Theories of Intelligence (G

UNIT 1 THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE (G and S Factor and the Model

of JP Das)
AND S FACTORS AND THE MODEL
OF JP DAS)

Structure
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objectives
1.2 The Nature of Intelligence
1.2.1 Theoretical Definitions of Intelligence
1.2.2 Operational Definition of Intelligence
1.2.3 Historical Perspective on Individual Differences and Human Abilities
1.3 Spearmen’s Two-Factor Theory of Intelligence
1.3.1 Critical Appraisal of Two-Factor Theory
1.3.1.1 Thorndike’s Theory
1.3.1.2 Thomson’s Theory
1.3.1.3 Thurstone’s Theory
1.4 Das, Nagliery and Kirby’s PASS Theory
1.4.1 Critical Appraisal of the PASS Theory
1.5 Let Us Sum Up
1.6 Unit End Questions
1.7 Suggested Readings and References

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Right from the dawn of civilisation man has often wondered about individual
differences in abilities, yet it was not until the third quarter of the nineteenth
century that efforts could be made about understanding its complex nature.
Intelligence is a broad term that is employed by layman to denote the presence of
such qualities as alertness, quickness of mind, level of one’s academic success,
status in an occupation, or the acquisition of an eminence in a particular field of
endeavour and so on. In this unit we will deal with the nature and meaning of
intelligence. We will also discuss some of the most important theoretical models
of intelligence so as to understand its nature. We will begin with some definitions
to bring home the point that even among the psychologists there is a lack of
unanimity about this term. We will also briefly outline a historical perspective
on individual differences and human abilities. Following this there will be a
discussion on the Spearman’s Two factor theory consisting of G and S factors,
and a critical appraisal of the theory. We would also be dealing with Thorndike’s
theory of intelligence and PASS theory of intelligence put forward by JP Das
and colleagues.

1.1 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you will be able to:
• Define the term intelligence;
• Obtain a brief overview of individual differences and intelligence; 5
Intelligence and Creativity • Discuss Spearman’s Two-Factor theory of intelligence;
• Make a critical appraisal of Two-Factor theory;
• Describe J. P. Das, Nagliery, and Kirby’s PASS theory of intelligence; and
• Analyse the PASS theory.

1.2 THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE

Intelligence is hard to define. In the Indian systems of thought buddhi (intellect)—
defined as nischayatmikabuddhih (decision maker) is described as an inner
instrument (antahkarana), which possesses wisdom, prudence, emotion, societal
values, and relations. In our common parlance when people speak of intelligence,
they nod knowingly as if they all share a common definition. However, their
understanding of the phenomenon of intelligence may widely vary. For some
quickness of answering a question might reflect intelligence, while for others
leading a successful life might be due to one’s intelligence. Psychologists, too,
differ in their definitions of intelligence. We all know what we mean when we
use this term, but we find it terribly difficult to precisely define it.

1.2.1 Theoretical Definitions of Intelligence

Intelligence has been defined as the sum total of everything you know, as the
ability to learn or profit from experience, as the ability to solve problems or as
the ability to cope with the demands of the environment. Indeed there is nothing
wrong with any of these definitions. The problem arises when we try to search
for a definition that seems to say it all precisely. We have been using “intelligence”
as a general label for so many cognitive abilities that it defies a specific definition.
In 1921, a symposium was organised to define intelligence. Thirteen psychologists
specialising in the area of intellectual assessment considered the definitional
aspects of intelligence. The symposium proceedings, published in a special issue
of the Journal of Educational Psychology, revealed that the experts had thirteen
different views on the nature of intelligence. Some of the definitions given by
experts are given below:
“…intelligence, that is to say, reasoning, judgment, memory, and the power of
abstraction” (Binet 1890, cited in Sattler, 1988, p. 45)
“Intelligence is a general capacity of the individual consciously to adjust his
thinking to new requirements” (Stern, 1914)
“An individual is intelligent in proportion as he is able to carry on abstract
thinking” (Terman, 1921, p. 128)
“Intelligence is the capacity of the organism to adjust itself to an increasingly
complex environment” (Spearman, 1927)

