A Case Study of the Role of Intelligence in Learning and Success

Sadegh Ghafari Farsania, Kamran Heidarib, Mehdi Pourbafranic, Zeinab Jafarid, Ali Ghafari Farsanie

M.A. in TEFL, Instructor, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Foreign languages, Farsan Center,
Payame Noor University, Farsan, Iran.
M.A. in TEFL, Instructor, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Foreign languages, Nain Center,
University of Applied Science and Technology, Nain, Iran.
M.A. in Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Psychology, Yazd Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Yazd, Iran.
M.A. in Educational Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Psychology, Instructor,
Farsan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Farsan, Iran.

Abstract This article states a definition of intelligence as comprising the mental abilities
necessary for adaptation to, as well as selection and shaping of any environmental context.
According to this definition, although the behavior that is labeled as intelligent may differ
from 1 environmental context to another, the mental processes underlying this behavior do
not. An individual's ability to apply these processes may differ from 1 context to another,
however. The abilities are applied to achieve external correspondence to the world and
internal coherence among various knowledge and belief structures. The relevance of the
definition for understanding current theories, testing in the field of intelligence, as well as for
understanding the role of intelligence in learning is discussed. Keywords: Learning, Success,
Intelligence.

Introduction: However, human

beings do not just adapt to the environment: They shape their environment and, at times,
select a new environment. It can propose, here, the following definition: Intelligence 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. It offers people an opportunity to respond flexibly to challenging situations.
Because the landscape of an environmental context changes over time, adequate adaptation,
shaping, and selection involve a process of life- long learning, one that starts in infancy and
continues

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

throughout the life span. To shape the environment or, ultimately, decide to select a new one,
an individual generally has to first learn how to adapt to the environment he or she is in.
Only then is the individual able to decide which features of this environment to accept and
which to reject. Intelligence, in this view, is a key to learning. At all points in life, intelligence serves
at least two broad functions: to establish (a) external correspondence and (b) internal coherence.
People achieve external correspondence when their beliefs about a phenomenon are veridical--
when they understand that phenomenon. For example, if we understand that if we touch a
very hot object, we may burn ourselves, we have achieved some degree of external
correspondence. People achieve internal coherence when their knowledge and beliefs about a
phenomenon are well and consistently connected, such that they do not contradict each
other. For example, if we understand fire as being hot, dangerous, used for cooking, and so on,
our beliefs have high internal coherence. They fit together well and do not contradict each other.
Internal coherence can achieve more sophisticated forms, as when individuals realize that
much of people's understanding of phenomena develops dialectically (Hegel, 1807/1931;
Labouvie-Vief, 1982; Pascual-Le- one, 1984, 1987; Sternberg, 1995). Ideas that seem in
compatible with, and even contradicting of, each other-- a thesis and antithesis--may prove to
be compatible through a synthesis either at a higher level of abstraction or when seen from a
different point of view. According to this view, individuals test the world much as a test tests
intelligence. People's beliefs have some measure of validity (external correspondence) and reliability
(internal coherence). A more intelligent, adaptive person has achieved a higher degree of
external correspondence and internal coherence in his or her knowledge base and belief
structures. People think unintelligently to the extent to which they make errors in achieving
external correspondence or internal coherence. For example, in believing in the gambler's
fallacy, a per- son fails in achieving external correspondence; in touching a hot stove despite
knowledge of the danger of doing so, a person fails in achieving internal coherence.

2. Review of Literature:

2.1. What is Intelligence?

Starting at the end of the definition, It can define intelligence as relevant to any environmental
context. This context has physical, biological, and cultural aspects, which may interact. For example,
cultural artifacts (from prescription glasses to computers) can facilitate adaptation to the
environment. But the same artifact (e.g., computers) that makes the environment more friendly
for some individuals may render it more hostile for others who are unable or unwilling to
adjust to the artifact. Although people usually think in terms of adaptation to the
environmental context, shaping and selection of environments can be important too. The
intelligent person, having come to understand the environmental context, may decide to reject
aspects of it and try either to change the environmental context or, ultimately, to find
another. Many of the most creatively and practically intelligent people those who have left a
lasting impact on others as well as themselves are people who have changed the environment,
not just for themselves but for others as well (Sternberg, 1985a, 1990, 1996; Sternberg &
Lubart, 1995, 1996). Mozart, Einstein, Churchill, and Picasso are

