ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Gradual Growth of the Concept 2. Definitions of Intelligence 3. Description of Intelligence 4. Theories of Intelligence 5. Influence of Environments 6. Sex Differences in Intelligence 7. Race Differences and Intelligence 8. Culmination of I.Q. or Intelligence 9. Growth and Distribution of Intelligence.
Contents:
- Gradual Growth of the Concept
- Definitions of Intelligence
- Description of Intelligence
- Theories of Intelligence
- Influence of Environments
- Sex Differences in Intelligence
- Race Differences and Intelligence
- Culmination of I.Q. or Intelligence
- Growth and Distribution of Intelligence
1. Gradual Growth of the Concept:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
General Intelligence has rightly been assumed to exist and psychologists have gone about the measurement of an individual’s general intelligence without waiting for the adequate definition.
The earlier attempts of measuring general intelligence, were concerned with the measurement of separate faculties, processes of abilities. Binet’s efforts were first devoted to measurement of complex processes as reasoning, imagination and judgment.
Binet considered attention and adaptation as the two most important factors in general intelligence and besides the judgment.
Dictionary meaning, “Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge”. According to Boring, “Intelligence is what intelligence tests test.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. Definitions of Intelligence:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. Binet’s definition “Intelligence is judgment or common sense, initiative, the ability to adapt oneself” and again “to judge, well understand well, reason well —these are the essentials of intelligence.”
His definition emphasized 3 phases of behaviour:
i. The ability to take and maintain a given mental test.
ii. The capacity to make adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desirous end.
iii. The power of auto-criticism.
2. The numerous definitions can be classified into four groups:
i. Biological
ii. Educational
ADVERTISEMENTS:
iii. Faculty
iv. Empirical.
I. Biological Definitions.
Here the emphasis is upon adjustment or adaptations of the organism and its environment.
Stern:
‘Intelligence is a general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements’. The famous writer H.G. Wells defines it as ‘acting in novel situations’.
It is general mental adaptability to new problems and condition of life.
II. Educational:
The emphasis is on learning ability.
Buchingham:
Intelligence is the ability to learn.
Here also learning may be regarded as adjustment or adaptation to various situations.
III. Faculty:
The attempt is generally to delimit or restrict intelligence and set it off from other powers or faculties of the mind.
Binet’s. Various definitions belong mainly here e.g., Intelligence as common sense.
Huggarty says “It is a practical concept connoting a group of complex mental processes traditionally defined in systematic psychologies as sensation, perception, association, memory, imagination, discrimination, judgments and reasoning”.
IV. Empirical:
Here the emphasis is on practical results in intelligence.
Thorndike:
Power of good responses from the point of view of truth.
Ballard:
Relative general efficiency of minds measured under similar conditions of knowledge, interest etc.
Freeman:
Degrees of intelligence seem to depend on the facility with which the subject-matter of experience can be organised into new patterns.
A few more definitions by distinguished psychologists are given below:
1. Colvin:
Intelligence is the ability to learn to adjust to new circumstances.
2. Holling-worth:
An intelligent person learns how to do and how to get what is wanted.
3. Cyril Burt:
Intelligence is the capacity for flexible adjustment.
4. Stern:
Intelligence is a general mental adaptability to new problems and conditions of life.
5. Terman:
Intelligence is the ability to carry out abstract thinking.
6. Rex:
Intelligence is the ability to discover relevant qualities and relation of the objects and ideas that are before us and provoke other ideas.
7. Binet:
At another place he stressed the significance of factors such as the ability to give and sustain attention to achieve certain ends, the power of ready and appropriate adaptation, and the tendency to employ autocriticism.
8. David Wechsler:
Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment.
9. Stoddard:
Intelligence is the ability “to undertake activities that are characterized by difficulty, complexity, adaptiveness to a goal, social value, and the emergence of originals, and to maintain such activities that demand a concentration of energy and a resistance to emotional forces.”
10. Garret:
The abilities demanded in the solution of problems which require the comprehension and use of symbols, i.e., words, numbers, diagrams, equations, formulae.
In fact all the definitions are incomplete in one way or the other.
