BEHAVIOURAL DIMENSIONS OF INTELLIGENCE

2.4 BEHAVIOURAL DIMENSIONS OF INTELLIGENCE

Our theories of intelligence are, of course, incomplete, and consensus regarding a definition of intelligence has remained elusive despite more than a century of study (Jensen, 1998;

Sternberg, 2003; Sternberg & Detterman, 1986). A symposium of distinguished psychologists convened in 1921 produced fourteen different definitions, most somewhat different from the others. Another gathering of experts in 1986 did not fare much better, and some psychologists fear that not much progress has been made (Anderson, 2004). As a field of study, intelligence spans many disciplines, from neuropsychology to anthropology to education, and so a unitary definition is not likely to be formulated any time soon.

Nevertheless, at its core, intelligence should be able to explain and predict human behaviours that are considered of value (Lohman, 2004; Sternberg, 1985a).

Review of the literature regarding intelligence reveals two broad themes (Van Geert, 2003).

One is that intelligence is an ability or “…melange of many abilities that are interrelated in many ways” (Horn & Blankson, 2005, p.61) and can be seen to vary across individuals.

These include many processes normally associated with intelligence: information acquisition and storage, perception and discrimination, attention, learning, remembering, and reasoning to name a few (Jensen, 1998). Most of these are characteristics that could be attributed to all living organisms. In humans, however, this core of abilities must also be seen to contribute to the solving of complex problems - for example “…the writing of novels, the solving of complex mathematical problems, the designing of skyscrapers and microchips, and the myriad other forms of complex cognition valued by society” (Lohman, 2004, p. 225).

A second main theme is that of adaptability to the environment. Adaptability includes a number of subcomponents such as learning from experience, problem solving when faced with novel situations, and controlling one’s internal and external environments by moulding them when necessary. It involves capitalizing on strengths while at the same time compensating for weaknesses (Sternberg, 2003, 2009). Once again, these are qualities observable at some level in all living things. In addition to meeting the challenges of new situations, adaptability must also include purposefulness, or goal-directed behaviour (Newman & Just, 2004; Sternberg & Salter, 1982). According to Sternberg (1997),

“(I)ntelligence comprises the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context. According to this definition, intelligence is not just reactive to the environment but also active in forming it” (p. 1030).

Of particular importance in this study are the associations of cognitive ability with job performance and behaviours and attitudes regarding career exploration. I/O psychologists are divided on the issue of the importance of general mental ability for personnel selection and other aspects of work (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). On the one hand are those who argue that cognitive abilities are not good enough predictors (Goldstein, Zedeck, & Goldstein, 2002; Sternberg & Hedlund, 2002). On the other are those who point to research supporting its utility in predicting outcomes. According to Anderson (2004) “…intelligence tests are very good predictors of real-world accomplishments” (p. 271). Within the world of work, general mental ability has been found to be associated with job performance and career success, explaining perhaps 15 to 25% of individual differences (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Hunter, 1986; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and far above other factors such as structured interview or reference letters in selecting appropriate personnel (Muchinsky, 2006).

Gottfredson (1998) has claimed that “intelligence as measured by IQ tests is the single most effective predictor known of individual performance at school and on the job. It also predicts many other aspects of well-being…” (p. 24). Dilchert, Ones, Davis, and Rostow (2007), observed a substantial negative relationship between cognitive ability and counterproductive work behaviours such as work avoidance, abuse of resources, absenteeism, destruction of property, etc. In a large sample of police officers (> 1500), cognitive ability as measured by a standardized test (the Shipley Institute of Living Scale) significantly predicted both organizational and interpersonal counterproductive work behaviours. Ree and Earles (1991) found that psychometric g and not specific abilities (such as word knowledge, mathematics,

automotive, shop, or electronics knowledge for example) was the best predictor of success in job training in a massive group (>78 000) of air force enlistees. In a further study, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (1995) determined that general ability influenced work performance to a greater extent than did prior job knowledge. Hunter and Schmidt (1996) reported studies indicating g to be the best predictor for job performance when hiring personnel. In the last decade, however, it has become more clear that job performance can be defined in various ways and that, while task performance (proficiency in specific tasks that are associated with the organization’s primary objectives) is associated with intelligence, contextual performance (performance contributing to organizational effectiveness through the social and psychological context of the work environment) is more associated with personality (Chan, 2005).

