WHYTHEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE MATTER

TO SOCIETY
Underlying every measurement of intelligence is a theory.
The theory may be transparently obvious, or it may be hidden.
It may be a formal explicit theory or an informal implicit
one. But there is always a theory of some kind lurking
Preparation of this article was supported by Grant REC-9979843
from the National Science Foundation and by a grant under the
Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R950001) as administered by
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department
of Education. Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged
to express freely their professional judgment. This article,
therefore, does not necessarily represent the position or policies of
the National Science Foundation, the Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, or the U.S. Department of Education, and
no official endorsement should be inferred.
24 Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
beneath the test. And in the United States and some other
countries, tests seem to be everywhere.

The Pervasiveness of Intelligence-Related Measurements

Students who apply to competitive independent schools in
many locations and notably in NewYork City must present an
impressive array of credentials. Among these credentials, for
many of these schools, is a set of scores on either theWechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised
(WPPSI-R; Wechsler, 1980) or the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale–Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler,
1985). If the children are a bit older, they may take instead the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition
(WISC-3; Wechsler, 1991). The lower level version of the
Wechsler test is used only for children ages 3 to 7 1/2 years.
The higher level version of theWechsler test is used for somewhat
older children ages 6 to 16 years, 11 months of age. The
Stanford-Binet test is used across a wider range of ages, from
2 years through adult.

The Societal System Created by Tests

Tests of intelligence-related skills are related to success in
many cultures. People with higher test scores seem to be
more successful in a variety of ways, and those with lower
test scores seem to be less successful (Herrnstein & Murray,
1994; Hunt, 1995). Why are scores on intelligence-related
tests closely related to societal success? Consider two points
of view.
According to Herrnstein and Murray (1994), Wigdor and
Garner (1982), and others, conventional tests of intelligence
account for about 10% of the variation, on average, in various
kinds of real-world outcomes. This figure increases if one
makes various corrections to it (e.g., for attenuation in measures
or for restriction of range in particular samples).
Although this percentage is not particularly large, it is not trivial
either. Indeed, it is difficult to find any other kind of predictor
that fares as well. Clearly, the tests have some value
(Gottfredson, 1986, 1997; Hunt, 1995; Schmidt & Hunter,
1981, 1998). They predict success in many jobs and predict
success even better in schooling for jobs. Rankings of jobs
by prestige usually show higher prestige jobs associated
with higher levels of intelligence-related skills. Theorists of
Why Theories of Intelligence Matter to Society 25
intelligence differ as to why the tests have some success in
prediction of job level and competency.

The Discovery of an Invisible Hand of Nature?

Some theorists believe that the role of intelligence is society
is along the lines of some kind of natural law. In their book,
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) refer to an “invisible hand of
nature” guiding events such that people with high IQs tend to
rise toward the top socioeconomic strata of a society and people
with low IQs tend to fall toward the bottom strata. Jensen
(1969, 1998) has made related arguments, as have many others
(see, e.g., the largely unfavorable reviews by Gould, 1981;
Lemann, 1999; Sacks, 1999; Zenderland, 1998). Herrnstein
and Murray presented data to support their argument, although
many aspects of their data and their interpretations of
these data are arguable (Fraser, 1995; Gould, 1995; Jacoby &
Glauberman, 1995; Sternberg, 1995).
This point of view has a certain level of plausibility to it.
First, more complex jobs almost certainly do require higher
levels of intelligence-related skills. Presumably, lawyers
need to do more complex mental tasks than do street cleaners.
Second, reaching the complex jobs via the educational system
almost certainly requires a higher level of mental performance
than does reaching less complex jobs. Finally, there is
at least some heritable component of intelligence (Plomin,
DeFries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997), so nature must play
some role in who gets what mental skills. Despite this plausibility,
there is an alternative point of view.

A Societal Invention?
An alternative point of view is that the sorting influence of intelligence
in society is more a societal invention than a discovery
of an invisible hand of nature (Sternberg, 1997). The
United States and some other countries have created societies
in which test scores matter profoundly. High test scores may
be needed for placement in higher tracks in elementary and
secondary school. They may be needed for admission to selective
undergraduate programs. They may be needed again
for admission to selective graduate and professional programs.
Test scores help individuals gain the access routes to
many of the highest paying and most prestigious jobs.
A Synthesis?
It seems fair to say that some closed systems may be better, in
some sense, than are others. For example, scores on
intelligence-related measures would seem more relevant to
school or job performance than would social class. But it is
hard to draw definitive conclusions because the various attributes
that are favored by a society often tend to correlate
with each other. Socialization advantages may lead people of
societally preferred racial, ethnic, religious, or other groups
to have higher test scores. Thus, the extent to which correlations
between test scores and status attributes are natural versus
manufactured is unknown because it has not been
possibly to conduct a study that would look systematically
and comparatively at predictors of success across societies.

