100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
Previously searched by you
Psychology essay- The relative importance of general mental ability (g) and narrower, more specific cognitive abilities within intelligenceR72,13
Add to cart
Psychology essay- The relative importance of general mental ability (g) and narrower, more specific cognitive abilities within intelligence
Course
Introduction to psychology
Institution
University Of The Highlands And Islands (UHI)
The present essay explores the relative importance of general mental ability (g) and narrower, more specific cognitive abilities in intelligence. (Spearman's two factor model of intelligence, Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, Vernon's hierarchical model of intelligence etc.). Level 7 (UK)...
An essay discussing the relative importance of general mental ability and
specific cognitive abilities within intelligence
The debate over the nature and structure of intelligence is a rather long-standing one in the
history of psychology. When Sternberg and Detterman (as cited in Maltby, Day & Macaskill,
2013, p.272) asked 24 prominent theorists to define intelligence, they were provided with 24
somewhat different definitions. Certain qualities such as being able to adapt effectively to the
environment and engage in higher-order thinking processes such as abstract reasoning and
problem-solving were evident in most definitions. However, there was considerable
disagreement among the experts about whether intelligence represented primarily one thing
or a number of different cognitive abilities. Some theorists such as Spearman were overly
enthusiastic about the importance of general cognitive ability within intelligence, while others
such as Gardner challenged the concept of g and focussed either exclusively or more so on
the importance of specific mental abilities. The present essay aims to explore the debate
between these two ‘opposing’ approaches regarding the relative importance of g and
narrower, more specific cognitive abilities within intelligence. Additionally, Vernon’s
hierarchical model of intelligence will be discussed as an example of how these two positions
can be successfully reconciled into one overall model of intelligence.
The notion of general intelligence as a factor thought to underlie all intellectual activity
was first introduced by Spearman (1927). Using factor analysis, Spearman documented
positive correlations between a wide variety of cognitive ability tests. He noted that children
who did well on one type of intelligence test, did well on the others too, and those who did
poorly on one, did poorly generally across the board. Although these correlations were high,
they were not perfect, which showed that children did better on some tests than others.
Based on his findings, Spearman (1927) formulated a two- factor model of intelligence. To
explain the positive correlations, he proposed the notion of general intelligence or general
mental ability (‘g’), which he thought was a common, fundamental factor, a kind of mental
energy, that underpins cognitive performances on all tests. He called the second factor of
intelligence ‘s’ after special abilities, which he argued were responsible for variations between
test performances. Although later psychologists tended to find Spearman’s two-factor theory
of intelligence somewhat oversimplified, his idea of general intelligence (in particular) has
1
, inspired substantial research and informed many subsequent approaches to intelligence;
some of which - including Vernon’s hierarchical model- retained g as an element of
intelligence.
The existence of a general cognitive ability and its importance within intelligence has been
well-documented in the literature. Spearman’s initial finding that most psychological tests
measuring cognitive abilities consistently identify a common factor of ‘g’ were confirmed by
several subsequent research studies (Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger, McGue, & Gottesman,
2004; Johnson, te Nijenhuis, & Bouchard, 2008). Furthermore, the empirical evidence for the
validity of g for predicting performance in a wide range of life areas including education and
work is overwhelming (Schmidt 2002). Deary, Strand, Smith and Fernandes (2006) conducted
a large-scale, longitudinal study and found that g made a huge contribution to academic
success. The researchers documented a correlation of 0.81 between the students’ intelligence
at the age of 11 and their achieved examination grades in 25 school subjects at the age of 16.
A series of research studies also found that general intelligence was the most valid
predictor of job-related training performance (Hunter, 1986; Ree & Earles, 1991; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1998) as well as job performance itself (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Jensen, 1984), while
specific aptitudes, beyond g, were reported to make only small contributions to the
performance predictions. Additionally, Carlson (1993) pointed out that when general
intelligence requirements were eliminated in hiring new police officers in Washington DC in
the mid 80’s, the performance of the police force worsened dramatically, as they were
recruiting people initially lacking the skills and abilities to become efficient law enforcement
officers. According to Schmidt and Hunter (1998), one of the main reasons why g is such a
good predictor of job performance is that it has a direct causal impact on the acquisition of
job knowledge. People with higher general intelligence acquire more job knowledge and do
so more rapidly than those lower in g. In addition to that, Schmidt (2002) argued that g also
has a somewhat smaller, direct effect on job performance, through problem-solving on the
job.
However, some psychologists challenged Spearman’s conceptualization of general
intelligence and focussed on specific abilities instead, arguing that intelligence is
multidimensional. Gardener (1999) regarded g merely as a statistical artefact. He put forward
his theory of multiple intelligences, hereafter theory of MI, in which he argued that
2
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Skyler89. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R72,13. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
