

Theories
 Research Methods
 Mental Health
 A-level
 Statistics


1. Cognitive Psychology
2. Intelligence

Intelligence: Definition,
Theories and Testing
By Charlotte Ruhl, published July 16, 2020

Take-home Messages
 Defining and classifying intelligence is extremely complicated.
Theories of intelligence range from having one general
intelligence (g), to certain primary mental abilities, and to
multiple category-specific intelligences.
 Following the creation of the Binet-Simon scale in the early
1900s, intelligence tests, now referred to as intelligence
quotient (IQ) tests, are the most widely-known and used
measure for determining an individual’s intelligence.
 Although these tests are generally reliable and valid tools, they
do have their flaws as they lack cultural specificity and can
evoke stereotype threat and self-fulfilling prophecies.
 IQ scores are typically normally distributed, meaning that 95%
of the population has IQ scores between 70 and 130. However,
there are some extreme examples of people with scores far
exceeding 130 or far below 70.

What Is Intelligence?
It might seem useless to define such a simple word. After all, we
have all heard this word hundreds of times and probably have a
general understanding of its meaning. However, the concept of
intelligence has been a widely debated topic among members of the
psychology community for decades.
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: higher level abilities
(such as abstract reasoning, mental representation, problem
solving, and decision making), the ability to learn, emotional
knowledge, creativity, and adaptation to meet the demands of
the environment effectively.
Psychologist Robert Sternberg defined intelligence as "the mental
abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and
selection of, any environmental context (1997, p. 1)
Table of contents

1. Brief history of intelligence

2. Theories of intelligence
3. Types of intelligence
4. Intelligence testing
5. Criticism of intelligence testing
6. Extremes of intelligence
7. Intelligence today
8. References

A Brief History of Intelligence

The study of human intelligence dates back to the late 1800s when
Sir Francis Galton (the cousin of Charles Darwin) became one of
the first people to study intelligence.
Galton was interested in the concept of a gifted individual, so he
created a lab to measure reaction times and other physical
characteristics to test his hypothesis that intelligence is a general
mental ability that is a produce of biological evolution (hello,
Darwin!).
Galton theorized that because quickness and other physical
attributes were evolutionarily advantageous, they would also
provide a good indication of general mental ability (Jensen,
1982).
Thus, Galton operationalized intelligence as reaction time.
Operationalization is an important process in research that
involves defining an unmeasurable phenomenon (such as
intelligence) in measurable terms (such as reaction time),
allowing the concept to be studied empirically (Crowthre-Heyck,
2005).
Galton’s study of intelligence in the laboratory setting and his
theorization of the heritability of intelligence paved the way for
decades of future research and debate in this field.

Theories of Intelligence
Some researchers argue that intelligence is a general ability,
whereas others make the assertion that intelligence comprises
specific skills and talents. Psychologists contend that intelligence
is genetic, or inherited, and others claim that it is largely
influenced by the surrounding environment.
As a result, psychologists have developed several contrasting
theories of intelligence as well as individual tests that attempt to
measure this very concept.

Spearman’s General Intelligence (g)

General intelligence, also known as g factor, refers to a general
mental ability that, according to Spearman, underlies multiple
specific skills, including verbal, spatial, numerical and mechanical.
Charles Spearman, an English psychologist, established the two-
factor theory of intelligence back in 1904 (Spearman, 1904). To
arrive at this theory, Spearman used a technique known as factor
analysis.
Factor analysis is a procedure through which the correlation of
related variables are evaluated to find an underlying factor that
explains this correlation.
In the case of intelligence, Spearman noticed that those who did
well in one area of intelligence tests (for example, mathematics),
also did well in other areas (such as distinguishing pitch; Kalat,
2014).
In other words, there was a strong correlation between performing
well in math and music, and Spearman then attributed this
relationship to a central factor, that of general intelligence (g).
Spearman concluded that there is a single g-factor which
represents an individual’s general intelligence across multiple
abilities, and that a second factor, s, refers to an individual’s
specific ability in one particular area (Spearman, as cited in
Thomson, 1947).
Together, these two main factors compose Spearman’s two-factor
theory.

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone (1938) challenged the concept of a g-factor. After
analyzing data from 56 different tests of mental abilities, he
identified a number of primary mental abilities that comprise
intelligence, as opposed to one general factor.
The seven primary mental abilities in Thurstone's model are verbal
comprehension, verbal fluency, number facility, spatial
visualization, perceptual speed, memory, and inductive reasoning
(Thurstone, as cited in Sternberg, 2003).