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

just four of many names that might come to mind, but many who have made some kind of
lasting impact may have left as their legacy their impact only on family and friends, not an
impact on the history books. In defining intelligence, researchers need to care- fully distinguish
among intelligence, intelligent behavior, and tested intelligence (see also Hebb, 1949).
Confusions among these three concepts have resulted, perhaps, in confusions regarding the
nature of intelligence. What constitutes intelligent behavior may differ from one environmental
context to another, even radically. For example, Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp (1971) pointed
out that the same sorting behavior that was considered intelligent among Western people
(i.e., sorting by taxonomic category) was considered foolish among members of the Kpelle tribe,
who valued a different kind of sorting behavior--sorting by functional category. Heath (1983)
and Okagaki and Sternberg (1991) have shown how different ethnic groups in the United
States may have different conceptions of what constitutes intelligent behavior, and It (1985b)
has shown how different professional groups may even have different conceptions of intelligent
behavior on the part of members of those groups. Each of the examples pertaining to
intelligence refers to differences in what constitutes intelligent behavior in one group versus
another. But the mental processes necessary to generate these diverse behaviors may actually
be the same. Intelligence, It can argue, has a common core of mental processes that manifests
itself behaviorally in different ways in different contexts (Sternberg, 1985a, 1988, 1996b). For
example, the ability to learn is important in any environmental context, but what is learned,
both in terms of declarative and procedural knowledge, may differ radically from one
environmental context to another. Thus, both the average American and the average Kpelle
need to learn to sort objects, but the learned kinds of rules, according to which they sort in
various situations (what constitutes intelligent behavior), may differ. As people pass through their
lives and pass from being novices to experts in a variety of domains (Chi, Glaser, & Farr,
1988), the rules that are considered acceptable may change. The distinction between
intelligence and intelligent behavior is important, in part, because there has been so much
confusion in the literature on intelligence regarding contextual generality versus specificity of
intelligence. To what extent is something that is intelligent in one cultural or subcultural context
intelligent in another (Sternberg, 1985a)? Much of the confusion may stem from the con-
founding of intelligent thinking with intelligent behavior. Because the same mental processes
may give rise to very different behaviors in different kinds of environmental contexts, tasks,
and specific situations, the processes but not the behaviors may be common across
environmental contexts. Among the core mental processes that may be key in any culture or
other environmental context (Sternberg, 1985a) are (a) recognizing the existence of the
problem, (b) defining the nature of the problem, (c) constructing a strategy to solve the
problem, (d) mentally representing information about the problem, (e) allocating mental re-
sources in solving the problem, (f) monitoring one's solution to the problem, and (g) evaluating
one's solution to the problem. Although the mental processes are common across
environmental contexts, people's ability, motivation, or decision to apply these processes
across contexts may not be equal. Thus, people may not appear equally intelligent behaviorally in
all settings. There are several reasons why discrepancies may arise. First, consider the question of
ability to apply mental processes. Mental processes operate on mental representations, and as
Anderson (1983) pointed out, it is difficult to isolate mental processes from the mental
representations on which they operate. Thus, someone might make good inferences in the
verbal domain, but not in the quantitative domain.

