Intelligence: Definitions and Characteristics | Term Paper | Psychology (2024)

In this term paper we will discuss about:- 1. Introduction to Intelligence 2. Definitions of Intelligence 3. Types 4. Characteristics 5. Heredity and Environment Components 6. Measurement.

Term Paper Contents:

1. Term Paper on Introduction to Intelligence
2. Term Paper on the Definitions of Intelligence
3. Term Paper on the Types of Intelligence
4. Term Paper on the Characteristics of Intelligence
5. Term Paper on Heredity and Environment Components in Intelligence
6. Term Paper on the Measurement of Intelligence

Term Paper # 1. Introduction to Intelligence:

Psychologists agreed that they do not know what intelligence is? They can only observe how it work in terms of behaviours. The assumption is that behaviour reflects intelligence. The present basis of study has yielded such important and usable information about man’s behaviour as to be extremely helpful to teachers. If a Hindi teacher teaches in a class, a student responds correctly and quickly for teacher’s questions.

The teacher usually says that the boy is very intelligent. Similarly, a math’s teacher says that boy is intelligent as he attempts the problems quickly and correctly, because his behaviour in the class is above all the students. The teacher does not say that he is good in Hindi or in Math’s. Thus, intelligence is nothing but intelligent behaviour.

“An intelligent behaviour is that which is above the norms of a particular group.” It is above the average behaviour.

A child of two years old behaves above his age group children, he is known as intelligent boy. The intelligence is an inferred phenomenon from behaviour. This meaning of intelligence should be accepted and preserved at least until we have a better construct or more definite knowledge.

There are two aspects of intelligence which must be considered; the innate potential of an individual and the functional expression of that potential. The first aspect is physiological and second aspect is behavioural. The measurement of intelligence of today is not absolute. It should be used tentative planning and for tentative prediction. There are innumerable definitions of intelligence and psychologists have defined it in several ways.

Term Paper # 2. Definitions of Intelligence:

Some important definitions of intelligence have been stated here:

“A lion is roaring in the forest, but it is not traceable, intelligence is the entity like that, the same analogy is taken for intelligence. Intelligence is known by behaviour, answer of question, aptitude, and attitude are the sign of intelligence, but what is the magnitude of the intelligence.” —Lee J. Cronbach

“Intelligence means to apply one’s knowledge to noble situation or adjustment to noble situations.” —Alfred Binet (1905)

Intelligence is characteristics of the thought process which tends:

(1) To maintain a definite direction.

(2) To make adoption for the purpose of desired ends.

(3) To exercise the power of auto criticism.

Intelligence is considered as a mental trait. It is the capacity to make impulses focal at their unfinished stage of formation. —L.L. Thurston (1925)

“Intelligence is an ability to carry on abstract thinking.” —Terman (1921)

“Intelligence is a general capacity of an individual to adjust his thinking to new requirements and it is general mental adaptability to new problems and conditions of life.” —Stern

“Intelligence is conscious adaptation to new situations.” —Ross

“Intelligence is a flexibility of the mind to meet the new situations.” —Munn “It is a capacity for setting along in all sorts of situations.” —Pintner

“It is a capacity for successful adjustment by means of traits which we ordinarily call intellectual.” —Freeman (1923)

“An individual possesses intelligence so far as he has learnt or can learn to adjust himself to the environments.” —Calvin

“It is an ability of the mind to apprehend relevant relations.” —Wyatt

“Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment.” —Weschler

“Intelligence is power of good response from the point of view of truth and fact.” —Thorndike (1923)

“Intelligence is the innate capacity to solve the problem in the light of past experience and knowledge.” —Hoodworth (1940)

“Intelligence is all round innate mental ability. It is power of readjustment in novel situation by organization of new psycho-physical combination.” —Cyril Burt (1946)

All the definition may be classified under the four heads:

1. Intelligence is the innate ability.

2. Intelligence is an ability of adjustment to novel situation.

3. Intelligence is related more to abstract thinking.

4. Intelligence is an ability related to cognition. “What do intelligence tests really measure?”

These definitions of intelligence are not comprehensive to cover the domain of intelligence. The two comprehensive definitions have been given which cover almost the total domain of intelligence.

