How have psychologists attempted to explain the concept of intelligence?

For majority of psychologist term of intelligence describes individual characteristic, which separate human from different individual. Exist many attempts to explain the intelligence as neutral and typical ability of human mind and cognitive performance. Like that description is not concentrate on the individual difference but on the individual trait which is agility to think reasoning and anther cognitive process. Many of psychologists allege that there is general factor called intelligence.

The idea of the word intelligence we can accredit to Latin philosopher Ceceron who use the word intelligence to describing the phenomenon of intellectual ability.

Fairly is widespread view that intelligence is psychophysical feature which is characteristically for the individual in the effectiveness to the task performing to engage intellectual process and reasoning and deduction.

According to researchers J. Piaget (1963) intelligence is an ability to resolve a problem hi saying more about intellectual behaviour, than about intelligence. J. Piaget want to emphasise that essence of intelligence as a mind process to understand, reasoning, deduction, to compare, detection which is changing in relation of the problem. (J. Piaget 1963.).

E. Hunt argue that “intelligence is a ability to processing the information”
The ambition of each Psychologists is to give they own definition of intelligence. Maybe the number and variety of the definition is showing to as how difficult is to put in word her essence.

Herein this essay we will not analyze all the definition of intelligence but we will concentrate on the intelligence theory which is most talk about and the mostly occur and which have the mostly impact on the development theory and research. Deliberation on the intelligence concept we will start from presenting the work of Charles Spearman (1904), Roberta Sternberga (1980), Raymond B. Cattell (1952).

In order to examine the questions whether or not psychologists attempted explain the concept of intelligence it will be necessary to offer theory of intelligence given by these psychologists themselves, and look at their understanding of the concept of intelligence.

One of the first psychologists which attempted to explain the concept of intelligence is Charles Spearman. This English psychologist is a pioneer in the factor analysis.

C. Spearman (1904) has given start to the new methodology which discovering and gives classification to the abilities measure by test.

In order to present the explanation of the concept of intelligence will be necessary to provide evidence of the intelligence theory given by Charles Spearman
Charles Spearman initiates the modern awareness of the human intelligence. In 1904 hi carry out experiment for residents of his neighbourhood of 24 children from village school in Berkshire. These tests were done on a one- to – one basis. In the time following Spearman continuo the sample with 36 oldest children from the same school. In 1904 and 1921 Spearman hi examine the result of the mind task. Hi collected the date from individual and analysed the relation between them using the variety of intelligence tests and to subject them to factor analysed.

Hi found positive correlation between intelligence tests were the main factor predicated the quality of children work in different task and hi name it factor “g”. Spearman used this idea of the many different positive form to propose a “Two factor theory of intelligence”.

The “Two factor theory of intelligence” which signifies that to make the mind task is necessary to use the general intellectual abilities (factor g) also the specific abilities (factor s).

According to the Spearman (1927) the “two factor theory”, and all human abilities accumulate around two independent factors: general factor (communal) – “g”, and specific factor “s”.

Factor “g” can be name as general intelligence. This factor appears in the same extent in all human abilities- according to Spearman (1927) this factor is identified as inherent mental energy. All intellectual functions are saturate by factor “g”. In distinguishing from all other factors, factor “g” cannot be link up with other single abilities. According to Wechsler (1958, p. 124) factor “g” in the essence is not just abilities is characteristic of mind.

Spearman observe that for each separate type of intelligence is needed each separate type of specific test of intelligence. The purpose of specific factor “s” is specific abilities which are suitable to specific function which are characteristic to some intellectual function.

The specific ability reflex our cultural condition and range of our experience.
Therefore hi named the mathematic intelligence is a specific ability, manual intelligence is a specific ability, cooking intelligence is specific abilities, and vocabulary intelligence is a specific ability.

Next psychologists which attempt explain the concept of intelligence as factor analysis is Raymond B. Cattell (1952). Hi proposes the explanation of the “liquid and crystallized theory of intelligence”.