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

Simply measuring an abstract inferential processing ability would be inadequate, because the
person's ability in inferential processing could differ across the verbal and quantitative or
other representational do- mains (Sternberg & Gardner, 1983). Someone else might make
good inferences in the quantitative but not the figural domain. The result of these
differences is some amount of domain specificity in intellectual functioning. Second, consider
the question of motivation. Individuals may be differentially motivated to apply their mental
processes in different domains. Someone might have the ability to do equally well in linguistic
or mathematical work but simply decide that one or both of these activities are not
interesting. Or, lacking self-efficacy in a domain (Bandura, 1977), the individual may be
convinced by others or convince him- or herself that an ability is lacking and, therefore, not
take steps to display or even develop it. Some of our greatest potential poets, for example,
may never have tried to write even one line of poetry. The individual thus does not act in a
way that manifests intelligence as it is evaluated in that domain. Third, consider the question of
the decision to apply mental processes to behavior. Individuals may use mental processes to reach
a conclusion as to what is valued in the context in which they are operating and then
decide, for moral or other reasons, not to act on the conclusion they reach. We draw
conclusions about these processes from behavior, but these conclusions are not always
justified. For example, poor performance on an intelligence test might reflect poor processing of
information but also might reflect test anxiety, lack of motivation, inattention, or any number
of other variables. Why should individuals limit themselves to mental abilities? Because there are
abilities, such as the ability to see, hear, smell, or taste, that might otherwise come under the
rubric of intelligence. Why shouldn't they? These physical (rather than mental) abilities fail the
necessity test: They may be useful for contextual adaptation, but they are not necessary, at
least universally. People can, for example, lose their sense of smell or even their vision but adapt
well in many kinds of contextual settings and roles. What is probably necessary for adaptation is
the ability to form mental representations, which may be quite similar to those of people who
see, that are based on information gleaned from one's senses that are functioning. Whereas
the ability to see is not essential for intelligence, however, the loss of the ability to plan one' s
actions or mentally represent them will lead to poor con- textual adaptation in any setting.

2.2. Alternative Conceptions of Intelligence:

Where does our definition of intelligence leave the field with respect to the various kinds of
intelligence that some psychologists are now proposing, some of which involve abilities that
seem to go beyond the "mental"? Consider, for example, a construct such as emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). A priori, there is no reason not to posit
the abilities to understand and regulate emotions as a kind of intelligence. What re- searchers
would need to do is to determine whether these abilities pass the tests for a type of
intelligence. The abilities would seem to be universal, although, again, their behavioral
manifestations might differ some- what from one environmental context to another. Present
data suggest a separation of these abilities from conventional kinds of psychometrically
measured intelligence (Mayer & Geher, 1996), although further study is needed. What remains
to be shown is whether these abilities are necessary for

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

adaptation to the environmental context, a demonstration that, as for any other kind of
intelligence, requires a somewhat extensive construct validation that has yet fully to be
conducted. Various abilities that have in fact been posited as relevant to intelligence in the
past do not pass the tests for intelligence described here, including musical and bodily
kinesthetic intelligence (Gardner, 1983). In particular, these abilities are not universally necessary
for adaptation to, selection of, or shaping of environments, al- though they might be
necessary in particular cultural contexts. (Of course, other criteria can be and have been
proposed to identify what constitutes intelligence [e.g., Gardner, 1983]). Thus, these abilities
do not meet the criteria set out here, although they meet other criteria set out by Gardner
(1983). In contrast, skills such as planning or evaluating would be necessary in any
environment and evolutionarily serve a kind of adaptive function for survival that, say, musical
abilities do not. Practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1985a; Stern- berg & Wagner, 1986, 1993;
Sternberg, Wagner, & Okagaki, 1993) has been studied over a somewhat longer period of
time and seems to show evidence of the kind of construct validity necessary to label it as a
valid kind of intelligence. In particular, practical intelligence is relatively independent of
(analytical) intelligence as measured by conventional tests, and it predicts various kinds of
school and job performances over and above the pre- diction provided by other kinds of
existing tests (Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995). In school, our research has
shown that practical intelligence can contribute to the prediction of grades and that when
stu- dents who rate high in practical intelligence are taught in a way that lets them capitalize
on this form of intelligence, they perform better than when they are taught in standard ways
that do not permit such capitalization (Sternberg & Clinkenbeard, 1995; Sternberg, Ferrari,
Clinkenbeard, & Grigorenko, 1996). In our own work to date (Lubart & Sternberg, 1995;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1992, 1995, 1996), we have been unable to attain the same kind of
separation of creative intelligence from analytical intelligence that we have attained for
practical intelligence. Moreover, the universal necessity of creative intelligence is probably less
clear at this point. Thus, creative intelligence perhaps remainsonly as a "candidate intelligence,"
rather than as one whose existence has been clearly demonstrated. Yet another kind of
intelligence is social intelligence (e.g., Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987; Ford & Tisak, 1983; Keating,
1978; Sternberg & Smith, 1985). This construct has been conceptualized in different ways. For
example, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1987) emphasized the possession of knowledge and beliefs and
the repertoire of skills that a person uses to negotiate social interactions. Sternberg and Smith
(1985) emphasized certain communicational skills, especially nonverbal ones. Except, perhaps, for
utter hermits, people live in a social world, where the absence of social-intellectual skills
would be a severe limitation on a person's ability to successfully adapt to their environment.
Learning to adapt to the environment is a key to success. But do all students get an equal
opportunity to learn to adapt? Finally, of course, there is the kind of more academically oriented
intelligence that is measured by various kinds of conventional tests. Myriad studies have
shown the importance of academic intelligence in academic work and, to some extent, in life
success (see Carroll, 1993; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994; Hunt, 1995; Schmidt & Hunter, 1993).
This kind of analytical intelligence is probably measured reasonably well but imperfectly for
many people acculturated to the demands of such tests. It is needed for remembering
information, for critiquing it, and for deciding on its value. People need to recognize,
however, that success in almost any job requires creative and practical