CLASSICAL THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

AND THEIR CONTEMPORARY COUNTERPARTS
Implicit Theories
Implicit theories are people’s conceptions of intelligence.
Why even bother to study or report on implicit theories of intelligence?
There are several reasons.
First, people’s day-to-day interactions are far more likely
to be affected by their implicit theories than by any explicit
theories. In job interviews, admission interviews, and even
daily conversations, people are continually judging each
other’s intelligence, based not on any formal and explicit
theories but on their own implicit theories of intelligence.
Second, implicit theories are of interest in their own right.
Part of the study of psychology is seeking an understanding
how people think, and given the importance of intelligence to
society, learning how people think about intelligence is a
worthy endeavor. Third, implicit theories often serve as the
basis for generating explicit theories. The formal explicit theories
of many psychologists (and other scientists) had their
origins in these individual’s implicit theories.
How have psychologists conceived of intelligence?
Almost none of these views are adequately expressed by
Boring’s (1923) operationistic view of intelligence as what
intelligence tests test. For example, a symposium on experts’
definitions of intelligence (“Intelligence and its measurement:
A symposium,” 1921) asked leading researchers how
they conceptualized intelligence. Among those asked were
leaders in the field such as Edward L. Thorndike, Lewis
M. Terman, Lewis L. Thurstone, and Herbert Woodrow. The
researchers emphasized the importance of the ability to learn
and the ability to adapt to the environment. These skills seem
important. Are they the skills that play a major role in explicit
theories of intelligence?
Explicit Theories
We consider here the three classical theories that today have
the most influence: g theory, the theory of primary mental
abilities, and the theory of fluid and crystallized abilities.
g Theory
Probably the most influential theory in the history of intelligence
research is the two-factor theory, which was first proposed
by Spearman (1904, 1927) but has been carried forth
by many modern theorists as g theory. Jensen (1998), himself
a g theorist, summarizes much of this work.

The Theory of Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone (1938) proposed a theory of primary mental abilities.
Although this theory is not widely used today, the theory
forms the basis of many contemporary theories, including
two contemporary theories discussed later, those of Gardner
(1983) and Carroll (1993). It is also the basis for many contemporary
group tests of intelligence, which comprise items
roughly of the types described next.
Thurstone (1938) analyzed the data from 56 different tests
of mental abilities and concluded that to the extent that there
is a general factor of intelligence, it is unimportant and possibly
epiphenomenal. From this point of view there are seven
primary mental abilities:
• Verbal comprehension. This factor involves a person’s
ability to understand verbal material. It is measured by
tests such as vocabulary and reading comprehension.
• Verbal fluency. This ability is involved in rapidly producing
words, sentences, and other verbal material. It is measured
by tests such as one that requires the examinee to
produce as many words as possible beginning with a particular
letter in a short amount of time.
• Number. This ability is involved in rapid arithmetic computation
and in solving simple arithmetic word problems.
28 Contemporary Theories of Intelligence
• Perceptual speed. This ability is involved in proofreading
and in rapid recognition of letters and numbers. It is measured
by tests such as those requiring the crossing out of
As in a long string of letters or in tests requiring recognition
of which of several pictures at the right is identical to
the picture at the left.
• Inductive reasoning. This ability requires generalization—
reasoning from the specific to the general. It is measured
by tests, such as letter series, number series, and
word classifications, in which the examinee must indicate
which of several words does not belong with the others.
• Spatial visualization. This ability is involved in visualizing
shapes, rotations of objects, and how pieces of a puzzle
fit together. An example of a test would be the
presentation of a geometric form followed by several
other geometric forms. Each of the forms that follows the
first is either the same rotated by some rigid transformation
or the mirror image of the first form in rotation. The
examinee has to indicate which of the forms at the right
is a rotated version of the form at the left, rather than a
mirror image.

Fluid-Crystallized Ability Theory

The theory of fluid and crystallized abilities is one of a
class of hierarchical theories of intelligence (Burt, 1949;
Gustafsson, 1988; Jensen, 1970; Vernon, 1971), not all of
which can be described here. The theory is still current. It was
proposed by Cattell (1971) but now has been proposed in a
contemporary and elaborated form by Horn (1994). Only the
simple form is described here.
According to this theory, fluid ability (Gf ) is flexibility of
thought and the ability to reason abstractly. It is measured by
tests such as number series, abstract analogies, matrix problems,
and the like. Crystallized ability (Gc), which is alleged
to derive from fluid ability, is essentially the accumulation of
knowledge and skills through the life course. It is measured
by tests of vocabulary, reading comprehension, and general
information. Sometimes a further distinction is made between
fluid and crystallized abilities and a third ability, visual
ability (Gv), which is the ability to manipulate representations
mentally, such as those found in tests of spatial ability
(as described earlier for Thurstone’s theory).