The theory of “fluid and crystallized general abilities,” will be found to be not one factor but two principal classes or dimensions. One is crystallized ability “gc” which are influence of process of early learning, life experience, and cognitive performance were become crystallized as a result of experience. The second are fluid ability “gf” is a outcome of influence of biological factor on the intellectual development. The factor “gf” is under condition of the brain and strong genetic factor. This factor influence all mind ability.

The fluid intelligence (gf) depending on genetic structure of brain function. The changes in the fluid intelligence are related to groiing up process, also the generation of the brain cell so the changes have developing character. The fluid intelligence can be clearly identified in the literal tests, which showing the connection between elements.

Crystallized intelligence (gc) develop o the fluid intelligence in the process of learning and gating life experience. The crystallized intelligence are determine by culture. To measure the crystallized intelligence psychologists used the traditional tests of intelligence. On proof of the tests psychologists can measure verbal ability, numerous ability, also rational ability which are base on rules of logic. Crystallized intelligence different then fluid intelligence develop t the oldest age sets in after about 70. Crystallized abilities continue to improve as individuals age (Horn & Cattell, 1967). People in the oldest age also have high effect of the characteristic intellectual function.

We cannot dill with the problematic of the intelligence without propos knowledge and understudying of the scientific concept. The understanding of intelligence give allots of problem to psychologists. From one side the problem is coming from the historical capture of the intellectual essence in relation of the epoch fascination (behaviourism and cognitive).

From another side the contemporary psychologists do not agree unanimously what is intelligence. Seem appear that the many years of the research convince them that they dealing with secret and complicated process, which cannot presented in simple way and is difficult to investigate and explored t the standard methodological instrument or tool. Become visible that us interior is the biggest world secret, which escape from objective analyse.

References.
D. K. Simonton. An interview with Dr. Simonton. In J. A. Plucker, editor, Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources. http://www.indiana.edu/∼intell, 2003.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966a). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1967). Age differences in fluid and crystallized intelligence. Acta Psychologica, 26, 107-129.

Horn, J.L. (1965). Fluid and crystallized intelligence: A factor analytic study of the structure among primary mental abilities. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Illinois.

J. Piaget. The psychology of intelligence. Routledge, New York, 1963.

Piaget, J. (1936, 1963) The origins of intelligence in children. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1954, 1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Review, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1963, 2001). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Routledge.

Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2000b) Handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (1986). What is intelligence? Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.

Sternberg, R.J. (1991). Theory-based testing of intellectual abilities: rationale for the triarchic abilities test. In H.A.

Rowe (Ed.), Intelligence: reconceptualization and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sternberg, R.J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level H). Unpublished test.

Sternberg, R.J. (1994a). Experimental approaches to human intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 153–161.

Sternberg, R.J. (1994b). Changing conceptions of intelligence and their impact upon the concept of giftedness: The triarchic theory of intelligence. In J.L. Genshaft, M. Bireley, & C.L. Hollinger (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students (pp. 33–47). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.

Have the Psychologist anything useful to say about love?

It is fair to say that the concept of love is one that has so many definitions and manifestations across the world and probably, across related disciplines of psychology, that trying to estab-lish whether psychologists have anything useful to say about it would present difficulties. The second area has so many definitions and manifestations in the concept of what is “useful”.

In order to examine the questions whether or not psychologists have anything useful to say about love, it will be necessary to offer definitions given by these psychologists themselves, and look at their understanding of the concept of what is “useful” in these terms.

The work of Robert Sternberg (1986), John Alan Lee (1974) C. Yela Garcia (1996), Beverly Fehr (1988), Carl Rogers (1946), A. Aron and L. Westbay (1996) will be referred to in order to establish a positive conclusion about the usefulness of their perceptions and beliefs about the phenomena that is “love”
Psychologist and Social Scientist Robert Sternberg (1986) proposed a triangular theory of love that described love as having three general components passion, intimacy, decision and commitment. This is acknowledged as the “Typology of love relationship”.