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

6
skills (as well as noncognitive attributes) that conventional intelligence tests do not measure
(Sternberg, 1996b).

2.3. The Concept of Intelligence in Relation to School and Learning:

The ability to learn has historically occupied a central place in definitions of intelligence;
indeed, it is hard to find any definition or theory that would not include this ability (which is
multifaceted) as an aspect of intelligence. But the ability to learn provides a good case study of
both the prospects and the pitfalls that people encounter in the study of intelligence. Early
research on the relation between learning and intelligence surprisingly led to many weak or
even negative findings (see review by Estes, 1982). At face value, this situation might seem
rather absurd--how could the ability to learn not be related to intelligence? If it were not
found to be related, then one might conclude, at least tentatively, that there was something
wrong with the tests of learning, the tests of intelligence, or both. Later research showed that
there was definitely something wrong with the tests of learning, at least as measures of
intelligence and quite possibly as measures of realistic learning. In particular, the kinds of
simple laboratory-based learning used in the early tests (such as serial recall of digits, which is
still found on tests of intelligence such as the Wechsler) were not the best predictors of
school or other forms of achievement (Campione & Brown, 1990; see also Neisser, 1982). If,
or as, individuals expand the kinds of abilities that they care about for learning in the school
or job context (Gardner, 1983, 1993; Steinberg, 1994, 1996b), they may find that they need to
expand the ways in which intelligence is tested to predict that learning. Researchers
commonly agree that fluid intelligence as psychometrically tested often decreases in old age and
that crystallized intelligence may continue to increase or, at least, that it may avoid decline (see
Horn, 1986, 1994; Salthouse, 1996). To the extent that researchers accept the definition of
intelligence proposed in this article, what happens to intelligence can be seen only in terms of
the abilities relevant to the culturally based tasks that a person confronts at different points in
the life span. It is for this reason that the mechanism of selective optimization with
compensation proposed by Baltes and his colleagues (e.g., Baltes, Dittmann-Kohli, & Dixon, 1984)
may be so important for understanding intelligence. According to Bakes et al., as people age,
they learn to make good use of the abilities they have that remain intact, at the same time
that they learn to compensate for the abilities they are losing. In general, what is needed for
learning and functioning may differ at varying points in the life span. Researchers (Sternberg,
1997; Sternberg & Clinkenbeard, 1995; Sternberg et al., 1996), have found that a broader
conception of the learning and thinking abilities that are underlying human intelligence can make
a constructive difference in the context of schooling. In this conception, students are given
more flexibility to use their mental abilities to adapt to and shape their environmental
contexts. Theory-in this case, the triarchic theory of human intelligence (Stemberg, 1985a) is
put into practice in a way that potentially might benefit all students. It was selected a set of
199 high school students on the basis of their scores on the Stemberg Triarchic Abilities Test
(Sternberg, 1993), a research test used to measure analytical, creative, and practical abilities as
measured by three kinds of multiple-choice items verbal, quantitative, and figural--as well as
three essay items, with each one focusing on either analytical, creative, or practical