3. Description of Intelligence:
In describing intelligence we deal with:
(1) Attributes i.e., certain properties or characteristics.
(2) Kinds i.e., intelligence manifested in different situations.
It will be better to describe intelligence than to define it.
1. Attributes:
There are 4 attributes or aspects of intelligence viz.:
(a) Level.
(b) Range.
(c) Area.
(d) Speed.
(a) Level:
This refers to the degree of difficulty of a task to be solved. If we think of all tasks as varying in difficulty from easy to hard and if they are arranged on a ladder or scale of difficulty, then the height that we can attain on this ladder is the level or altitude.
(b) Range of width refers to number of tasks at any given degree of difficulty that we can solve. The number of tasks which an individual can solve at a given degree will represent the range of intelligence for that intelligence at that level.
Higher levels of attitude possesses greater range.
(c) Area:
Area means the total number of situations at each level to which the individual is able to respond. So it is summation of all the ranges at each level of intelligence possessed by an intelligence.
The levels of intellect of rural and urban children may be the same, but the area of the former will be less than that of the latter.
(d) Speed:
Is the rapidity with which we can respond to situation. Speed shows a +ve correlation with level.
Different tests emphasise different attributes. Binet’s test emphasise level and range and minimised speed.
The Thorndike C.A.V.D. emphasised altitudes and pays practically no attention to speed.
Thorndike divides intelligence into 4 classes:
(i) C i. e., verbal completion.
(ii) A i.e., intelligence in arithmetical situation
(iii) V i.e., intelligence with respect to vocabulary
(iv) D i.e., intelligence with respect to verbal direction.
Thurstone classifies as:
1. Number (N);
2 Verbal (V);
3. Spatial (S);
4. Word-fluency (W);
5. Reasoning (R);
6. Memory (M);
7. Perceptual (P).
I = [N + V + S + W + R + M + P]
2. Kinds of Intelligence:
Thorndike has suggested three kinds of intelligence viz.:
(a) The Abstract,
(b) The Mechanical or Concrete, and
(c) The Social.
1. The Abstract:
Abstract intelligence is exhibited in our dealings with symbols — words, numbers, formulas and diagrams. This ability is conspicuously absent in animals. The abstractly intelligent person is able to discover relations among symbols and to solve problems with their aid. Lawyers, physicians, literary men—professional people generally-as well as businessmen, statesmen, and the like should possess abstract intelligence on high degree.
2. The Mechanical or Concrete:
Mechanical intelligence enables its possessor to deal readily with machines and mechanical contrivances. The engineer, the master mechanic, the highly trained industrial worker must all be mechanically intelligent.
3. The Social:
This is shown in our social relations. The diplomat, the salesman, the minister must be socially intelligent. The socially intelligent person has the knock of getting along well with people. He makes friends easily and understands human relations.
These intelligence or abilities are not evenly distributed. Some may have more of 1st, other more 2nd and still others more of 3rd. Psychologists have found that abilities are positively related. The abstractly intelligent scientist may not be a skilled mechanic, but he is likely to be better than average in mechanical sense and so forth.
4. Theories of Intelligence:
The term intelligence is very complex in its nature. Various theories have been put forward to explain the nature of intelligence.
Some of these have been listed below:
(1) The Monarchic Theory.
(2) The Oligarchic Theory.
(3) The Anarchic Theory.
(4) The Ecletic Theory or Bifactor theory. (Spearman’s)
(5) Thurstone’s Primary Mental Ability Theory.
(6) Kelley’s Multi-factor Theory.
(7) Structure of Intellect (SOI) by Guilford
This model consisting of 150 factors may be diagrammatically represented as shown in the following figure:
Structure of Intellect (SOI) by Guilford:
This three dimensional theory was propounded by Guilford and his associates in the Psychological laboratory at the University of Southern California in 1966. Through his later researches Guilford (1967) expanded his cube-shaped model of intellect to include 150 factors (by dividing the figural factor of the contents into two separate categories— visual and auditory).
Guilford conceives of intellectual functioning as having following three dimensions:
(1) Operations,
(2) Content, and
(3) Products.