In 1986, Sternberg and Determan found that twenty-four prominent scholars had
twenty-four different definitions of intelligence. Sternberg (1997) has attempted
a comparison of the two surveys. He has remarked that in the 1921 survey, the
elements that appeared most often in the definitions were “(a) higher level abilities
(such as abstract reasoning, mental representation, problem solving, and decision
making), (b) ability to learn, and (c) adaptation to meet the demands of the
environment. In the 1986 survey, the most common elements were (a) higher
6
level abilities, (b) that which is valued by culture, and (c) executive process” Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
(Sternberg, 1997, p.1030). of JP Das)

Snyderman and Rothman (1987) have presented responses of over 1,000 experts
that belonged to different disciplines such as psychology, sociology, education,
and genetics. Of the thirteen descriptions rated by the respondents, there was
nearly unanimous agreement that abstract reasoning, the capacity to acquire
knowledge, and problem solving ability were important elements of intelligence.

Per cent of respondents showing agreement on thirteen descriptor elements of

intelligence given by Snyderman and Rothman (1987) are given below:

Table Showing Responses of Experts on Thirteen Elements of Intelligence

Descriptor % of Respondents
Checking as Important
Abstract thinking or reasoning 99.3
Problem solving ability 97.7
Capacity to acquire knowledge 96.0
General knowledge 88.3
Memory 80.5
Adaptation to one’s environment 77.2
Mental speed 71.7
Linguistic competence 71.0
Mathematical competence 67.9
Creativity 59.6
Sensory acuity 24.4
Goal directedness 24.0
Achievement motivation 18.9
Source: Snyderman & Rothman (1987)

Most of the earlier definitions as well as recent ones include the elements that
have been given above. We will mention a couple of recent definitions to support
our statement.

“Intelligence, as a hypothetical construct, is the aggregate or global capacity of

the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with
his environment” (Wechsler, 1944). More recently, Wechsler (1975) defined
intelligence as “the capacity of an individual to understand the world about him
and his resourcefulness to cope with its challenges” (p.139).

“…a human intellectual competence must entail a set of skills of problem

solving—enabling the individual to resolve genuine problems or difficulties that
he or she encounters, and, when appropriate, to create an effective product—and
must also entail the potential for finding or creating problems—thereby laying
the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge.” (Gardner, 1983, pp. 60-
61)
7
Intelligence and Creativity “Intelligence comprises the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well
as shaping and selection of, any environmental context.” (Sternberg, 1997, p.1030)

A common element of several of the definitions that we have quoted is adaptation,

the ability to modify one’s behaviour to meet the environmental demands. A
second common element is the ability to think abstractly using symbols. The
ability to acquire new information or to learn through experience is similarly the
third common element. However, it appears that the quest for a satisfactory
definition of intelligence is an unending search.

1.2.2 Operational Definition of Intelligence

Observing the diversity of theoretical definitions in the 1921 survey, about which
we discussed above, Boring (1923) operationally defined that “intelligence is
what intelligence tests measure”. You may notice that this operational definition
sidesteps the thorny conceptual problem of coming to grips with the “true” nature
of intelligence; it does not solve it. Nonetheless it does what operational definitions
are supposed to do—it gives us a definition we can start working with. Most
intelligence tests have been constructed with the assumption that intelligence is
some kind of general attribute, more or less of which exists in everyone and
which determines how an individual will be able to deal with a problem situation.
However, this sort of assumption is not supported by recent theoretical models
of intelligence that we will discuss next.

1.2.3 Historical Perspective on Individual Differences and

Human Abilities
It is extremely surprising that in spite of tremendous advances in mathematical
sciences by the year 1800, systematic studies of human abilities were not
undertaken until third quarter of the nineteenth century. Impressed by Charles
Darwin’s Origin of species, his cousin Francis Galton devoted increasing attention
toward measurement of anthropological and psychological phenomena. He coined
the term mental test and invented the first psychological test methods to measure
intelligence and ability. He founded the first test laboratory in London in 1882 at
which visitors could take a battery of psychological tests on a fee-paying basis.
Each visitor was tested on a variety of physical and sensory tests, including
height, weight, breathing power, strength of pull, hearing, sight, and colour sense.
Galton believed that psychological traits could also be inherited like physical
characteristics. In statistics he made important contribution by developing and
applying correlation method, which, at his guidance, was later continued by his
student Karl Pearson, who eventually developed the product-moment correlation.
Though his tests bear no resemblance to the advanced psychological tests, he
definitely deserves to be credited with the title of Father of psychological testing
and individual differences.