Mental Abililty Description

Word Fluency Ability to use words quickly and fluency in performing such
tasks as rhyming, solving anagrams, and doing crossword
puzzles.

Verbal Ability to understand the meaning of words, concepts, and

Comprehension ideas.

Numerical Ability Ability to use numbers to quickly computer answers to

problems.

Spatial Ability to visualize and manipulate patters and forms in

Visualization space.

Perceptual Speed Ability to grasp perceptual details quickly and accurately

and to determine similarities and differences between
 Mental Abililty Description

stimuli.

Memory Ability to recall information such as lists or words,

mathematical formulas, and definitions.

Inductive Ability to derive general rules and principles from presented

Reasoning information.

Although Thurstone did not reject Spearman’s idea of general

intelligence altogether, he instead theorized that intelligence
consists of both general ability and a number of specific abilities,
paving the way for future research that examined the different
forms of intelligence.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Following the work of Thurstone, American psychologist Howard
Gardner built off the idea that there are multiple forms of
intelligence.
He proposed that there is no single intelligence, but rather distinct,
independent multiple intelligences exist, each representing unique
skills and talents relevant to a certain category.
Gardner (1983, 1987) initially proposed seven multiple
intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical,
bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, and he has
since added naturalist intelligence.
Gardner holds that most activities (such as dancing) will involve a
combination of these multiple intelligences (such as spatial and
bodily-kinesthetic intelligences). He also suggests that these
multiple intelligences can help us understand concepts beyond
intelligence, such as creativity and leadership.
And although this theory has widely captured the attention of the
psychology community and greater public, it does have its faults.
There have been few empirical studies that actually test this theory,
and this theory does not account for other types of intelligence
beyond the ones Gardner lists (Sternberg, 2003).

Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Just two years later, in 1985, Robert Sternberg proposed a three-
category theory of intelligence, integrating components that were
lacking in Gardner’s theory. This theory is based on the definition
of intelligence as the ability to achieve success based on your
personal standards and your sociocultural context.
According to the triarchic theory, intelligence has three aspects:
analytical, creative, and practical (Sternberg, 1985).
Analytical intelligence, also referred to as componential
intelligence, refers to intelligence that is applied to analyze or
evaluate problems and arrive at solutions. This is what a traditional
IQ test measure.
Creative intelligence is the ability to go beyond what is given to
create novel and interesting ideas. This type of intelligence involves
imagination, innovation and problem-solving.
Practical intelligence is the ability that individuals use to solve
problems faced in daily life, when a person finds the best fit
between themselves and the demands of the environment. Adapting
to the demands environment involves either utilizing knowledge
gained from experience to purposefully change oneself to suit the
environment (adaptation), changing the environment to suit oneself
(shaping), or finding a new environment in which to work
(selection).

Other Types of Intelligence

After examining the popular competing theories of intelligence, it
becomes clear that there are many different forms of this seemingly
simple concept.
On one hand, Spearman claims that intelligence is generalizable
across many different areas of life, and on the other hand,
psychologists such as Thurstone, Gardener, and Sternberg hold
that intelligence is like a tree with many different branches, each
representing a specific form of intelligence.
To make matters even more interesting, let’s throw a few more
types of intelligence into the mix!

Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence is the “ability to monitor one’s own and
other people’s emotions, to discriminate between different
emotions and label them appropriately, and to use emotional
information to guide thinking and behavior” (Salovey and Mayer,
1990).
Emotional intelligence is important in our everyday lives, seeing as
we experience one emotion or another nearly every second of our
lives. You may not associate emotions and intelligence with one
another, but in reality, they are very related.
Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to recognize the
meanings of emotions and to reason and problem-solve on the basis
of them (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999). The four key
components of emotional Intelligence are (i) self-awareness, (ii)
self-management, (iii) social awareness, and (iv) relationship
management.
In other words, if you are high in emotional intelligence, you can
accurately perceive emotions in yourself and others (such as
reading facial expressions), use emotions to help facilitate thinking,
understand the meaning behind your emotions (why are you feeling
this way?), and know how to manage your emotions (Salovey &
Mayer, 1990).

