Theories of Intelligence

Theories of Intelligence

Theories of Intelligence: From Spearman’s g‑Factor to the Modern Cattell‑Horn‑Carroll Framework

What, exactly, does it mean to be “intelligent”? Since the dawn of psychometrics in the early 1900s, scholars have offered competing answers. This article walks readers through three of the most influential perspectives—the g‑factor, Sternberg’s Triarchic theory, and the Cattell‑Horn‑Carroll (CHC) model—tracing how each explains human cognitive performance, where they converge, and why the debate still matters for education, testing, and workforce policy.

Table of Contents

  1. Spearman’s g‑Factor: The Seed of Psychometrics
  2. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory: Beyond the Test Score
  3. Cattell‑Horn‑Carroll Theory: Fluid & Crystallized Intelligence in a Hierarchy
  4. Comparative Snapshot & Practical Implications
  5. Ongoing Debates & Future Directions
  6. End Notes

1. Spearman’s g‑Factor: The Seed of Psychometrics

1.1 Historical Context

British psychologist Charles Spearman (1904) analyzed school examination data and noticed a curious pattern: pupils who excelled in classics also tended to do well in math, music, and reasoning puzzles. Using the newly invented technique of factor analysis, Spearman extracted a single latent variable he called g (general intelligence) to explain this positive manifold of correlations. He argued that every cognitive task draws on two ingredients:

  • g — a universal mental energy
  • s — a task‑specific ability (e.g., verbal, spatial)

In Spearman’s view, differences in g were quantitative: some people simply had more of the general mental horsepower than others, much like lung capacity for athletes. IQ tests such as the Stanford‑Binet later operationalized g as a single index score. Today, the first (unrotated) factor of modern IQ batteries still accounts for roughly 35–50 % of the variance across sub‑tests—empirical support for Spearman’s century‑old insight.1

1.2 Strengths & Limitations

  • Predictive power: g correlates with academic success, job performance, and even health outcomes.
  • Parsimony: a single construct simplifies test development and statistical modeling.
  • Critiques: reductionist; under‑represents creativity, social savvy, motivation, and cultural context.

2. Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory: Beyond the Test Score

2.1 Three Facets of Intelligence

Dissatisfied with the narrow predictive lens of IQ, psychologist Robert Sternberg proposed in 1985 that intelligence is a set of mental self‑management skills expressed in three domains:

Component Core Processes Illustrative Tasks
Analytical Metacomponents (planning, monitoring), performance components (problem‑solving) Logic puzzles, standardized tests, academic essays
Creative Generating novel ideas, automating familiar responses Writing a short story, devising a new recipe, scientific discovery
Practical Adapting to, shaping, and selecting real‑world environments Navigating office politics, fixing a household appliance, street smarts

Sternberg argued that IQ exams measure mainly analytical intelligence, overlooking the creative insight that sparks innovation and the practical know‑how that determines success outside the classroom. He validated the model with diversified assessments—e.g., having students invent marketing campaigns (creative) or lay out furniture in a cramped room (practical)—and found that including these scores improved prediction of college GPA and job performance.2

2.2 Educational Impact

  • Curricula now include project‑based learning to cultivate creativity and problem transfer.
  • College admissions essays and portfolios attempt to tap practical & creative facets.
  • Standardized‑test designers (e.g., OECD PISA) add collaborative problem‑solving items in partial alignment with Sternberg’s critique.

3. Cattell‑Horn‑Carroll (CHC) Theory: Fluid & Crystallized Intelligence in a Hierarchy

3.1 From Two to Ten Broad Abilities

The CHC model is the culmination of 60+ years of factor‑analytic research by Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll. At its core lie two broad abilities:

  • Fluid intelligence (Gf) — reasoning skill in novel situations, independent of acquired knowledge.
  • Crystallized intelligence (Gc) — depth and breadth of learned information, language, cultural knowledge.

Carroll’s 1993 mega‑analysis integrated more than 460 data sets to reveal a three‑stratum hierarchy:

  1. General factor (g) at the top;
  2. Approximately 10 broad abilities (including Gf, Gc, processing speed Gs, visual‑spatial Gv, auditory Ga);
  3. 70+ narrow skills (e.g., phonetic coding, spatial relations, ideational fluency).

Most modern cognitive test batteries (WISC‑V, Woodcock‑Johnson IV) are explicitly built on CHC, making it today’s psychometric gold standard. Practitioners can tease apart a child’s strengths—say, high Gf but low processing speed—to tailor interventions.3

3.2 Development & Aging

  • Gf peaks in late adolescence, then gently declines.
  • Gc climbs through mid‑life as vocabulary and expertise accumulate.
  • Interactive lifespan curves explain why chess grandmasters can stay competitive even as raw speed wanes—their vast crystallized schemas compensate.

4. Comparative Snapshot & Practical Implications

Framework Structure Primary Contribution Applied Settings
Spearman g Single general factor + specific factors Statistical bedrock of IQ; predicts wide life outcomes Admissions, military screening, epidemiology
Sternberg Triarchic Three interacting intelligences (analytical, creative, practical) Broadens definition beyond academics Curriculum design, leadership training
CHC Hierarchical; 1 general, ≈10 broad, 70+ narrow abilities Fine‑grained diagnostic profiles Special‑education planning, neuropsych assessment

Take‑away: Use g when you need a quick, predictive summary; leverage CHC for diagnostic depth; embrace Sternberg when creativity and street‑savvy matter.

5. Ongoing Debates & Future Directions

  • Multiple Intelligences (Gardner) vs. g: empirical replication challenges but pedagogical appeal.
  • Cultural fairness: Scholars argue that g is partly an artifact of Western schooling; dynamic-assessment methods seek culture-reduced measures.
  • AI & Big Data: Machine-learning factor analyses of gameplay telemetry and digital footprints may refine or upend current taxonomies.
  • Neuroscience bridges: Fluid intelligence correlates with fronto-parietal network efficiency; creative insight with default-mode connectivity—offering biological anchors to long-standing psychological constructs.

End Notes

  1. Britannica entry on Charles Spearman and the g‑factor.
  2. Wikipedia overview of Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory (updated 2025).
  3. Oxford Bibliographies handbook on Cattell‑Horn‑Carroll theory (2024 ed.).

Disclaimer: This educational content summarises scholarly theories of intelligence for general audiences. It is not a diagnostic tool and should not replace formal assessments by licensed psychologists.

← Previous article                    Next article →

 

Back to top

Back to blog