Term Paper # 3. Types of Intelligence:

Some psychologists believe the several kinds of intelligence should be distinguished from one another. Noteworthy among them is E.L.

Thorndike, who has divided intelligent activity into three types:

(1) Social intelligence or ability to understand and deal with persons,

(2) Concrete intelligence or ability to understand and deal with things, as in skilled trades and scientific appliances, and

(3) Abstract intelligence or ability to understand and deal with verbal and mathematical symbols.

The merit of this classification of types of intelligent activity, for psychological testing and diagnosis, is that it indicates several realms in which persons might be functioning and implies the separate and sufficiently specialized test might be devised to measure how effectively persons are functioning in each.

Of the three kinds of abilities enumerated above, abstract intelligence is the one that receives greatest weight and is most pronounced in current test of intelligence—that is, whenever the test is designed for use with persons who are presumed to have reached a level where they may be expected to have developed facility in dealing with concepts and symbols.

According to Thorndike, differences between individuals on attitude and range measures are due to differences in number formed. There is a possibility of as many connections as there are exposures to stimuli. Intelligence, therefore, as conceived by Thorndike, is multifocal. Since making responses to many of them, the possibilities for connection forming, even excluding repetitions stimuli and responses, are innumerable, Intelligence and intelligence-behaviour are seen in every action of the individual.

Two individuals place in the same situation do not respond equally well to the stimuli and responses, are innumerable. Intelligence and intelligent-behaviour are seen in every action of the individual. Two individuals placed in the same situation do not respond equally well to the stimuli, in most cases, owing to differences in connections present and, thus, intelligence.

Conceived of in this way, the complexity of intelligence is of such a nature as to restrict measurement. Thorndike did not give up this multifocal notion, but he pointed out that certain kinds of behaviours cluster around nodal points and hence reflects, to an extent “kinds” of intelligence.

Specifically, he speaks of three kinds of intelligence:

1. Abstract Intelligence,

2. Social Intelligence, and

3. Concrete Intelligence.

1. Abstract Intelligence:

This is the kind of intelligence that manifests itself in the management of abstract symbols. As a nodal point, it would include all types of verbal activities, sciences, mathematics and field where thought is carried out with non-concrete objects. In certain cases even dealing with concrete objects would call for abstract intelligence. (A sculptor must not only work with concrete material but also visualize the finished product abstractly).

In general, abstract intelligence is found in ‘bookish’ persons. Our society has tended to lock on such persons as impractical and rather self-centred, living in an ‘ivory tower’ removed from reality. The materialistic quality of our society’s value system has led to this stereotype for people who operate primarily on an abstract plane.

The sample truth, however, is that they are the ones who produce for society, and their products often have far-reaching and long-range consequences. The fact that society does not always reap the harvest of these product immediately is often due more to society’s lag than to the abstract thinker’s lack of realism. Viewpoints about ‘eggheads’ in recent years. Many citizens may not understand the abstract thinker, but they can enjoy his products.

2. Social Intelligence:

This kind of intelligence is exhibited by those who manage, or manage to get along with, people—business executives, salesman, teachers, statement, and the like. For persons operating in this cluster area, people must be managed in order to be successful. Social relationships and interaction are of prime importance, even at the expense of the social beings’ subjugating himself in certain respects to obtain success.

This kind of intelligence is of such importance in the public regard that a Dale Carnegie can sell millions of copies of a book which shown “how to do it” in terms that the average citizen can understand. The importance of socially intelligent behaviour is dependent upon the structure of the society, not the structure of intellect. Our society is willing to pay a premium to persons behaviourally competent in this area.

3. Concrete Intelligence:

This kind of intelligence is exhibited in the management of concrete things. On a lower plane, it is shown by the unskilled and skilled labourer. In an intermediate degree, it is illustrated by the skilled craftsman. In its highest form, it is shown by the creative artist. When invention and design are combined with skilled craftsmanship, we get a form of intelligence highly valued by society.