Fluid vs. Crystallized Intelligence

Raymond Cattell (1963) first proposed the concepts of fluid and
crystallized intelligence and further developed the theory with John
Horn.
Fluid intelligence is the ability to problem solve in novel
situations without referencing prior knowledge, but rather
through the use of logic and abstract thinking. Fluid intelligence
can be applied to any novel problem because no specific prior
knowledge is required (Cattell, 1963). As you grow older fluid
increases and then starts to decrease in the late 20s.
Crystallized intelligence refers to the use of previously-
acquired knowledge, such as specific facts learned in school or
specific motor skills or muscle memory (Cattell, 1963). As you
grow older and accumulate knowledge, crystallized intelligence
increases.
The Cattell-Horn (1966) theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence
suggests that intelligence is composed of a number of different
abilities that interact and work together to produce overall
individual intelligence
For example, if you are taking a hard math test, you rely on your
crystallized intelligence to process the numbers and meaning of the
questions, but you may use fluid intelligence to work through the
novel problem and arrive at the correct solution. It is also possible
that fluid intelligence can become crystallized intelligence.
The novel solutions you create when relying on fluid intelligence
can, over time, develop into crystallized intelligence after they are
incorporated into long-term memory.
This illustrates some of the ways in which different forms of
intelligence overlap and interact with one another, revealing its
dynamic nature.

Intelligence Testing
Binet-Simon Scale
During the early 1900s, the French government enlisted the help of
psychologist Alfred Binet to understand which children were going
to be slower learners and thus require more assistance in the
classroom (Binet et al., 1912).
As a result, he and his colleague, Theodore Simon, began to
develop a specific set of questions that focused on areas such as
memory and problem-solving skills.
They tested these questions on groups of students aged three to
twelve to help standardize the measure (Binet et al., 1912). Binet
realized that some children were able to answer advanced
questions that their older peers were able to answer.
As a result, he created the concept of a mental age, or how well an
individual performs intellectually relative to the average
performance at that age (Cherry, 2020).
Ultimately, Binet finalized the scale, known as the Binet-Simon
scale, that became the basis for the intelligence tests still used
today.
The Binet-Simon scale of 1905 comprised 30 items designed to
measure judgment, comprehension, and reasoning which Binet
deemed the key characteristics of intelligence.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

When the Binet-Simon scale made its way over to the United
States, Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman adapted the test for
American students, and published the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale in 1916 (Cherry, 2020).
The Stanford-Binet Scale is a contemporary assessment which
measures intelligence according to five features of cognitive ability,
including fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning,
visual-spatial processing and working memory. Both verbal and
nonverbal responses are measured.

This test used a single number, referred to as the intelligence

quotient (IQ) to indicate an individual’s score.
The average score for the test is 100, and any score from 90 to 109
is considered to be in the average intelligence range. Score from
110 to 119 are considered to be High Average. Superior scores
range from 120 to 129 and anything over 130 is considered Very
Superior.
To calculate IQ, the student’s mental age is divided by his or her
actual (or chronological) age, and this result is multiplied by 100. If
your mental age is equal to your chronological age, you will have an
IQ of 100, or average. If, however, your mental age is, say, 12, but
your chronological age is only 10, you will have an above-average
IQ of 120.

WISC and WAIS

Just as theories of intelligence build off one another, intelligence
tests do too. After Terman created Stanford-Binet test, American
psychologist David Wechsler developed a new tool due to his
dissatisfaction with the limitations of the Stanford-Binet test
(Cherry, 2020).
Just like Thurstone, Gardner, and Sternberg, Wechsler believed
that intelligence involved many different mental abilities and felt
that the Stanford-Binet scale too closely reflected the idea of one
general intelligence.
Because of this, Wechsler created the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale
(WAIS) in 1955, with the most up-to-date version being the WAIS-IV
(Cherry, 2020).
The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC),
developed by David Wechsler, is an IQ test designed to measure
intelligence and cognitive ability in children between the ages of 6
and 16. It is currently in its fourth edition (WISC-V) released in
2014 by Pearson.
Above Image: WISC-IV Sample Test Question

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), is an IQ test

designed to measure cognitive ability in adults and older
adolescents, including verbal comprehension, perceptual
reasoning, working memory, and processing speed.
The latest version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-
IV) was standardized on 2,200 healthy people between the ages of
16 and 90 years (Brooks et al., 2011).
The standardization of a test involves giving it to a large number of
people at different ages in order to compute the average score on
the test at each age level
The overall IQ score combines the test takers’ performance in all
four categories (Cherry, 2020). And rather than calculating this
number based on mental and chronological age, the WAIS
compares the individual’s score to the average score at that level,
as calculated by the standardization process.