According to Sternberg intimacy is a trait which changes in time of relationship. Intimacy is closeness to the second person, all positive feeling and operations which increases attachment to each other.
Robert Sternberg (1986) suggest that intimacy is like “burnt desire” to each other, feeling re-spect for each other, be able to count on partner, be complementary to each other, share spiri-tual and material experience, give and receive support from each other, experience happiness in a presence of partner, exchange intimate information about each other and consider partner as an important part of life. Emotions which are bundled in intimacy are result of communi-cation between partners and loved ones.

Dynamics of intimacy changes over time. In the beginning of love intimacy is low, and grows with time of relationship, and drops down after it reaches maximum.

A second component of love is passion which means experience of strong emotions in both relations good and bad. When intensity of passion is high people start to experience feelings like craving, happiness, longing, titillation, joules and unease. Those emotions are surrounded by a motivation to connect with object of love, physical callousness, and sexual contact. Very often Love is identified with passion.

Dynamic of passion. In an early stage of liking passion is really strong and is not liable to managing by self-knowledge. Subject does not have influence on dropping passions.

Passion can grow really quickly and in the same time can drop immediately and this fact is unavoidable. However dropping down of passions is not equivalent to ending of love.

And the last component is decision /commitment. Engagement and maintenance of the rela-tionship is all the action with target which transforms the relationship in love. It is a deliberate decision that happens in relationship. So the commitment is a component of love, the intensity of which everyone can control. Strong commitment can be effectual factor to support relationship. In relationship where partner is happy with each other commitment is the strongest factor which supports the feeling of love between them.

Dynamic of the commitment. In beginning of love when two people decide be together com-mitment gradually grows. When commitment reaches maximum stage, it will stay in the rela-tionship till the end.

In order to establish the usefulness of this theory it is important to provide the evidence from research of C. Yela Garcia (1996) who conductecd a study where she used Sternberg’s model as a conduct to try prove whether such proportions can be created only in four compo-nents: Erotic Passion, Romantic Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment. She tested the dynamic side of the model, that is, the temporal path of the components throughout a relationship.

The result supports the three components of love (including items from Sternberg theory) be-ing and existing in love relationships: “Being in love”, “Passional love” and “Companionate love”. (C. Yela Garcia 1996). These studies suggest that the Sternberg model can be used as explanation for love.

Additional usefulness of love theory is important to recognize the weaknesses of Sternberg theory. The simplification and condensation of the dimensions to just three: passion, intimacy and commitment can reduce the realistic understanding of love. Love often plays a significant role in people’s lives because phenomenon have an effect on experience and behaviour, and because a precise understanding of these conceptions may advance understanding of other aspects of love in relationship.

Love means sacrifice, love can be unconditional, devotion to the partner and attachment to love one, if love is all those thinks how we can say that have just three main dimension which are equally important. That can suggest that the simplification of the phenomenon can influence the psychologist’s description of love.

The Triangular Model of Love as well has a lot of strength and it has supporting evidence provide d by another psychologist. Beverly Fehr In 1988 presented a study where participants were given questionnaires where the source was Sternberg’s theory of love. She asked people to describe love in their own words and after that she analysed the responses. In the result she found three factors which are linked to the three components of Sternberg’s Theory of love. This result can insinuate that the Triangular theory of Love is provable and can be demon-strated as one of the psychological explanations for the dimension of love.

Another strength of the Triangular Theory of Love is that it can be used in counselling ther-apy which Carl Rogers (1946) named as “Love theory and Love Therapy”. Rogers developed a client –centred, person –centred method to counselling. For example commitment is impor-tant in relationship and helps both of the partners keep the relation together. Lack of com-mitment can make one of the partners want to change the situation and end the relationship. In counselling therapy this important factor of relationship can be revived and can help save love in the relationship. This approach suggests that it can be helpful for people to stay in control of one’s own belief and feelings and not to be influenced or controlled by other peo-ple. Additionally professionals can use Sternberg’s theory of love to improve people life through the counselling therapy.

Furthermore A. Aron and L. Westbay (1996) conducted a research which focused on concept of love, love experience in relationship. Such research is very important because love is in high position and has a big influence on people’s lives. The result of the study indicates that people’s concept of love and of their experience of love both have the same three-dimensional structure which related to the Sternberg three dimensions of love passion commitment and intimacy.

