelligence

consists of two factors – general (g) and specific (s). This theory maintains that all intellectual
activities share a common factor that we call 'g' factor which is characterized by mental energy.
The theory assumes that this 'g' factor is a common factor found in all different kinds of activities
we do and this is the reason that we find a close relationship between different human activities.

But, Spearman also realized that correlations between different tests of abilities
are never perfect (i.e. + 1.00). To explain this, Spearman has suggested the
existence of another factor in addition to 'g' factor. This another factor is termed
as specific factor or simply 's' factor which is unique to each test.

Spearman claims that different abilities such as mechanical, musical, arithmetic,

spelling and similar other abilities require certain amount of 'g' and hence, this
factor is found in all these activities eventhough, the intercorrelations are not
very high.

's ' factor is specific factor which shows special abilities. For example, an
individual may have 'g' factor and at the same time, he may possess longer
magnitude of capabilities in some specific activities, such as arithmetic, spatial
abilities, music etc. An individual's tested intelligence reflects the amount of 'g'
as well as the magnitude of various 's' factors which is. strictly specific to single,
activity.
Spearman also holds that individual differences in intelligence is largely due to the
differences in magnitude of 's' factor because, in a normal individual, the level or
magnitude of 'g' factor almost normal in every individual.

Later researchers, however, criticise the two-factor theory on several counts such as But,
applicability, poor inter-correlations, unusefulness of 'g' factor and involvement of multifactors.
Spearman's methodology and search for 's' factor through analysis to explain test results are
enduring contributions. Further, his technique for factor analysis is regarded as the most valuable
and outstanding contribution to psychological testing.

Relationship between 'g' and 's' conceptualized by Spearman.

 (II) Louis Thurston’s primary ability theory :

Thurstone. L. advanced the theory of primary abilities (PMA) in 1935 which states that
intelligence consists of nine major abilities (factors), each of which is relatively independent of
the others.
These factors are as follows :
(i) Spatial relations (S)

(ii) Perceptual speed (P)

(iii) Numerical ability (N)

(iv) Verbal comprehension (V)

(v) Memory (M)

(vi) Word fluency (W)

(vii) Inductive reasoning (I)

(viii) Deduction (D)

(ix) Reasoning (R)

Thurstone calls all these as the primary mental abilities (PMA).
Later on Thurstone revised his thoughts in 1943 and rejected two primary abilities - induction (I)
and deduction (D). Thus, finally he stated only seven fundamental abilities SPNVMWR as the
main constituents of intelligence.
Thurstone also devised a battery of tests to. measure these abilities which is known as 'the test of
primary mental abilities' (PMA) and is still widely used.

Critical comments :
Thurstone’s conception of basic elements of intelligence are not completely independent.
Different primary abilities are found significantly intercorrelated to each other and thug, lend
support to Spearman's conception of 'g' factor. Moreover, the numb r Of factors identified by
factor analysis are dependent upon the nature of items choose Other investigators using different
test items suggest many more factors.

(III) J.P. Guilford’s factor analysis theory :

J.P. Guilford on the basis of more than two decades of factor analytic research, proposed
a box-like model which is called tridimensional theory of intelligence in 1961. This
theory is more popularly known as structure of intellect model which stands out in sharp
disagreement with Spearman's 'g' factor and Thurston's concept of primary abilities.
Guilford holds that in Thurston's primary mental ability model, many aspects of
intelligence tend to be ignored when items are lumped together to form tests. An item in
a test of verbal ability is distinguished from that which is non-verbal. The distinction is
on the basis of content of the test item. He further opines that items of a test should not
be distinguished in terms of content alone but also in terms of operations and products.
Thus, Guilford classified intellectual factors in three ways—content, operation and
product.

Content - Content refers to the kind of information involved. He has identified four types
of contents.

(a) Figural: Involving concrete objects.

(b) Symbolic: Information represented by means of symbols such as words or signs

of mathematics.

(c) Semantic: Involving meaning. It includes such factors as verbal comprehension

and general reasoning.
 (d) Behavioural: This resembles Thorndike's social intelligence, i.e. ability to deal
with people.

Operation – There are five types of operations that can be performed on a particular bit of

information. These are as follows:

(a) Cognition: Understanding or comprehending the information.

(b) Memory: Recalling the past event or experience.

(c) Convergent production: Arriving at a correct solution to the problem

provided.

(d) Divergent production: Devising a number of possible solutions to the

problem posed by information.

(e) Evaluation: Involves judgements as to accuracy, goodness,

suitability or workability of t e solutions to the problem.

Products – Guilford further states that each of the four contents may take six different
forms. These forms are called product of operations applied to each content. These
products are as follows:

(a) Units: A single item of information.

(b) Class: A group of units with common property forming a class.