Alfred Binet’s early work on human abilities resembled the work of Galton.
Binet’s work on intelligence testing took a practical turn during the opening
years of the twentieth century, when he was commissioned by the French
government to identify mentally deficient children in French schools. Faced with
this problem, Binet, in collaboration with Theodore Simon, completed his first
test in 1905. This test comprised a list of 30 problems concerning the child’s
ability to understand and reason with the objects in the environment. The problems
ranged in level of difficulty and the test was tried on a sample of 50 children.
8
This was a very important step in the testing of intelligence. Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
In 1908, a revision was made in which items were arranged in terms of age of JP Das)
levels. The highest age level that a child could perform successfully was called
his mental age. Later, William Stern (1914) suggested that this be divided by the
chronological age for each child, which multiplied by 100 became the intelligence
quotient, the IQ, as it has come to be known. The influence of Binet on the
measurement of intelligence can hardly be overstated. All subsequent work on
the measurement of intelligence is modeled after Binet’s test.

Self Assessment Questions

1) How does a layman define intelligence?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
2) What were the common factors that emerged regarding the definition
of intelligence in the 1921 symposium of thirteen experts?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
3) On which elements there is maximal agreement in the Snyderman and
Rothman data on 1000 experts?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
4) How will you operationally define the phenomenon of intelligence?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
5) Present a brief account of individual differences.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
9
Intelligence and Creativity
1.3 SPEARMAN’S TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF
INTELLIGENCE
Charles Spearman published an epoch-making study in 1904, which indeed
proved to be the crucial step toward quantitative testing of theories, as opposed
to simple quantification or measurement. He used the techniques of correlational
analysis and factor analysis, both of which had been developed earlier by Karl
Pearson, in relation to the scores obtained by groups of children on various
intelligence tests. His historical significance can be seen in the development of
the factor analytical method and in its explicit use for the first time. It is with
regard to such importance that Guilford (1954, p. 472) has stated: “No single
event in the history of mental testing has proved to be of such momentous
importance as Spearman’s proposal of his famous two-factor theory in 1904.”

Spearman was critical of Binet and Simon’s (1905) practice of assembling a

hodgepodge of problems for testing intelligence without first testing for the
presence of a general factor or without weighing the problems in terms of their
loadings on the general factor. He was concerned to test the theory that the obtained
intercorrelations between various tests of intelligence were due entirely to a
general intellective factor “g”. In addition to that, he also recognised specific
factors, “s” factors, which were specific to particular tests. Eysenck (1972, pp.
1-2) has contended that “essentially his point was that under these conditions
matrices of intercorrelations between tests should be of rank one; he did not use
matrix algebra himself, but his formulas are the equivalent of more modern
versions.” Spearman (1927) elaborated and revised his work in “The abilities of
man.”

To understand his theory, let us assume that any correlation between two tests
used by Spearman implies a factor common to both, plus two specific factors.
Let the two tests be called a and b, the common factor “g”, and the two specific
factors sa and sb, as shown in the diagram drawn by Guilford (1953), which are
reproduced below in Fig. 1.1.

Fig.1.1: Graphical representation of Spearman’s two factor theory

(Source: Guilford, 1953, p. 472)
10
In terms of the two-factor theory, we may regard that tests a and b are two measures Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
of the common element “g”, with the two remainders sa and sb. Similarly, let p of JP Das)
and q be two other tests with “g” as the common element as shown in the Figure
above. For some experiments, Spearman (1904) reported the correlations between
“g” and “g” to approximate a value of 1.00. This meant that “g” and “g” were
practically identical. Spearman believed that all intellectual activity contained
some element or factor in common. This “g”,or general factor, was postulated to
be important in every mental act, although some acts were thought to depend
upon it more than others. The difference between people in intelligence was a
matter of how much “g”they possessed. Spearman called this general factor as
“mental energy.”

