Aspects of Psychology: Theories of Intelligence Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

The theories that are discussed in this paper are those propounded by Charles Spearman’s Two-Factor theory of intelligence, Robert J. Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of intelligence, and Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence.

Two Factor Theory of Intelligence

An important constituent of this theory is that of the ‘g’s theory or the general theory of intelligence. Its proponent believed that there were fundamentally two factors, general and specific, that together determined the use of intelligence in any given task. According to this theory, “every single variable was linked to each other to some degree and that a single general intelligence factor could account for all variables.” (Spearman, 2005, para.3).

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

According to this theory, three sub-theories could explain the aspect of intelligence and they are componential, experiential, and contextual sub-theories. (Sternberg, n.d.).

1. The componential branch deals with the performance of metal components, the executive authority that commands tasks to be done, the performance components that execute tasks, and finally the knowledge acquisition skills that add knowledge on new tasks performed.
2. The experiential branch suggests that intelligence can be assessed by how new and unfamiliar tasks are undertaken and performed.
3. The contextual theory delves upon the fact that the socio-cultural milieu determines the assessment of intelligence, in that either personality change to suit surroundings, the environment may be changed or new settings may be set.

Theory of Multiple Intelligence

This theory is suggestive of the fact that intelligence is not based on one or two elements, but since eight factors govern the evaluation of intelligence. It delineates that although these eight domains of intelligence are not interdependent, nevertheless they may not be found in isolation. (Gardner, 1991).

The two-factor theory of intelligence is based on the “g” factor which is governed by general and specific traits of individual personality. Triarchic theory of intelligence lays stress on componential, experiential, and contextual aspects of intelligence assessment.

The theory of multiple intelligence, however, is concerned with the impact of linguistic, logical, mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal traits of intelligence in human beings. (Gardner, 1991).

Pros and cons of each model

The ‘go factor does not consider aspects of environment, socio-cultural or genetic factors that govern intelligence. Similarly, the triarchic theory does not consider genetic or inherent traits of intelligence, while it does consider environmental and social factors. The theory of multiple intelligence lays more emphasis on the domain or realms of intelligence without really going into the processes of determining intelligence evaluation.

Coming to the aspect of contribution of each theory in our comprehension of intelligence, it could be said that the two-factor theory has laid out a system by which it is possible to determine the long-term behavior of individuals by assessing intelligence measures, using general intelligence factors.

In terms of choice of professional careers and occupations, the multiple intelligence assessment is useful, since by finding out test scores on various attitudinal scales, it would be able to offer more or less accurate results on the choice of career or occupation.

By far, the triarchic theory of intelligence offers a comprehensive and convincing account of intelligence estimation in that it takes account of mental and metacognitive functions while assessing intelligence, which is not available in the other theories. Besides, it does not have a doctrinal approach and is practice-oriented, and considers the practical aspects of intelligence evaluation.

Similarities and dissimilarities among the three intelligence models

All these theories are alike, in that they attempt to evaluate and assess the concept of intelligence. They are similar in that they take a cognitive and qualitative assessment of intelligence. However, it is seen that two theory models may be archaic, and many elements of this have been included in the triarchic intelligence models. Again, while multiple intelligence models capture as many as eight domains of intelligence, two theory models, as the name suggests, takes account of only two aspects – general and specific.

The superiority of Triarchic model

The triarchic model takes into account the analytical, creative, and practical abilities of a person. According to this theory, wherein all the areas are not well defined and present in people, the strength of the others could be used and the weaknesses underplayed. This system could lead to a great deal of professional harmony by which persons utilize their strengths and try to overcome their weaknesses through the application of these positive attributes. “Thus, a central feature of the triarchic theory of successful intelligence is adaptability – both within the individual and within the individual’s sociocultural context.” (Robert J.Sternberg, 2007, Ideas and interests, para.3).

Conclusion

A sincere attempt has been made to delineate the various aspects governing the theories of intelligence models, taking into account the theories propounded by Charles Spearman’s Two- Factor Theory of Intelligence, Robert J. Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of intelligence, and Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligence.

It is seen that, by far the triarchic theory of intelligence stands out as the best among these, in as far as its sound premise and coherent and practical logic is concerned and how it addresses issues and innovative practices in intelligence models.

Reference List

1. Gardner, H. (1991). Creating the future: Intelligence in seven steps. New Horizons for learning.
2. Robert J.Sternberg: Cognitive psychologist: Ideas and interests. (2007). Human Intelligence.
3. Spearman, C. (2005). Role of intelligence testing in society. University of Michigan: Department of Psychology.
4. Sternberg, R. (n.d.). Triarchic theory.