(c) Relation: Information reflecting relationship between two things.

(d) System: Information involving number of parts as a complex system.

 (e) Transformation: Transformation involves some sorts of changes.

(f) Implication: Involving possibilities offered by a piece of information.

Thus, if the number of factors containing in all these three dimensions (contents—4
factors operations—5 factors and products—6 factors) are multiplied together, the
total number of factors come to 120 (4 x 5 x 6).

Guilford's above model is comparable to the height, width & depth of a cube
as shown in the following cubic scheme of Guilford's factors :

Guilford’s ability factors.

To explain the three dimensions (contents, operations and products) of intellect, let us
consider an example. Suppose that a subject is given a list of 100 unrelated words to
study and is asked to recall the same after sometime. The 'contents' of this test is
semantic because it involves words—a symbol, which has a meaning. The operation
is memory—recalling the past. The product is what the subject recalls, i.e. list of
words or units.
Similarly, suppose a subject is given anagram test. List of 5 lettered combinations
(e.g. ANELR, PEPAL, BTAHI, ERLCA etc.), and asked to rearrange the letters to
form familiar words (learn, apple, habit, clear etc.). In this example, the content is
symbolic, the operation is 'cognition' because- it requires recognition of information
which is in a disguised form and the product is the familiar word (i.e. unit).

Critical comments :

Guilford's model has-met with certain severe criticisms on the following grounds:

(1) Guilford has included large number of factors in his model because he has
broadened the concept of intelligence which from practical point of view is not
suitable. Any test of intelligence with so many factors would be very complex and
impracticable.

(2) Some experiments comparing the results of conventional intelligence tests

with results f tests designed to measure divergent thinking have shown that high
creatives tend to be high in IQ but the same is not true and vice versa.

(3) Factor analysis is not likely to give clear picture of the exact number
and nature of intellectual abilities. In fact, the number of abilities obtained
through factor analysis depend upon specificity of test items. For example,
if one wishes to measure specific activity—memory, he would be required
to design tests of auditory memory, memory for printed words, memory for
geometrical figures and so forth. On the contrary, in most of the instances, a
fairly small number of well-defined abilities (such as described by
Thurstone) serve the purpose of predicting one's success in job and also to
specify variations in age, socio-economic status and cultural background.

(4) The concept of general ability holds true as per available evidences.
Therefore using so many factors in an intelligent test in not of practical
significance.
 (IV) Thorndike’s multifactor theory :
Thorndike has severely criticised Spearman's concept of 'g' factor and proposed a
multifactor theory. He assumes that intelligence is in fact, a composite of a various
abilities and hence, the assumption of 'g' factor is a nonexistent concept. Thorndike's
theory is also termed as synthetic theory of intelligence because according to this
theory, intelligence is a combination or synthesis of multiple ability factors. Clarifying
his position, Thorndike has stated in his famous book on educational psychology that
the mind is a host of highly particularized and independent faculties. Intelligence
according to him is the sum total of various such smaller independent faculties and
each faculty is related to some kind of cognitive functions and intelligence as we
measure and describe is a synthesis of all such smaller abilities.

As regards intercorrelations between different factors of intelligence, Thorndike

assumes that this correlation owes mainly to commonalities of abilities. To understand
it, let us take an imaginary example. Suppose, there are two tasks—task 'A' and task
'B'. Performance of task A requires the abilities 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 13 while task B
involves abilities 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Now since, certain abilities (e.g. 3, 7 and 10) are
commonly involved in both the tasks, possibilities of high correlations between the two
exists. As the number of common abilities are increased, higher intercorrelations may
be obtained. Thorndike believes that in almost every intellectual task, some of the
abilities are common and this causes the intercorrelations between different subtests of
an intelligence test.

Thorndike has classified intellectual functioning into three major categories. These are
social intelligence, concrete intelligence, and abstract intelligence.

Thorndike has also developed as test of intelligence, called CAVD test which includes
four simple abilities namely,

C = Completion (sentence completion ability)

A = Arithmetic (arithmetical ability)

V = Vocabulary (vocabulary ability)

D = Direction (ability to understand direction)

If we examine closely, the test tasks selected by Spearman and Thorndike resemble with
each other. Hence, difference between them is merely theoretical.

Critical Comments :

l. Thorndike's theory in fact is an imaginary theory because his views suffer from
lack Of Uniformity. On the one hand he talks of various abilities while on the next
occasion he also makes a reference of 'g' factor.
II. Multifactor approach is not sufficiently substantiated whereas sufficient evidences
are available in favour of Spearman’s 'g' factor.
III. Spearman’s and Thorndike’s approaches differently in theoretical formulations.
i
However from the point of view of practical implications, there exists no sharp
difference.
i