These kinds of intelligence are not independent of one another. Person of high abstract intelligence will also have and use social and concrete intelligence, though to a lesser degree. The predominant kind of intelligence shown will depend upon possibilities of connections (hereditary) plus exposure, learning and the building of interest.

All of society cannot be abstract workers, fortunately, because of the differences in connection forming. But neither will a given individual deal only in the abstract. Society will not allow him to, for in its complexity it includes too many different behavioural situations. Theoretically, a person with high altitude should also be high in all kinds of intelligence shown. Practically, such a case is rare.

In Tliorndike’s theory, then there is a variety of intelligence possible to every individual. The variety shown will be limited only by the behavioural situations encountered and the adequacy of the responses made to them.

Term Paper # 4. Characteristics of Intelligence:

On the basis of above definitions, the following characteristics can be enumerated:

1. It is an ability to abstract thinking.

2. It is a capacity to adjust in new situation.

3. It is a general mental adaptability.

4. It is an ability to relate diverse situations.

5. It is the capacity to acquire capacities and origins.

6. It is the innate disposition and flexibility of mind.

7. It is a concentration of energy and global capacity.

8. It is a resistance to emotional forces.

9. It is a power of self-criticism or auto-criticism.

10. It is an inborn capacity to perceive the right thing at the right place and maintain definite direction.

11. It is an ability to reduce relationship.

12. It is an ability to learn from experience.

13. It is an ability to carry on higher process of thoughts.

14. It is an ability of verbal and numbers reasoning.

15. It involves inductive and deductive reasoning or thinking.

16. It is a perceptual ability or capacity or insight.

17. It is characterized by difficulty, complexity, economy, abstractness, and adaptations to a good social value.

18. It is ability of relation thinking.

19. It is an ability to solve problems.

20. It is a mental power and capacity.

Term Paper # 5. Heredity and Environment Components in Intelligence:

There is considerable debate over the relative importance of nature (heredity) and nurture (environment) in intellectual ability. Though it is rather commonly agreed that some quality of intellect is transmitted through the genes what functional effects such heredity has is still a matter of controversy. The issue is an important one for consideration, since if heredity determines the limit of an individual’s intelligence, if a measure of this can be obtained, and if the individual is operating at this level, change cannot be expected no matter what new environmental conditions are introduced.

On the other hand, if environment conditions are the major cause of intellectual functioning, the better the environment, the higher will be the individual’s intelligence. Heredity cannot be manipulated very easily; environment sometimes can be. Since intelligence is such a strong determinant of behaviour by the individual and consequently by the society, the question of importance of these two elements remains a central one.

Some person has attempted to state categorically the relationship between nature and nurture. Such an attempt obviously implies that both have some effect upon action by the individual. For example, one person may say that the heredity of the individual is responsible for the major part of his observed intelligence, environment for the lesser part. What we may do for a child, then, in terms of home background, social experiences, exposure to learning experiences, and the like, will be only moderately effective so far as his present and eventual intellectual performance is concerned.

He is limited by his inheritance and this must play its part. Children who “choose their parents well” will have an advantage. Since heredity is of such import, too, certain families and individuals consistently will have offspring or superior ability and other families will have children of inferior ability. Genetically, like will tend to beget like. Thus, the children of two intellectually bright people will almost certainly be bright. Heredity goes back farther than one generation so that, in such a case, past generations must also show a certain amount of brightness.

Role of Heredity:

The importance of heredity in intellectual brightness was stressed by Francis Galton early in the nineteenth century. He believed, and openly stated after study of eminent families in England, that given his choice of men and women, subject to his dictates as to marriage are breeding, he could produce a superior race of men. He never had such an opportunity, of course, nor would human’s consent to this kind of manipulation if the opportunity were granted. Actually, he was overly optimistic. Even to parents who are quite bright, severely retarded children may be born. At this stage the reason are unknown.

The work of Galton with eminent families did indicate that, more often than is found in the general population, eminence was not restricted to blood relations but extended to distance cousins, unless, nephews, and so on, as well. Legitimately the question might be raised as to whether such families have an environmental advantage over families with a less illustrious history.