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE

Implicit Theories
Expert Views
Sixty-five years after the symposium in the Journal of
Educational Psychology on intelligence, Sternberg and
Detterman (1986) conducted a similar symposium, again
asking experts about their views on intelligence. Experts such
Contemporary Theories of Intelligence 29
as Earl Butterfield, Douglas Detterman, Earl Hunt, Arther
Jensen, and Robert Sternberg gave their views. Learning and
adaptive abilities retained their importance, and a new emphasis
crept in—metacognition, or the ability to understand
and control one’s self. Of course, the name is new, but the
idea is not, because long ago Aristotle emphasized the importance
for intelligence of knowing oneself.

Laypersons’ Views (Across Cultures)

Yang and Sternberg (1997a) reviewed Chinese philosophical
conceptions of intelligence. The Confucian perspective emphasizes
the characteristic of benevolence and of doing what
is right.As in theWestern notion, the intelligent person spends
much effort in learning, enjoys learning, and persists in lifelong
learning with a great deal of enthusiasm. The Taoist tradition,
in contrast, emphasizes the importance of humility,
freedom from conventional standards of judgment, and full
knowledge of oneself as well as of external conditions.
The difference between Eastern and Western conceptions
of intelligence may persist even in the present day. Yang and
Sternberg (1997b) studied contemporary Taiwanese Chinese
conceptions of intelligence and found five factors underlying
these conceptions: (a) a general cognitive factor, much like
the g factor in conventional Western tests; (b) interpersonal
intelligence; (c) intrapersonal intelligence; (d) intellectual
self-assertion; and (d) intellectual self-effacement. In a related
study but with different results, Chen (1994) found
three factors underlying Chinese conceptualizations of intelligence:
nonverbal reasoning ability, verbal reasoning ability,
and rote memory.

Explicit Theories
A Psychometric Theory
The psychometric approach to intelligence is among the oldest
of approaches, dating back to Galton’s (1883) psychophysical
theory of intelligence in terms of psychophysical
abilities (such as strength of hand grip or visual acuity) and
later to Binet and Simon’s (1905/1916) theory of intelligence
as judgment, involving adaptation to the environment, direction
of one’s efforts, and self-criticism.

Cognitive Theories
Cronbach (1957) called for a merging of the two disciplines
of scientific psychology: the differential and experimental
approaches. The idea is that the study of individual differences
(differential psychology) and of cross-individual commonalities
(experimental psychology) need not be separate
disciplines. They can be merged.
Serious responses to Cronbach came in the 1970s, with
cognitive approaches to intelligence attempting this merger.
Two of the responses were the cognitive-correlates approach
to intelligence and the cognitive-correlates approach.
Hunt, Frost, and Lunneborg (1973; see also Hunt,
Lunneborg, & Lewis, 1975) introduced the cognitivecorrelates
approach, whereby scores on laboratory cognitive
tests were correlated with scores on psychometric intelligence
tests. The theory underlying this work was that fairly

Biological Theories
An important approach to studying intelligence is to understand
it in terms of the functioning of the brain, in particular,
and of the nervous system, in general. Earlier theories relating
the brain to intelligence tended to be global in nature, although
they were not necessarily backed by strong empirical
evidence. Because these earlier theories are still used in contemporary
writings and, in the case of Halstead and Luria,
form the bases for test batteries still in contemporary use,
they are described here briefly.
Early Biological Theories. Halstead (1951) suggested
that there are four biologically based abilities, which he
called (a) the integrative field factor, (b) the abstraction
factor, (c) the power factor, and (d) the directional factor.
Halstead attributed all four of these abilities primarily to the
functioning of the cortex of the frontal lobes.

Contemporary Biological Theories. More recent theories

have dealt with more specific aspects of brain or neural
functioning. One contemporary biological theory is based on
speed of neuronal conduction. For example, one theory has
suggested that individual differences in nerve-conduction velocity
are a basis for individual differences in intelligence
(e.g., Reed & Jensen, 1992; Vernon & Mori, 1992). Two procedures
have been used to measure conduction velocity, either
centrally (in the brain) or peripherally (e.g., in the arm).
Reed and Jensen (1992) tested brain-nerve conduction velocities
via two medium-latency potentials, N70 and P100,
which were evoked by pattern-reversal stimulation. Subjects
saw a black-and-white checkerboard pattern in which the
black squares would change to white and the white squares to
black. Over many trials, responses to these changes were analyzed
via electrodes attached to the scalp in four places. Correlations
of derived latency measures with IQ were small
(generally in the .1 to .2 range of absolute value), but were
significant in some cases, suggesting at least a modest relation
between the two kinds of measures.