Making further literature review, we are able to find some weaknesses of the Sternberg Tri-angular Theory. The different value between the cultures show Sternberg’s three dimensions of love: passion, intimacy, and commitment in slightly darkness light because in the non-western world like India, China and most importantly Thailand people have certain types of judgements e.g. they value more commitment in relationship than passion (Sampson 1977). The conformity to role and duty in family are more importance then freedom of personal right. The Sternberg’s triangular theory and the meaning of the three component of love: passion, commitment and intimacy are not equally important in the non-western society. This suggests that the Triangular model fails when we looking for cultural differences in the society.

In addition to alternative love theories which are in use by Psychologists it is important to present the second theory which is one of the more interesting theories proposed by Johan Alan Lee (1973).Theoretical model of love identifies three primary Types of love style:

Eros is a romantic, passionate love where intimacy connects both partners and they believe in friendship forever. Eros lovers are verbally and physically expressive. Source of the passion is happiness. This type of love we can collate to love between siblings. The most important is to be with partner spiritually. This type of love can defeat any obstacle and barrier.

Second type of love style is Ludus. Ludus treat love as a play ground. In this game it is im-portant to be a winner, show better qualification and prove who is more important in the rela-tionship. Sex in this relationship has a form to satiate self- needs. If some problems appear in the sexual sphere, both of the partners will look for another lover rather fix the problem. In expression of Ludus often we can observe concentration on themselves.

The last one is Storge .In this love style the lovers are impressed by each other, they believe in love from first sight. The partner wants be similar and spend all the time together. Sex de-velops late in relationship.

Besides theory of love style Lee presents the three important compounds of love:

The first one is Mania (Eros + Ludus) -Both of the partner experience strong need for love. Partners are obsessed and jealous of each other. The relationship is stressful for both of the partners. Each partner needs constant attention. Low self -esteem. Short- lived.

Pragma (Ludus + Storge) – Love in this relationship is logical, rational. Love is based on practical compatibility rather then an extraordinary chemistry.

Agape. (Eros + Storge) = Altruistic style of loving, undemanding, chaste, sacrificing. The style of loving is a sense of duty without reciprocation and respect.

We have thus seen in this report that there is no single definition of Love. Love has been de-fined differently by psychologists and there is no single magical definition that best describes love. We have also seen the usefulness of love from different view points. We have discussed how different psychologists have used love to understand relationships and in some cases find solutions to common relationship and behavioural problems.

References

Aron, A., & Strong, B. (1995). The prototype of sex and its relation to the prototype of love. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Aron, A., Westbay, L.,(1996). “Dimensions of the Prototype of Love” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, Vol. 70, No. 3,535-551

Bardis, P. (1971). Erotometer: A technique for the measurement of heterosexual love. Inter-national Review of Sociology, J, 71-77 European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 4, 557-579.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 425-438.

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Harris, P. L. (1983). What children know about the situations that provokes emotion. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (eds.). The socialization of affect, New York: Plenum

Hendrick, C, & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

Hendrick, C, & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 784-794.

Hendrick, S. & Hendrick, C. (1992). Romantic Love. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hendrick, S. S. and Hendrick, C. (1986) A theory and method of love, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1989, May). Love and sex attitudes: A decade of research. Paper presented at the Meeting of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Iowa City, IA.

Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173-182.

Lee, J. A. (1988). Love-Styles. In R. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The Psychology of Love (pp. 38-67). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lee, J.A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills, Ontario, Canada: New Press.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: a therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization, (pp 27-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sampson, E. E. (1978). Scientific paradigms and social values: Wanted–a scientific revolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1332-1343

Stemberg, R.B. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale.

Sternberg, R. J. & Barnes, M. L. (1988). The Psychology of Love, New Haven: Yale Univer-sity Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
www/aamft.org

Yela, C. (1996). Componentes basicos del amor: Algunas matizaciones al modelo de R.J. Sternberg [Basic components of love: some refinements to the model of R. J. Sternberg]. Re-vista de Psicologia Social, 11(2), 185-201.