2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY

The purpose of this chapter was to present the literature as it pertains to the study of intelligence and cognitive abilities. Because the literature is vast, it has been necessary to summarize theories, choosing only those aspects that are pertinent to the research at hand.

Implicit theories of intelligence were discussed. The concept of intelligence and intelligent behaviour is observed in most, if not all, cultural settings. Lay descriptions of intelligent behaviour vary somewhat from culture to culture, but there are common perceptions, for example, the ability to reason and problem solve, and the ability to demonstrate social competence.

In addition, explicit theories were discussed. Psychometric theories that have arisen as a result of observing people’s behaviours on tasks thought to require intelligence. Analyses of the data obtained from such tests have found a hierarchical structure with varying numbers of levels. At the topmost level there appears to be a common factor – g - which accounts for a goodly amount of the variance. Varying numbers of factors which correlate reasonably well with g have been investigated, suggesting that intelligence is, in fact, not a unitary construct.

Contextual theories extend the conceptualization of intelligent behaviour beyond the artificial atmosphere of the laboratory to its manifestation in everyday cultural contexts.

Intelligence becomes an interaction of the individual with his/her environment and the level of adaptability to the environment is an indication of level of intelligence.

As brain imaging techniques become more advanced, it is possible to better observe the brain’s structure and also its functioning as it processes information. Neurobiological research appears to demonstrate that there are structures associated with general intelligence and also with more specific abilities such as emotional functioning. In addition, individual differences in available neurological resources appear to impact cognitive abilities.

After over a century of study during which statistical techniques have been refined, there is still controversy regarding the nature of intelligence. The current consensus is that intelligence is demonstrated by an individual’s ability to adapt to the environment, learn new things, problem-solve, and create things which are of use in the setting in which the person lives.

Attempts to measure the complexity of intelligence are limited and there is no one measure that adequately predicts outcomes in all areas of life. Nevertheless, psychologists have developed instruments which do appear to predict outcomes in certain areas. The next chapter reviews the literature regarding a relative newcomer in the arena of individual differences assessment – emotional intelligence.

CHAPTER 3 EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature pertaining to the construct of emotional intelligence. The chapter will be structured so as to discuss the framework out of which the theory of emotional intelligence that guides this research has been formulated. The construct of emotion will be discussed as well as the current conceptualizations of emotional intelligence and its measurement. The relationship of emotional intelligence to other psychological constructs will be addressed. The chapter concludes with a summary.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to discuss what is meant by framework as distinct from theory. Drawing on the writings of Lewin (1951), Salovey and Pizarro (2003) distinguish between two types of theoretical models: frameworks, and theories. A framework is a model that attempts to organize a body of research so that components can be classified and simplified, and relationships between the various parts can be recognized. Framework construction occurs from the bottom up so that disparate foundational studies can be built upon and patterns observed. Commonalities can be better recognized, as well as important differences. It is from this scaffold that theories may be developed.

In contrast, a theory is a top-down construction that explains why certain phenomena occur and is useful for predicting possible outcomes. In the social sciences, and particularly in the field of psychology, theories are much less easily arrived at than for the hard sciences such as chemistry or physics, for example (Deary, 2001). Human behaviour is usually difficult to classify clearly, define accurately, or measure objectively, and while psychology research provides plenty of data, analysis of these data tend to produce results with an exceptional amount of ‘clutter’ or unexplained variance (Deary, 2001; Sternberg et al., 2003). As a consequence, experimental psychologists are reticent to accept theories that attempt to explain too much. Nevertheless, theories are necessary as a stimulus for new research (Salovey & Pizarro, 2003), and a theory that limits its scope to avoid the extraneous clutter is a desirable thing.

Research regarding emotional intelligence is the consequence of two areas of study in psychology in the last few decades of the 20^th century (Salovey, Brackett, & Mayer, 2004).

One was the reconceptualization of intelligence as a broader array of mental abilities, which has been discussed in the last chapter. The second was research investigating emotion and how emotion and thought influence one another. With respect to the framework therefore, the literature regarding the concept of emotions and how emotions interact with thought will be reviewed. Out of this, several theories regarding the nature of emotional intelligence have arisen. These varying conceptualizations will be discussed as well as their methods of assessment. In addition, the relationship to life outcomes will be discussed for the model used in this research.