Galtons Definition of Intelligence, Sternbergs Model, and Spearmans Model - Term Paper Example

Galton’s Definition Of Intelligence British psychologist Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) was one of first people to study the measurement of intelligence (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 2009, P.313). According to Galton, “intelligence is an inherited trait that is correlated with having superior physical abilities.” He believed that intelligence can be measured by measuring the physical abilities like reaction time, eye sight etc (Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo, 2009, P.313). Galton’s definition of intelligence is different from Sternberg, Spearman and Gardner’s definition of intelligence as he considers the physical traits of human beings like eye sight, reflex actions, strength etc., as aspects of intelligence while other psychologists consider only the mental abilities of human beings as aspects of intelligence. They do not consider physical traits of human beings as part of their intelligence. Sternberg’s Model Robert Sternberg (1988) proposed a theory of intelligence called as ‘triarchic theory’ as according to him, intelligence consists of three aspects interacting with each other (Davidson & Downing, 2000, p.42). The fist aspect is the internal skill of information processing which helps the human being to behave intelligently (Davidson & Downing, 2000, p.42). The second aspect is the ability of human being to create a match between the internal skills and the external environment in the best possible way (Davidson & Downing, 2000, p.42). The third aspect is the ability to take the help of past experiences to tackle the new or unfamiliar information, successfully (Davidson & Downing, 2000, p.42). Sternberg’s theory shows that intelligence is the ability to use different internal and external aspects to achieve success and to realize potential. Spearman’s Model Spearman’s model of intelligence is called as a ‘two-factor model’ of intelligence. Spearman developed this model to demonstrate his theory of intelligence which was based on the tests he conducted on children (Pyle, 1979, p.7). In 1904, Spearman conducted tests of different mental abilities on many children (Pyle, 1979, p.7). His aim was to understand to what degree one test result ‘agrees’ with other test results, showing the correlation between different mental abilities (Pyle, 1979, p.7). The results revealed that children who scored well in one test also scored well on other tests (Pyle, 1979, p.7). Spearman noticed that there was a positive correlation between the tests designed to measure different mental abilities like memory, reasoning, creativity etc (Pyle, 1979, p.7). Spearman concluded that even though the tests were aimed at measuring different mental abilities, they had one factor common in them, which was getting measured in all the test results (Pyle, 1979, p.7). He concluded that this common factor was ‘general intelligence’ and named it ‘g’ (Pyle, 1979, p.7). However, he also realized that even though intelligent children scored well in all the tests, their scores were not exactly the same in all the tests (Pyle, 1979, p.7). This is because every test was designed to measure a ‘specific’ ability of a child and hence, it displayed the specific skill set of a child (Pyle, 1979, p.7). Spearman named this factor as ‘Ss’, indicating that even though ‘general intelligence’ was a common factor in children scoring well in the tests, their specific abilities were different from each other (Pyle, 1979, p.7). As Spearman’s model of intelligence is based on the two factors of ‘general’ and ‘specific’ intelligence, it is called as ‘two-factor model’ (Pyle, 1979, p.7). According to Spearman’s model, ‘intelligence’ is the mental energy or the ‘general ability’ of human being which ‘flows’ and guides him in most of his activities (Pyle, 1979, p.8). Spearman believed that all human beings have ‘g’ to some degree but as there is a difference in the level of their general intelligence, their mental abilities are different (Pyle, 1979, p.7). People differ from each other in a particular way as they have smaller ‘specific abilities’ which make them possess specific skill set and expertise in different fields (Pyle, 1979, p.7). For example, some people are good at painting while others are good at playing guitar (Pyle, 1979, p.7). According to Spearman, even though these abilities are specific, they still come under the control of ‘general intelligence’ (Pyle, 1979, p.7). Gardner’s Model Gardner’s theory of ‘multiple intelligence’ is different from Spearman’s and Sternberg’s model of intelligence as it is based not only on the intelligence tests but also on the physical structure of the brain. Gardner (1983) believed that there are six different types of intelligences in human being and they coexist independently (Brody, 1992, p. 34). Gardner explained his theory of independent intelligence with the help of neuropsychological evidence by proposing that different neural structures are associated with different intelligences (Brody, 1992, p. 34). Hence, if an accident causes a localized brain damage, then the ability related to the damaged part of person’s brain is destroyed while other abilities remain intact (Brody, 1992, p. 34). This shows that different intelligences coexist independently and hence, intelligence is not a ‘general’ aspect. According to Gardner, there are six different types of intelligences (Brody, 1992, p. 36). They are “linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logical-mathematical intelligence, spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, and personal intelligence (i.e. the ability to understand one’s own emotions and to understand the behavior of other individuals)” (Brody, 1992, p. 36). According to Gardner, all these different types of intelligences exist separately from each other and it is possible to distinguish them in human being’s behavior and nature (Brody, 1992, p. 36). Comparison Of Models When the three theories of intelligence discussed above are compared, one can see