Studies of families who could be considered social degenerates have also been undertaken. In these families a high incidence of crime and vice is noted over a number of generations. Probably the best known and most interesting work is Goddard’s study of the Kallikak family (1912). There were actually two branches to this family. A Revolutionary War Officer had fathered an illegitimate child by a retarded barmaid.

This infact established one branch of the “Kullikak” line. Tracing down succeeding generations, Goddard found a history of socially negative behaviour. Interestingly, the same man who sired the degenerate Kallikak line later married a woman of his own social class and began a family of some pre-eminence in American history. Information about families of this kind must, of necessity, be based more upon hearsay than documentation. Whether much that is reported, regardless of interest, is truth cannot be determined.

Cases such as Galton reported and the Kullikak supposedly reflect the importance of heredity. That they do not prove heredity to be the chief component in behaviour is manifest. A strong case can be made for the fact that a kind born of Kallikak has associations and cultural influences leading toward anti-social behaviour no matter how potentially capable intellectually he might be.

Perhaps more pertinent to the heredity argument are the studies of siblings, particularly twins. When measures of intelligence are taken for sibs, correlation of about. 50 are reported by Conrad and Jones, 1940. Fraternal twins shown a correlation of about 0.60 on intelligence measures, while identical twins yield correlations of about 0.90. The marked similarly between the scores of related children cannot be explained solely on the basis of environment.

Changing would conditions in the past fifty years, during which these studies were conducted, would not permit a constant environment. The formative years of a child born in the 1920’s would be markedly different from those of a child born to the same family during the 1930’s. Thus moderate to high positive correlations between the intelligence test scores of such pairs reflect the presence of some hereditary element. But since cause and effect are not so shown, the degree of hereditary influence cannot be judged.

Role of Environment:

A strict environmentalist might state that intellectual functioning is due largely or completely to environment and only incidentally to heredity. Now, the emphasis is placed on the home background, the opportunities and experiences, the general learning conditions. A child for performing at a very high level intellectually could presumably show marked change with a change in environment. Can such a result be achieved? Some evidence exists that the notion may have support. For example, Hunt (1961) has presented a strong, well-documented case for the experimental factors operating in functional ability.

School achievement, it seems, may be as much influenced by the experience background of the child as by his ability. Certainly this kind of reasoning is reflected in such programmer as operation Headstart. Children from impoverished economic background lack the experiences that make it possible to achieve success in primary educational curricula. Some attempts to overcome this lack by providing experiences of wide variety and context at ages four and five has begun through Headstart with federal support.

One teacher in the headstart program reported to this writer instances in which children had never an ice-cream cone, had never visited a zoo (though living in a Midwestern area where one of the finest zoos in the country is available), and had never ‘shopped’ with a nickel or dime to spend as the child wished. To have children come into the classroom at age six without even these small adventures not to mention of contact with book and other sources of intellectual development, must confound the instructional problem considerably.

The work of Spitz has pertinence for this issue as well. Spitz has observed as condition he calls ‘analytic depression’ in certain infants. These are children who are separated from their true mothers immediately or very soon after birth. There is no mother substitute available, so the child is not allowed to experience the warm, accepting, affectionate atmosphere that generally pervades mother-infant relations. As a result, Spitz says, the child does not develop adequately physically, mentally, emotionally or socially.

Term Paper # 6. Measurement of Intelligence:

Various types of tests have been constructed so far measuring the intelligence but the credit goes to the Binet and Stanford, who have first developed the test measure intelligence. Binet is considered the factor of intelligence.

The available tests are classified in number of ways:

(1) Classification forms the point of view of administration:

(a) Individual test, and

(b) Group test.

(2) Classification from the point of view of Nature of tests:

(a) Verbal Intelligence tests,

(b) Non-verbal Intelligence tests and

(c) Performance Intelligence tests.

A. Individual versus Group Tests:

Tests can be given to each individual separately or group of individuals can be tested at one time. Although this is a consideration for tests of all kinds, it is a particularly important issue in the use of general intelligence tests.