The Flynn Effect

It is important to regularly standardize an intelligence test because
the overall level of intelligence in a population may change over
time.
This phenomenon is known as the Flynn effect (named after its
discoverer, New Zealand researcher James Flynn) which refers to
the observation that scores on intelligence tests worldwide increase
from decade to decade (Flynn, 1984).

Aptitude vs. Achievement Tests

Other tests, such as aptitude and achievement tests, are designed
to measure intellectual capability. Achievement tests measure what
content a student has already learned (such as a unit test in history
or a final math exam), whereas an aptitude test measures a
student’s potential or ability to learn (Anastasi, 1984).
Although this may sound similar to an IQ test, aptitude tests
typically measure abilities in very specific areas.

Criticism of Intelligence Testing

Criticisms have ranged from the claim that IQ tests are biased in
favor of white, middle-class people. Negative stereotypes about a
person’s ethnicity, gender, or age may cause the person to suffer
stereotype threat, a burden of doubt about his or her own
abilities, which can create anxiety that result in lower scores.

Reliability and Construct Validity

Although you may be wondering if you take an intelligence test
multiple times will you improve your score and whether these tests
even measure intelligence in the first place, research provides
reassurance that these tests are both very reliable and have high
construct validity.
Reliability simply means that they are consistent over time. In other
words, if you take a test at two different points in time, there will
be very little change in performance or, in the case of intelligence
tests, IQ score.
Although this isn’t a perfect science and your score might slightly
fluctuate when taking the same test on different occasions or
different tests at the same age, IQ tests demonstrate relatively
high reliability (Tuma & Appelbaum, 1980).
Additionally, intelligence tests also reveal strong construct validity,
meaning that they are, in fact, measuring intelligence rather than
something else.
Researchers have spent hours on end developing, standardizing,
and adapting these tests to best fit into the current times. But that
is also not to say that these tests are completely flawless.
Research documents errors with the specific scoring of tests,
interpretation of the multiple scores (since typically an individual
will receive an overall IQ score accompanied by several category-
specific scores), and some studies question the actual validity,
reliability, and utility for individual clinical use of these tests
(Canivez, 2013).
Additionally, intelligence scores are created to reflect different
theories of intelligence, so the interpretations may be heavily based
on the theory upon which the test is based (Canivez, 2013).

Cultural Specificity
There are issues with intelligence tests beyond looking at them in a
vacuum. These tests were created by western psychologists who
created such tools to measure euro-centric values.
But it is important to recognize that the majority of the world’s
population does not reside in Europe or North America, and as a
result, the cultural specificity of these tests is crucial.
Different cultures hold different values and even have different
perceptions of intelligence, so is it fair to have one universal
marker of this increasingly complex concept?
For example, a 1992 study found that Kenyan parents defined
intelligence as the ability to do without being told what needed to
be done around the homestead (Harkness et al., 1992), and, given
the American and European emphasis on speed, some Ugandans
define intelligent people as being slow in thought and action
(Wober, 1974).
Together, these examples illustrate the flexibility of defining
intelligence, making it even more challenging to capture this
concept in a single test, let alone a single number. And even within
the U.S. do perceptions of intelligence differ.
An example is in San Jose, California, where Latino, Asian, and
Anglo parents had varying definitions of intelligence. The teachers’
understanding of intelligence was more similar to that of the Asian
and Anglo communities, and this similarity actually predicted the
child’s performance in school (Okagaki & Sternberg, 1993).
That is, students whose families had more similar understandings
of intelligence were doing better in the classroom.
Intelligence takes many forms, ranging from country to country and
culture to culture. Although IQ tests might have high reliability
and validity, understanding the role of culture is as, if not more,
important in forming the bigger picture of an individual’s
intelligence.
IQ tests may accurately measure academic intelligence, but more
research must be done to discern whether they truly measure
practical intelligence, or even just general intelligence in all
cultures.