(1) Operations:
Operations are products which involve the following five major groups of intellectual abilities and behaviour:
i. Cognition:
Cognition is the major fundamental operation in learning.
ii. Memory:
Retention of what is recognized is memory. It is basic primary mental ability.
iii. Convergent thinking:
It is the generation of information from given information, where the emphasis is upon achieving conventionally accepted best outcomes.
iv. Divergent thinking:
In divergent thinking we think is different directions searching and seeking some variety and novelty. It is closely associated with creativity.
v. Evaluation:
In evaluation we reach conclusions and decisions as to goodness, correctness, suitability or adequacy of what we know, what we remember and what we produce in productive thinking.
(2) Content:
The factors of the operations involve following four kinds of material content:
(i) Figural Content:
Things we feel or hear provide other figural material. It is concrete material such as perceived through the senses.
(ii) Symbolic Content:
It is composed of letters digits and other conventional signs.
(iii) Semantic Content:
Semantic content is in the form of verbal meanings or ideas for which no examples are necessary.
(iv) Behaviour Content:
It is related with the social behaviour in society.
(3) Products:
When a certain operation is applied to certain kind of content the following six types of products are involved:
(i) Units,
(ii) Classes,
(iii) Relations,
(iv) Systems,
(v) Transformations, and
(vi) Implications.
1. The Monarchic Theory:
According to this theory, intelligence is regarded as an adaptiveness which enables a creature to adjust itself to changing environment. People holding this view believe in inborn all-round mental efficiency as a sign of intelligence.
According to this view, a person who can perform one intellectual task very well, can also perform another task equally well. Dr. Johnson, who believed in such a doctrine said that if Newton could have turned his mind to poetry, he would have been as great a poet as he was a mathematician.
2. Oligarchic Theory:
Prof. G.H. Thomson has advanced the theory of ‘group factors’. According to this, intellectual abilities are regarded to belong to some groups. Though there is much correlation between abilities belonging to the same group, there is little correlation between the abilities belonging to the other groups.
It holds that cognitive abilities are manifestations not of a single Commanding faculty but of a few main intellectual powers of groups of abilities. A boy may be good in Mathematics but poor in a language or vice – versa. In related subjects he does fairly well but fails in unrelated subjects.
3. Anarchic Theory:
The chief exponent of this theory is Prof. Thorndike. According to him, the mind is a host of highly particularized and independent faculties. The theory maintain that from a man’s ability to do one kind of work we can infer absolutely nothing as to his ability to do another kind of work.
If a boy is good in literature, we can judge absolutely nothing about his ability to study Chemistry; even in scientific subjects, if they are unrelated to each other, from one’s ability to do well in one subject, one can say nothing whether in another subject he would do equally well or not.
4. The Electic Theory or Bifactor Theory:
This theory has been propounded by Spearman. Intelligence, according to his view consists of two factors — the general factor and specific factor. The general factor is symbolised by ‘g’ and the specific factor is symbolised by “s”. The ‘g’ factor is always the same for the same individual and the ‘s’ factor varies from task to task according to its nature.
But there are differences in the general abilities of different individuals as well as in their special abilities. Different individuals differ both in their ‘g’ as well as ‘s’ factors. If we consider two persons A and B who make the same scores in adding figures, we cannot be sure that I hey will also make the same scores in discriminating pitch. For it may happen that the specific factor assists A’s performance in adding figures and hinders it in pitch discrimination, while in B’s case the specific factor may work the opposite way.
Different performances require different amount of ‘g’ and ‘s’. In Mathematics and the Classics, for instance, more of ‘g’ is required, whereas in music and drawing’s’ factor predominates; the latter subjects require a small amount of ‘g’.
Person having more of ‘g’ and less of ‘s’ fares well in life. Selection of students for civil service based on high score in classics is safer than their selection for such a job based on a good musical ability. A good test is always one in which in most of the performances ‘g’ predominates for a high quality of ‘g’ is required everywhere in life.
Spearman has established his theory of two factors by showing that there is always a positive correlation in the performance of an individual in any two tasks.