Systems Theories
Many contemporary theories of intelligence can be viewed
as systems theories because they are more complex, in many
respects, than past theories, and attempt to deal with intelligence
as a complex system.
The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Gardner
(1983, 1993, 1999) proposed that there is no single, unified
intelligence, but rather a set of relatively distinct, independent,
and modular multiple intelligences. His theory of
multiple intelligences (MI theory) originally proposed seven
multiple intelligences: (a) linguistic, as used in reading a
book or writing a poem; (b) logical-mathematical, as used in
deriving a logical proof or solving a mathematical problem;
(c) spatial, as used in fitting suitcases into the trunk of a car;
(d) musical, as used in singing a song or composing a symphony;
(e) bodily-kinesthetic, as used in dancing or playing
football; (f) interpersonal, as used in understanding and interacting
with other people; and (g) intrapersonal, as used in
understanding oneself.

The Bioecological Model of Intelligence. Ceci (1996)

proposed a bioecological model of intelligence, according to
which multiple cognitive potentials, context, and knowledge
all are essential bases of individual differences in performance.
Each of the multiple cognitive potentials enables relationships
to be discovered, thoughts to be monitored, and
knowledge to be acquired within a given domain. Although
these potentials are biologically based, their development is
closely linked to environmental context, and hence it is difficult
if not impossible cleanly to separate biological from environmental
contributions to intelligence. Moreover, abilities
may express themselves very differently in different contexts.
For example, children given essentially the same task
in the context of a video game and in the context of a laboratory
cognitive task performed much better when the task was
presented in the context of the video game.

CONCLUSIONS
The study of intelligence has come far in the century since
Spearman (1904) published his seminal paper on general
intelligence. Although there is no consensus as to what intelligence
is or how to measure it, there are many viable alternatives.
More research needs to distinguish among these
alternatives rather than simply adducing evidence for any one
of the alternatives.
Among the psychometric theories, Carroll’s (1993) has
achieved fairly widespread acclaim, perhaps because it is
based on a meta-analysis of so much empirical work. Because
of its complexity, however, it is likely to have less influence
on measurement than simpler theories, such as the
theory of fluid and crystallized abilities (Cattell, 1971; Horn,
1994).

Challenges to Traditional Theories and Beliefs

About Intelligence
Within recent years, several challenges from unexpected
quarters have been proposed to theories and conceptions of
intelligence. Two such challenges are the Flynn effect and
dynamic testing.
The Flynn Effect. An empirical phenomenon challenges
many theories of intelligence that view intelligence
as some kind of fixed, largely genetically based trait. We
know that the environment has powerful effects on cognitive
abilities. Perhaps the simplest and most potent demonstration
of this effect is what is called the Flynn effect (Flynn, 1984,
1987, 1994, 1998). The basic phenomenon is that IQ has increased
over successive generations around the world through
most of the century—at least since 1930. The effect must be
environmental because a successive stream of genetic mutations
obviously could not have taken hold and exerted such an
effect over such a short period of time

Dynamic Assessment. In dynamic assessment, individuals

learn at the time of test. If they answer an item correctly,
they are given guided feedback to help them solve the item,
either until they get it correct or until the examiner has run
out of clues to give them.
The notion of dynamic testing appears to have originated
with Vygotsky (1934/1962, 1978) and was developed
independently by Feuerstein, Rand, Haywood, Hoffman,
and Jensen (1985). Dynamic assessment is generally based
on the notion that cognitive abilities are modifiable and that
there is some zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,
1978), which represents the difference between actually developed
ability and latent capacity. Dynamic assessments attempt
to measure this zone of proximal development, or an
analogue to it.

Intelligence as Typical Performance. Traditionally, intelligence

has been thought of as something to be conceptualized
and measured in terms of maximum performance. The
tests of intelligence have been maximum-performance tests,
requiring examinees to work as hard as they can to maximize
their scores. Ackerman (1994; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;
Goff & Ackerman, 1992) has recently argued that typicalperformance
tests—which, like personality tests, do not require
extensive intellectual effort—ought to supplement
maximal-performance ones. On such tests individuals might
be asked to what extent statements like “I prefer my life to be
filled with puzzles I must solve” or “I enjoy work that requires
conscientious, exacting skills” match their attitudes. A factor
analysis of such tests yielded five factors: intellectual engagement,
openness, conscientiousness, directed activity, and
science-technology interest.