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

7

abilities. As examples, analytical abilities are measured verbally by having individuals' learn
meanings of words in context, or through verbal essays by individuals' writing about the
comparative ad- vantages and disadvantages of armed security guards in schools; creative
abilities are measured quantitatively by individuals' performing novel numerical operations; and
practical abilities are measured figurally by individuals' planning routes using maps and
diagrams. Analytical, creative, and practical scores on this test are moderately intercorrelated
when observed scores are used but only weakly correlated after controlling for method
variance (multiple choice vs. essay). In the research of my colleagues and I, the test showed
no substantial General factor, presumably because it measures a broader range of abilities than
does a conventional test. The analytical section showed the highest correlations with conventional
psychometric ability tests, followed by the creative section, and then the practical section,
which was only weakly correlated with the conventional tests. Students were identified either
as (a) high-analytical, (b) high-creative, (c) high-practical, (d) high in all three abilities, or (e) low
in all three abilities. The students were then placed in sections of a college-level introductory
psychology course that emphasized primarily (a) memory-based learning and thinking, (b)
analytical learning and thinking, (c) creative learning and thinking, or (d) practical learning and
thinking. For example, in a memory-oriented course, individuals might be tested on the main
tenets of psychodynamic and cognitive theories of depression; in an analytically oriented
course, they might be asked to compare and contrast the theories; in a creatively oriented
course, to generate their own theory; and in a practically oriented course, to apply an existing
theory to help a depressed friend. All students were then evaluated for (a) memory- based
achievement, (b) analytically based achievement, (c) creatively based achievement, and (d)
practically based achievement. For example, students might have been asked to remember the
main details of an experiment (memory), analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the
experiment (analytical), generate their own experiment (creative), or apply the results of an
experiment to their lives (practical). Evaluations included homework assignments, examinations
(including both multiple-choice and essay items), and an independent project, all of which were
assessed for all four kinds of achievements. The critical manipulation was that students were
randomly placed into instructional groups so that they were either matched (e.g., a high-
creative student in instruction that emphasized creative learning and thinking) or mismatched
(e.g., a highcreative student in instruction that emphasized memory-based learning and thinking)
to their ability grouping. It is important to note that although instructional conditions
emphasized one kind of thinking and learning or another, they were not "pure." The text
(Sternberg, 1995b) contained instruction that fostered memory- based, analytical, creative, and
practical learning and thinking. Moreover, all students received the same morning lectures. The
experimental manipulation occurred in the afternoon, when students were assigned to sections
that emphasized only one kind of instruction or another. In the ideal classroom, it is
important not only to help students capitalize on strengths but also to compensate for and
remediate weaknesses. All students need a balance of all kinds of instruction and
assessment. We found that those students who received instruction that better matched their
ability profile performed significantly and substantially better than did those who were
mismatched. Moreover, multiple regression analysis revealed that prediction of course
performance was significantly improved by considering creative and practical in addition to
International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

analytical abilities. An interesting and unexpected finding was that students who identified as
high in creative or practical abilities were substantially more ethnically and socioeconomically
diverse than were students identified as high in the more conventionally measured analytical
abilities. Narrow ability testing may thus result in underrepresentation of certain groups in the
intellectual talent pools identified by such tests.