that Gardner’s theory of ‘multiple intelligence’ is quite different from Spearman’s theory and Sternberg’s theory of intelligence. Spearman’s theory separates intelligence in two parts, i.e. general and specific. However, it fails to give explanation as to how the ‘general’ intelligence gets converted or modified into ‘specific’ intelligence. This aspect of transformation of ‘general’ intelligence into ‘specific’ is covered in Sternberg’s theory as it considers the human ability of matching internal skills with external environment as a part of intelligence. Different people have different internal abilities and when they match those abilities with the external opportunities then the ‘general’ abilities are modified into ‘specific’ abilities. Hence, Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence is more in depth than Spearman’s two-factor theory of intelligence. One can say that Sternberg and Spearman are lumpers as their approach is more of a gestalt while Gardner is a splitter as his theory proposes that different types of intelligences have separate identities and they are not dependent on each other. However, the theory that is most profound and applicable to human life is Gardner’s theory of ‘multiple intelligence’ as it not only establishes the presence of different types of intelligences but also goes beyond the belief that intelligence is all about scoring well in the intelligence tests (which mostly consists of reasoning, math and logic). Gardner does not consider the abilities of music, language and interpersonal skills as just the personality traits but values these beautiful and artistic skills as ‘intelligences’. The theory of multiple intelligence awakened people working in the field of education to the fact that their way of teaching was very restrictive and was hindering the growth and development of students whose brains were not inclined towards mathematical and logical intelligence (Gardner, 2006, p.53). People working in the field of education were stunned by Gardner’s theory. They soon realized how sensible his theory was and welcomed his theory as a boon for those children who had domination of musical, spatial and personal intelligence in their nature. Some schools started giving importance to different ways of teachings in order to be compatible to every type of intelligences in students (Gardner, 2006, p.53). Some schools also started grouping children according to their intelligences and started giving attention to the intelligence types they lacked (Gardner, 2006, p.53). These changes in the education system were the result of Gardner’s theory of ‘multiple intelligence’. This shows that Gardner was instrumental in creating respect, value and recognition for people who were considered not so intelligence as they possessed artistic types of intelligences which were devalued and neglected. Cognitive Dissonance People’s internal thoughts, feelings, opinions and attitudes are generally consistent in nature and are stored inside their mind on the basis of their consistency (Festinger, 1985, p.1). People strive towards this consistency as it creates peace and contentment in their lives (Festinger, 1985, p.1). When the internal thoughts and feelings are consistent, then decision making, social interaction and making choices becomes easy and smooth. However, there are times when people experience inconsistencies in their thoughts and emotions. These inconsistencies become evident in the behavior of people. For example, people who smoke know that smoking is injurious to health but still they continue with smoking (Festinger, 1985, p.2). Also, people who commit crime are aware of the fact that they will be punished by law if they are caught but this does not stop them from committing crime (Festinger, 1985, p.2). Even after ‘knowing’ the negative consequences of behavior, people still indulge in it. This makes their behavior inconsistent with their thoughts and feelings (Festinger, 1985, p.1). This inconsistency in the thoughts and the behavior of people is called as ‘cognitive dissonance’. The ‘dissonance’ in their cognition occurs as people feel psychological discomfort when they experience inconsistency in their thoughts and in their behavior. They try to rationalize their behavior by giving some reason or other for their behavior. They try to achieve consistency and reduce inconsistency by rationalizing their behavior (Festinger, 1985, p.3). The experience I had of cognitive dissonance was when I went for shopping on a weekend. I did my shopping and stood in a line. It took me 45 minutes to reach the counter. When I produced my card to pay the bill, the guy on the counter told me that the line was for ‘cash only’. I was shocked and asked to make an exception. He refused to budge and showed me the board with ‘cash only’ written on it. In fact, I had read the sign before but as there was a long line in the card section, I had decided to come in the line of ‘cash only’. This created psychological discomfort in me. I was feeling little guilty but at the same time, I was giving reasons for not reading the sign. Finally, the manager came and asked the counter person to do the exception as there was rush and people standing behind me were complaining. In this way, the conflict was resolved. However, after that incident, I have decided not to create a situation of conflict in the future as it not only creates a feeling of dissonance but also makes one angry and frustrated. References Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic press. Davidson, J.E. & Downing, C.L. (2000). Contemporary Models of Intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp.34-52). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Festinger, L. (1985). A Theory Of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple Intelligences: New Horizon. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pastorino, E. & Doyle-Portillo, S.M. (2009). What is Psychology? (2nd ed.). Bekmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Pyle, D.W. (1979). Introduction, an Introduction. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. Read More