It may be concluded by saying that Spearman’s theory may lose the battle but it is sure to win the war.
5. Thurstone’s Primary Mental Ability Theory:
No one questions the fact that persons superior on one ‘intelligence’ test are generally superior on others. Whether we should interpret this as evidence for a basic general intelligence, or ‘g’ is more debatable. Dr. L.L. Thurstone has argued that ‘g’ can be broken up into a cluster of related abilities, which he calls the primary mental abilities. Because the methods of factor analysis is basic to his proof that such abilities exist, he refers to his theory as a multifactor theory of mental organization.
In the Thurstone study, a wide variety of tests, calling for almost every kind of performance we could describe as intelligence, was administered to a large population of high school and college students. As Spearman had predicted, all the correlations were positive.
It was however, possible to show that some tests grouped themselves together in clusters, seeming by having something in common. The correlations within the cluster were higher than wits tests not in the cluster. Thurstone suggested that each group of test was lapping some primary mental ability.
According to Thurstone the primary mental abilities are:
1. Number Ability (N)
2. Verbal Comprehension (V)
3. Spatial Relations (S)
4. Word Fluency ( W)
5. Reasoning (R)
6. Memory (M)
7. Perceptual Ability (P)
I = N + V + S + W + R + M + P.
6. Kelley’s Multifactor Theory:
According to Kelley intelligence consists of five mental abilities.
These are:
1. Skill of comprehension,
2. Memory,
3. Spatial Ability,
4. Numerical Ability, and
5. Perceptual Ability.
Even Thurstone reached at the multifactor theory, when he gave 52 tests to seven thousand students of 11 + age. He discovered important group factors, as mentioned above. That way the primary mental abilities that he describes are nothing but group factors. Thurstone found overlapping even in the specific factors, S1, S2, S3, etc.
Thompson gives a more comprehensive view of the various factors of intelligence. He lists one ‘g’ factor (as did Spearman), some group factors (as did (Thurstone and Kelley) and some specific factors. Thus, according to him I = g + G + S, i.e., Intelligence consists of general factor, some group factors and some specific factors.
Vernon endorses the analysis of Thompson and adds one more unique factors, ‘X’ factor, which represents the general emotional and volitional factor (enthusiasm, will, drive, push) that affects intelligence.
He mentions the following group factors:
(1) V: Ed (Verbal and Educational).
(2) K: m (mechanical);
(3) F (practical),
(4) N (numeral), and
(5) (Scientific and Mathematical).
A number of researches and studies have been conducted to find out whether intelligence is inherited:
(1) F.N, Freeman gave the following data regarding the coefficient of correlation between the intelligence test scores of;
Identical Twins – +. 90
Fraternal Twins – +. 60
Brothers and Sisters-+ . 50. Siblings-+ .40
Cousins-+. 25
This study does not reflect the superiority of heredity over the environments since the factor of environments has been dwarfed and since the increase of blood relationship also increases the similarity of environments.
(2) L.M. Terman found that out of 62 members in the Hall of Fame. 22 ‘A% were related to 643 gifted children identified and studied in California.
(3) Gallon found from his analysis of 977 men of genius who were found to have 535 eminent relatives, whereas, 977 average men had but four relatives who were eminent.
This data also does not endorse the view of either the superiority of hereditary or environments. Granted that the above men had better heredity but they also had better environments.
(4) Arnold Gesell: From his experiments on co-twin control found a striking similarity in their emotional expression, in mental growth, and in certain motor acquisitions. He also found remarkable similarity even if one of them had undergone training e.g., stair-climbing or vocabulary development.
(5) Sprayer found that regarding the vocabulary study “The twins are sub-average (mentally) and not all the special training was able to bring them up to the average vocabulary of children three and one-half months younger than they.”
So it appeared, therefore, that “inner growth” or maturation” sets levels that special training did not enable children to transcend.
(6) G.C. Schwesinger, studied ten pairs of identical twins reared apart from birth or from infancy and brought together and studied at maturity.
In Six Pairs —no difference.
Two Pairs —Difference of 12 Points.
Remainder —Difference by 15 or 17 Points.