3. Discussion: when students learn in a way that lets them capitalize on their strengths as
well as compensate for and remediate weaknesses, they perform better than when they are
taught in standard ways. The proposed diversification of instruction as well as assessment
means that students need to adapt to instruction that is not compatible with their profile of
abilities, but they also can shape their learning environments to best capitalize on the
strengths in their ability profiles. Moreover, all students potentially learn better when they
are able to multiply encode subject matter taught to them in a variety of ways. In recent
research (Sternberg, Torff, & Grigorenko, 1997), we have found that both third- and eighth-
grade students who are taught social studies or science triarchically outperform students who
are taught traditionally or for critical thinking, not only on performance-based tests but on
multiple-choice, fact-based tests as well. From an educational standpoint, people will better
identify intellectual talent when they start to think of intellectual talent in broader terms. The
triarchic theory provides one way of enhancing students' abilities to adapt to and shape their
environmental contexts and, ultimately, to select the environmental context in which they will
make their career or other contribution, but it is certainly not the only theory that might be
used. Other theories might also be shown to provide such flexibility (e.g., Carroll, 1993;
Gardner, 1983). These results have broad implications for accomplishment because our current,
narrower conceptualizations of abilities create a closed system in which a narrow subset of
talented students--those high in memory and analytical abilities--are benefited at all points in
the system. They do better on ability tests, learn better in courses where the instruction is
geared to them, and then perform better on achievement tests that measure these restricted
kinds of learning. The appearance is thus created of highly valid ability tests that predict to
highly valid achievement tests, when in fact the validity is created by having the same bias in
the criterion as in the predictor. Students with creative and practical abilities are essentially
"iced out" of the system, because at no point are they much allowed to let their abilities
shine through and help them perform better in school. In effect, they become the "green" or
"purple" people who appear to be intellectually lacking but perhaps because the conventional
standards for evaluating abilities are lacking. The result is that career paths may be barred to
intellectually talented individuals who potentially could stand to make great contributions.
Budding psychologists with outstanding creative or practical abilities- ones who might become
brilliant theorists, experimentalists, or clinicians, for example--might never be allowed to make
their potential contributions because they receive neither the ability-test scores nor the
grades that would enable them to enter the fast-track, or perhaps any track, to success in
their chosen field (Sternberg, 1994). They may be forced to switch to a less challenging and
rewarding field or to a less challenging and rewarding pro- gram within their chosen field,
because they are denied the optimal access routes that would enable them to achieve the
success they seek. The same principle applies, of course, to careers other than psychology

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

as well. In any field, low performance on narrow ability tests or in introductory courses that
emphasize abilities that later will be largely irrelevant for excellence in the field can result in
people being sidetracked and ultimately derailed from career success.

4. Conclusion:

The view it can be taken here is that our society needs a broad and principled understanding of
just what is meant by intelligence and a principled way of determining just what criteria an
ability must pass to be viewed as a part of intelligence. These steps will provide people the basis
for understanding not only what intelligence is but what place it has in preparing for learning
and success. It has been proposed here a definition of intelligence that posits one set of such
criteria for understanding intelligence: the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well
as shaping and selection of, any environmental context. This definition can lead us to a broader
conceptualization of the role of intelligence in learning.

References:

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baltes, E B., Dittmann-Kohli, E, & Dixon, R. A. (1984). New perspectives on the development of
intelligence in adulthood: Toward a dual- process conception and a model of selective
optimization with compensation. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and
behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 33-76). New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a
unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 181-215. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides L.,
& Tooby J. (1992). The adapted mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Binet, A., & Simon, T.
(1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore: Williams & Wilson. (Original work
published, 1905) Buss, D.M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological
science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30. Campione, J. C., & Brown A. L. (1990). Guided learning and
transfer: Implications for approaches to assessment. In N. Frederiksen, R. Glaser, A. Lesgold, & M.
Shafto (Eds.), Diagnostic monitoring of skill and knowledge acquisition (pp. 141-172). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J. E (1987). Social intelligence: The cognitive basis of personality.
In E Shaver (Ed.)., Review ofpersonali~, and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 15-34). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of
expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, M., Gay, J., Glick, J., & Sharp, D.W. (1971). The cultural
context of learning and thinking. New York: Basic Books. Estes, W. K. (1982). Models of learning,
memory and choice: Selected papers. New York: Praeger.