Social and Environmental Factors

Another important part of the puzzle to consider is the social and
environmental context in which an individual lives and the IQ test-
related biases that develop as a result.
These might help explain why some individuals have lower scores
than others. For example, the threat of social exclusion can greatly
decrease the expression of intelligence.
A 2002 study gave participants an IQ test and a personality
inventory, and some were randomly chosen to receive feedback
from the inventory indicating that they were “the sort of people
who would end up alone in life” (Baumeister et al., 2002).
After a second test, those who were told they would be loveless and
friendless in the future answered significantly fewer questions than
they did on the earlier test.
And these findings can translate into the real world where not only
the threat of social exclusion can decrease the expression of
intelligence but also a perceived threat to physical safety.
In other words, a child’s poor academic performance can be
attributed to the disadvantaged, potentially unsafe, communities in
which they grow up.

Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat is a phenomenon in which people feel at risk of
conforming to stereotypes about their social group. Negative
stereotypes can also create anxiety that result in lower scores.
In one study, Black and White college students were given part of
the verbal section from the Graduate Record Exam (GRE), but in
the stereotype threat condition, they told students the test
diagnosed intellectual ability, thus potentially making the
stereotype that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites salient.
The results of this study revealed that in the stereotype threat
condition, Blacks performed worse than Whites, but in the no
stereotype threat condition, Blacks and Whites performed equally
well (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
And even just recording your race can also result in worsened
performance. Stereotype threat is a real threat and can be
detrimental to an individual’s performance on these tests.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Stereotype threat is closely related to the concept of a self-fulfilling
prophecy in which an individual’s expectations about another
person can result in the other person acting in ways that conform
to that very expectation.
In one experiment, students in a California elementary school were
given an IQ test after which their teachers were given the names of
students who would become "intellectual bloomers" that year based
on the results of the test (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).
At the end of the study, the students were tested again with the
same IQ test, and those who were labeled as “intellectual
bloomers” had significant increases in their scores.
This illustrates that teachers may subconsciously behave in ways
that encourage the success of certain students, thus influencing
their achievement (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), and provides
another example of small variables that can play a role in an
individual’s intelligence score and the development of their
intelligence.
This is all to say that it is important to consider the less visible
factors that play a role in determining someone’s intelligence.
While an IQ score has many benefits in measuring intelligence, it is
critical to consider that just because someone has a lower score,
does not necessarily mean they are lower in intelligence.
There are many factors that can worsen performance on these
tests, and the tests themselves might not even be accurately
measuring the very concept they are intended to.

Extremes of Intelligence
IQ scores are generally normally distributed (Moore et al., 2013).
That is, roughly 95% of the population has IQ scores between 70
and 130. But what about the other 5%?
Individuals who fall outside this range represent the extremes of
intelligence.
Those who have an IQ above 130 are considered to be gifted (Lally
& French, 2018), such as Christopher Langan, an American horse
rancher, who has an IQ score around 200 (Gladwell, 2008).
Those individuals who have scores below 70 do so because of an
intellectual disability, marked by substantial developmental delays,
including motor, cognitive, and speech delays (De Light, 2012).
Some of the time, these disabilities are the product of genetic
mutations.
Down syndrome, for example, resulting from extra genetic material
from or a complete extra copy of the 21st chromosome, is a
common genetic cause of an intellectual disability (Breslin, 2014).
As such, many individuals with down syndrome have below average
IQ scores (Breslin, 2014).
Savant syndrome is another example of an extreme of intelligence.
Despite having significant mental disabilities, these individuals
demonstrate certain abilities in some fields that are far above
average, such as incredible memorization, rapid mathematical or
calendar calculation ability, or advanced musical talent (Treffert,
2009).
The fact that these individuals who may be lacking in certain areas
such as social interaction and communication make up for it in
other remarkable areas, further illustrates the complexity of
intelligence and what this concept means today, as well as how we
must consider all individuals when determining how to perceive,
measure, and recognize intelligence in our society.

Intelligence Today
Today, intelligence is generally understood as the ability to
understand and adapt to the environment by using inherited
abilities and learned knowledge.
;Many new intelligence tests have arisen, such as the University of
California Matrix Reasoning Task (Pahor et al., 2019), that can be
taken online and in very little time, and new methods of scoring
these tests have been developed too (Sansone et al., 2014).
Admission into university and graduate schools rely on specific
aptitude and achievement tests, such as the SAT, ACT, and the
LSAT – these tests have become a huge part of our lives.
Humans are incredibly intelligent beings and we rely on our
intellectual abilities every day. Although intelligence can be defined
and measured in countless ways, our overall intelligence as a
species makes us incredibly unique and has allowed us to thrive for
generations on end.