Now-a-days it is commonly believed that I.Q., can be used to predict future individual development.
(7) Dawson from his study of Glasgow children concluded that dull children come from large families. Catell also endorsed this view.
5. Influence of Environments:
Similarly a number of studies have been made to find out the influence of environment on intelligence.
1. B. Wellman:
Of the University of Iowa-found substantial gains for orphanage children who were provided with nursery school experience.
But if the whole of data is viewed then one can conclude that no such substantial gain as given by Wellman is possible except a small change in I.Q.
2. N. Bayley:
From his studies of tests with children again 3-9 found that if one year gap is given between testing and retesting then the increase in I.Q. is 70 or more points. While for Three Years gap it was 17 or more points for an equal number.
3. Leahy:
Leahy gives data for group of children of ages five to fourteen, all of whom were adopted before they were six months of age. The mean I.Q. is 110.5.
4. Skeel:
Cites an average I.Q. of 115.4 for 147 children adopted before they were six months of age. 41 received I.Q.’s of 120 or above.
5. Skodak found the I.Q. of 80 true mother’s of foster children — The average I.Q. was 87.7. Majority of them fell ‘below average ; 53.8% I.Q. below 90,16.3% were borderline, 13.8% were feeble minded. Yet the average I.Q. of their children was 116.
So it can be assumed that affection, love and concern, generously but judiciously bestowed on growing children, have very desirable effects upon wholesome nurture.
Asher’s study of Kentucky mountain children (1935), Sherman and Key’s, study of isolated mountain children (1932), and Wheeler’s account of East Tennessee children add correlative evidence to the earlier studies of canal-boat, gypsy, and other sibling groups.
Hence future development prediction must take into account the changes in I.Q., before final description.
It is therefore, certain that intelligence is inborn but, suitable environment has definite influence on the development of intelligence. Normally I.Q. remains constant throughout life.
6. Sex Differences in Intelligence:
Numerous studies have been made to find out whether women are less intelligent than men, as was commonly believed.
(1) B.L. Wellman:
After examining critically five hundred references reporting sex differences concluded that the data did not support the greater variability of boys.
(2) Terman and Burks assert:
“The ratio of gifted boys to gifted girls increase with age, being about seven to six for pupils in the elementary grades and approximately two to one in the high school… The excess of boys may be due to greater variability of the male sex and (in later ages) to earlier cessation of mental growth in the girls”.
(3) Witty:
From the study of data for intelligence of 14, 149 boys and 13, 493 girls concluded that there is no sex difference in intelligence, 480% of the boys reach or exceed the median score of the girls. The boy and girls belonged to the higher secondary school level i.e., 9th to 12 grade.
As for difference, in the college are concerned, they cannot be taken into account because:
(i) The dull students drop out at secondary school level.
(ii) Girls reach maturity earlier than boys.
(iii) The different emphasis put on the work for both sex different cultures.
Generally it has been found out that the girls scores are higher at primary and pre-school level, more scores in verbal than in non-verbal. The 1st year high school boys score more than girls. Boys show higher scores in mechanical performance or non-verbal tests.
On the whole there are no prominent sex differences in intelligence.
7. Race Differences and Intelligence:
The following studies conducted reveal the extent to which there are racial differences in intelligence:
(1) Brigham reported the following experimental data regarding the scores by Foreign-born recruits in U.S. Army-during World War I; the Poles, the Italians, the Russians, the Greeks have a low score, the English, the Scotch, the Germans, and the native born American, have high score. He however, later repudiated his own hypothesis on account of statistical inconsistencies.
(2) Klinebeig from his studies of rural and urban people of German and France and Italy revealed that differences between races or nations are not so great as are the differences between individuals within a single race or country.
(3) Negroes in America belonging to the Northern part either score high or equivalent to white Americans whereas Negroes from Southern hemisphere were found to score low. Moreover, the score was also dependent on white ancestry as claimed by Partner.
(4) American Indian Children where also found to score low than white children. Indian children were found to score more in non-verbal tests especially loom-training (bead design on a loom). Indian girls were again found to be better on the bead design a loom as revealed by Klinebeig. Even in drawing a man Indian children did better than Whites.