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

10
Ford, M. E., & Tisak, M. S. (1983). A further search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 197-206. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind." The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New
York: Basic Books. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Heath, S.
B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The
organization of behavior. New York: Wiley. Hegel, G. W. E (1931). The phenomenology of mind
(2nd ed.; J.B. Baillie, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin. (Original work published 1807) Herrnstein,
R.J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York:
Free Press. Horn, J. L. (1986). Intellectual ability concepts. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the
psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 3, pp. 35- 77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Horn, J. L, (1994).
Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The encyclopedia of human
intelligence (VoL 1, pp. 443-451). New York: Macmillan. Hunt, E. (1995). Will we be smart enough?
A cognitive analysis of the coming workforce. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Intelligence and its
measurement: A symposium. (1921). Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123-147, 195-216, 271--
275. Jerison, H. J. (1982). The evolution of biological intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.).,
Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 723-791). New York: Cambridge University Press. Keating, D.
P. (1978). A search for social intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 218-223. Labouvie-
Vief, G. (1982). Dynamic development and nature autonomy: A theoretical prologue. Human
Development, 25, 161 - 191. Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R.J. (1995). An investment approach to
creativity: Theory and data. In S.M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition
approach (pp. 269-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional
intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-I 13. McDermott, R. P. (1974).
Achieving school failure: An anthropological approach to illiteracy and social stratification. In G.
Spindler (Ed.), Education and the cultural process (pp. 82-118). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Neisser, U. (1979). The concept of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D.K. Detterman (Eds.), Human
intelligence: Perspectives on its theory and measurement (pp. 179-189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Neisser, U. (Ed.). (1982). Memory observed." Remembering in natural contexts. San Francisco:
Freeman. Okagaki, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Cultural and parental influences on cognitive
development. In L. Okagaki & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Directors of development: Influences on the
development of children's thinking (pp. 101-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pascual-Leone, J. (1984).
Attentional, dialectic, and mental effort. In M. L. Commons, E A. Richards, & C. Armon (Eds.),
Beyond formal operations (pp. 182-215). New York: Plenum.

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

11

Pascual-Leone, J. (1987). Organismic processes for neo-Piagetian theo- ries: A dialectical causal
account of cognitive development. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 531-570. Salovey, P., &
Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.
Psychological Review, 103, 403-428. Schmidt, E L., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Tacit knowledge, practical
intelligence, general mental ability, and job knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
1, 8-9. Steele, C., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-812. Sternberg, R. J.
(1985a). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607- 627. Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The triarchic mind." A new
theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of mind:
Conceptions of the nature of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J.
(1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test. Unpublished test. Sternberg, R. J. (1994). A triarchic model
for teaching and assessing students in general psychology. General Psychologist, 30(2), 42-48.
Sternberg, R.J. (1995a). For whom the bell curve tolls: A review of The Bell Curve. Psychological
Science, 6, 257-261. Sternberg, R. J. (1995b). In search of the human mind. Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace. Sternberg, R. J. (1996a). Myths, countermyths, and truths about intelligence. Educational
Researcher, 25(2), 11 - 16. Sternberg, R. J. (1996b). Successful intelligence. New York: Simon &
Schuster. Steinberg, R.J. (1997). Educating intelligence: Infusing the triarchic theory into school
instruction. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp.
343-362). New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Clinkenbeard, P. (1995). A
triarchic view of identi- fying, teaching, and assessing gifted children. Roeper Review, 17, 255 -260.
Sternberg, R.J., & Detterman D. K. (Eds.). (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints
on its nature and definition. Sternberg, R. J., Ferrari, M., Clinkenbeard, P. R., & Grigorenko, E. L.
(1996). Identification, instruction, and assessment of gifted children: A construct validation of a
triarchic model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 129-137. Sternberg, R. J., & Gardner, M. K. (1983).
Unities in inductive reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 80-116.
Sternberg, R.J., & Lubart, T.I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 1-5.

International Academic Journal of Humanities, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1-12.

12

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of
conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.
American Psychologist, 51, 677-688. Sternberg, R. J., & Smith, C. (1985). Social intelligence and
decoding skills in nonverbal communication. Social Cognition, 2, 168-192. Sternberg, R. J., Torff, B.,
& Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Teaching triarchically improves school achievement. Manuscript
submitted for publication. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.). (1986). Practical intelligence:
Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R, J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The gocentric view of intelligence and job performance is
wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1-5. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., &
Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit knowledge in work and at
school. In H. Reese & J. Puckett (Eds.), Advances in lifespan development (pp. 205-227). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum. Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M., & Horvath, J.A. (1995). Testing common
sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912- 927. Sternberg, R.J., & Williams, W.M. (1997). Does the GRE
predict meaningful success in the graduate training of psychologists? A case study. American
Psychologist, 52, 630-641. Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins. Wechsler, D. (1958). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence
(5th ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal New York: Vintage.