(a) Individual Tests:

The first practical general intelligence test, the Binet-Simon scale, was administered individually. This was necessary because the subjects were young children. The individual test requires a highly experienced examiner.

Many of the items of individual tests cannot be scored unambiguously as right or wrong. Instead, there may be a number of acceptable responses. The different scores are often required to indicate the degree of correctness. The better-established individual tests go to considerable lengths to specify just what will be considered a correct response and how much credit should be given for a response. The examiner must follow the established scoring procedures meticulously and not permit his subjective judgement of a child to influence the test result. Any idiosyncrasies in scoring will make the test less reliable.

(b) Group Tests:

The first practical group tests of general intelligence were developed for the Armed Forces during the First World War. The number of men were required to be tested a quick and economical measurement device, and the individual test was unsuited for the purpose.

Most group tests are sufficiently self-explanatory so that the test examiner need to have little or no specialized knowledge of test either they are allowed the work at their chosen rate or the examiner directs the subjects when to start and stop.

B. Verbal versus Performance Tests:

There has been some confusion about the difference between “verbal” tests and “performance” tests, and the distinction is itself somewhat misleading.

The following outline of verbal components in tests is offered as a basis for discussing test content:

Verbal Test Requirements:

The following are the verbal needs:

1. Understand spoken language.

2. Understand written language.

3. Speak language.

4. Write language.

5. Verbal comprehension factor.

There are many different combinations of these requirements in particular tests. A test may require the first four items in the list, but deal with language at so simple a level that very little ability in verbal comprehension is required to obtain a high score. It is also possible to compose a test in which none of the first four aspects is present and the fifth aspect, verbal comprehension, is a cardinal requirement. Each test should be examined in terms of its combination of verbal requirements rather than simply classified as “verbal” are “non-verbal.”

Another distinction can be made among tests in terms of the way in which responses are made:

Nature of Response:

The responses are classified into two categories:

1. Symbolic Response:

The subject indicates the correct answer either through the use of language or by marking one of a number of choices. The symbolic response might be made with respect to objects rather than printed materials, although this is usually not done.

2. Manipulative Response or Performance:

The subject is required to handle objects in such a way as to complete a specified product. The product may be anything from a completely finished piece of machinery to the arrangement of a set of blocks.

Some items are not clearly differentiated in terms of the two kinds of responses. For example, in maze tracing, the child is required to coordinate the pencil and move to the goal—the response is as symbolic as it is manipulative.

It has been the custom to call instruments “performance” tests if the de-emphasize language requirements, employ three-dimensional materials and require manipulative responses. Because of these components, the performance tests usually measures more coordination, speed, perceptual and spatial factors.

Instruments are usually referred to as “verbal” tests if they are in printed forms emphasize verbal comprehension and require symbolic responses. Because of the case with which certain kinds of test materials can be placed on printed forms, the verbal tests tend to measure verbal comprehension, numerical computation, and the reasoning factors. There is no clear-cut separation between the factors found in verbal and performance tests, but there is a tendency for different factors to arise in the two kinds of materials.

In addition to the two extreme types of measures, one extreme type heavily involved in verbal requirements and the other extreme type almost exclusively manipulative, there is a third important type of test, which is variously referred to as “non-language”, “culture-free” and “culture-fair”. In this third type of test, the student is required neither to use and understand language nor to manipulate three dimensional objects. Rather, the test items consist of symbolic responses (multiple choices) to relationships among figures and designs. Such tests have a very important place. They avoid complete dependence on verbal ability apparently measure more important intellectual functions than do performance test.

Some Important Tests for Measuring Intelligence:

There are several tests for measuring intelligence. These are types—verbal, non-verbal and performance tests.

Some important intelligence have been used and discussed here:

1. Stanford-Binet Tests of Intelligence.

2. Wechster-Belleve Intelligence Test.

3. Thurstone’s Test of Primary Mental Abilities.

4. Non-verbal Test of Intelligence (Reven’s Progressive Matrices).

5. Culture Fair Intelligence Test.

6. Bhatia-Battery Performance Test.

(a) Alexander Pass along Test,

(b) Kohn’s Block Design Test and

(c) Picture Completion.