(5) Among America Indian tribes the testers were baffled by the fact that boys would not compete with each other to establish their superiority.
(6) Willy and Jenkin studied 8000 Negro children and found 26 of them having an IQ of 140 or above.
(7) Porteus (1937) found that the Australian aborigines, failed to work individually at pencil images test since it was customary to work co-operatively there.
In conclusion of Franz Boas’s words are fitting, “If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic and emotionally stable kind of mankind, all races would be represented”. The same should be said for different cultural groups.
8. Culmination of I.Q. or Intelligence:
There is yet another problem. Does intelligence grow during the entire life-time? Psychologists have tests to large number of children, adolescents and adults and have come to definite conclusion that intelligence does not grow after a certain age-level.
(1) Thorndike says it increases upto 18 yrs.
(2) Y.M. Yerkes studied 93965. Found that intelligence increase upto 13.08 years.
(3) L.M. Terman opines that intelligence reaches its maximum at 16 years (15).
(4) Spearman opined that ‘g’ increases from 14 upto 16.
(5) Jones and Conrad found that the growth is linear upto 16 years, remains same upto 20 yrs. and then decreases.
(6) Miles and Miles say it increases upto 18 years.
(7) From Army Alpha and Ore’s Test. The increase has been found upto 18 years and then fluctuates. Conclusion is on 16 years.
9. Growth and Distribution of Intelligence:
As regards the growth of intelligence and their individual level, certain marked levels have been discovered:
(1) Low intelligent group – These include idiots, imbeciles, morons. Their intelligence increases to 3 years.
(2) Feeble Minded – 8 years.
(3) Normal or Average — 14 years.
(4) Superior-18 years.
(5) V. Superior-21 years.
(6) Genius-25 and 32 years.
There are two types of growth of intelligence. Horizontal and Vertical.
The vertical growth increases and reaches maximum at 16. But the horizontal growth continues for the whole life. Adults have more of horizontal growth.
On large-scale testing, it has been found that intelligence is distributed in the following manner.
The following table illustrates the relationship between I.Q. and degree of brightness. The table is based on the studies by Terman and Merril.
The differences in mental ability distribute themselves uniformly and symmetrically. If a curve is prepared, with its base as the scale for I.Q., and the frequencies of each I.Q. range represented by vertical height, a curve can be formed as illustrated below. 30% of the population have I.Q. between 90 and 100, and 30% between 100 and 110.
This is a symmetrical position. Similarly, I.Q. between 80-90 and 110-120 is found in 13% cases each. I.Q. between 70 -80 and 120-130 is found in 6% cases each. Thus the curve is perfectly symmetrical, and is bell-shaped.
The more we go to the extremes, the less are the frequencies. This bell-shaped curve is called NORMAL CURVE. In other words we say that intelligences is normally distributed. The mean I.Q. is 100. 60% cases lie between 90 and 110, the persons of average intelligence.
The above classification of intelligence groups is the most commonly accepted one. The lowest in the rung is the idiot. Idiots have I.Q. under 25, and mental age 3 years. They can learn only a few simple words. They cannot learn to wash or dress themselves and must be cared for in an institution or in the home.
Imbeciles:
Range I.Q. from 25 to 49, with mental ages of 3 to 7 years. They can learn to talk and can even read very simple prose. But they lack foresight and planning ability. They can hardly perform the routine tasks and these also under supervision.
Morons:
Range I.Q. from 50 to 69, with mental ages of 8 to 10 years. They can often be taught many useful tasks. Sewing, washing dishes, house-work, domestic service, and simple mechanical jobs will suit them. They need supervision, otherwise they can become a serious social problem. A moron can commit serious crimes under bad influence. A moron girl is often led into sex delinquency and prostitution.
The Borderline defective are better than morons. They can take up manual work and mechanical job, where concrete (not abstract) thinking is required.
The low-average, are just below the average type. The high average are suited to superior jobs. It is they who can be doctors, engineers and administrators. The number of superior and the genius is very limited. They are the cream of the society.