About the Author

Charlotte Ruhl is a member of the Class of 2022 at Harvard
University. She studies Psychology with a minor in African
American Studies. On campus, Charlotte works at an implicit social
cognition research lab, is an editor for the undergraduate law
review, and plays softball.

How to reference this article:

Ruhl , C. (2020, July 16). Intelligence: definition, theories and
testing. Simply Psychology.
www.simplypsychology.org/intelligence.html

APA Style References

Anastasi, A. (1984). 7. Aptitude and Achievement Tests: The
Curious Case of the Indestructible Strawperson.
Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M., & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of
social exclusion on cognitive processes: anticipated aloneness
reduces intelligent thought. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 83(4), 817.
Binet, A., Simon, T., & Simon, T. (1912). A method of measuring the
development of the intelligence of young children. Chicago medical
book Company.
Breslin, J., Spanò, G., Bootzin, R., Anand, P., Nadel, L., & Edgin, J.
(2014). Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and cognition in Down
syndrome. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 56(7), 657-
664.
Brooks, B. L., Holdnack, J. A., & Iverson, G. L. (2011). Advanced
clinical interpretation of the WAIS-IV and WMS-IV: Prevalence of
low scores varies by level of intelligence and years of
education. Assessment, 18(2), 156-167.
Canivez, G. L. (2013). Psychometric versus actuarial interpretation
of intelligence and related aptitude batteries.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A
critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology, 54(1), 1.
Cherry, K. (2020). Why Alfred Binet Developed IQ Testing for
Students. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-
intelligence-testing-2795581
Crowther-Heyck, H. (2005). Herbert A. Simon: The bounds of
reason in modern America. JHU Press.
De Ligt, J., Willemsen, M. H., Van Bon, B. W., Kleefstra, T., Yntema,
H. G., Kroes, T., ... & del Rosario, M. (2012). Diagnostic exome
sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. New
England Journal of Medicine, 367(20), 1921-1929.
Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932
to 1978. Psychological bulletin, 95(1), 29.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1987). The theory of multiple intelligence. Annals Of
Dyslexia, 37, 19-35
Gignac, G. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Bifactor modeling and the
estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 48(5), 639-662.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown.
Harkness, S., Super, C., & Keefer, C. (1992). Culture and ethnicity:
In M. Levine, W. Carey & A. Crocker (Eds.), Developmental-
behavioral pediatrics (pp. 103-108).
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the
theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
Jensen, A. R. (1982). Reaction time and psychometric g. In A model
for intelligence (pp. 93-132). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Heidelber Kalat, J.W. (2014). Introduction to Psychology, 10th
Edition. Cengage Learning.
Lally, M., & French, S. V. (2018). Introduction to Psychology.
Canada: College of Lake County Foundation, 176-212.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional
intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence.
Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.
Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I, & Flinger, M. A. (2013). The basic practice
of statistics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Parental beliefs and
children's school performance. Child Development, 64(1), 36-56.
Pahor, A., Stavropoulos, T., Jaeggi, S. M., & Seitz, A. R. (2019).
Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices. Behavior
Research Methods, 51(5), 2256-2267.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the
classroom. The urban review, 3(1), 16-20.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional
intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sansone, S. M., Schneider, A., Bickel, E., Berry-Kravis, E., Prescott,
C., & Hessl, D. (2014). Improving IQ measurement in intellectual
disabilities usinN true deviation from population norms. Journal of
Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 6(1), 16.
Spearmen, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined
and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 107-197.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the
intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human
intelligence. CUP Archive.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in
lifelong learning and success. American psychologist, 52(10), 1030.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Contemporary theories of
intelligence. Handbook of psychology, 21-45.
Treffert, D. A. (2009). The savant syndrome: an extraordinary
condition. A synopsis: past, present, future. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
364(1522), 1351-1357.
Thomson, G. (1947). Charles Spearman, 1863-1945.
Tuma, J. M., & Appelbaum, A. S. (1980). Reliability and practice
effects of WISC-R IQ estimates in a normal population. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 40(3), 671-678.
Wober, J. M. (1971). Towards an understanding of the Kiganda
concept of intelligence. Social Psychology Section, Department of
Sociology, Makerere University.

How to reference this article:

Ruhl , C. (2020, July 16). Intelligence: definition, theories and
testing. Simply Psychology.
www.simplypsychology.org/intelligence.html
Home | About Us | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact Us
 Back to top

Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational

purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for
professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
© Simply Scholar Ltd - All rights reserved
report this ad

report this ad
x
x