Spearmen’s analysis of intelligence was actually an interpretation of certain

observations by using the method of tetrad difference. The correlation matrix,
which he used for finding the criterion of proportionality and for calculating the
tetrad difference, is given below:
Table Showing Intercorrelations of Subtests Reported by Spearman (1927)

Subtests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Analogies … .50 .49 .55 .49 .45 .45
Completion .50 … .54 .47 .50 .38 .34
Understanding paragraphs .49 .54 … .49 .39 .44 .35
Opposites .55 .47 .49 … .41 .32 .35
Instructions .49 .28 .39 .41 … .32 .40
Resemblances .45 .38 .44 .32 .32 … .35
Inferences .48 .34 .35 .35 .40 .35 …

Source: Spearman (1927) The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan, (p.149)
Guilford (1953, pp. 473-474) has shown that for any correlation matrix the
criterion of proportionality can be easily calculated, following which the tetrad
difference between various subtests can also be found.

Let us understand what is tetrad difference? In recent years the quantity F, called
the ‘tetrad-difference’, has become very important in psychological investigations
as to the possible nature of the underlying causes of mental activities. If there are
four such activities, and r13, r24, etc., the six correlation coefficients, (F is defined
by the equation F = r13r24 - r14r23. The value of F, in practice, approximates to
zero.)

The tetrad difference thus in all cases comes to zero. The variation in measured
intelligence that was not explainable in terms of this general factor or “g” was
attributed by Spearman to specific factors or “s”. There were many different
specific factors. All intellectual tasks require some amount of “g.” according to
Spearman, the more highly the two functions were correlated, the more highly
saturated they were with “g.” Tests that are thought to have high “g” loadings
involve abstract reasoning, comprehension, and problem solving.

Graphic illustration of “g” and “s” can be made following Guilford (1953, pp.
474-475), which is reproduced below (Fig.2). In this Figure “Spearman’s “g”
factor is shown as the large central circle and the specifics as small circles grouped
11
Intelligence and Creativity about G. Each ellipse stands for a mental test. The ellipses are permitted to overlap
G to different extents in order to indicate the fact that some tests are more heavily
“loaded” with G than others. The amount of correlation between any two tests is
determined by the extent to which the two tests are loaded with G. Thus, tests a
and b will have a relatively high correlation, since they have much in common in
G. Tests a and c will be scarcely correlated at all, since both have small loadings
with G.” (Guilford, 1953, pp. 474-475)

Fig. 1.2: Graphical representation of group factor in Spearman’s two factor theory
(Source: Guilford, 1953, p. 475)

Inter correlation matrices prepared by Spearman and his students showed that
some tests had something in common besides factor G. That meant that there
were some correlations that were over and above that demanded by a single
common factor G. Spearman at first attributed this to overlapping s factors.
However, some tests may have a higher correlation than that attributable to G
alone. Such an additional common factor became known as a group factor, which
was found to play a role not only in two tests but also in a number of tests.
“Among the group factors that Spearman and his associates came to recognise
are verbal ability, numerical ability, and possible factors of mental speed,
mechanical ability, attention, and imagination” (Guilford, 1953, p. 475).

Spearman’s theories of intelligence are very stimulating and his contribution to

the psychology of intelligence can be regarded important mainly for two major
reasons.
1) First, he developed the mathematical models for studying “g” and for that
purpose he laid the foundation of factor analysis. The logic and method of
correlational analysis was afterward followed by other researchers for
developing multi-factorial theories of intelligence.
2) Second major importance of Spearman’s work is that it established a scholarly
tradition in the investigation of human abilities.
According to Nunnally (1978, p. 508) “Spearman was concerned much more
with understanding human abilities than with just measuring them. Spearman
12
had many interesting theories about G, its biological basis, the influence of culture, Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
the interaction of G with manifestations of abilities in daily life, and the relation of JP Das)
of G to speed, fatigue, and other variables.”

1.3.1 Critical Appraisal of Two-Factor Theory

Several criticisms were levelled against formulation of the two-factor theory.
One of the standard criticisms of the factor analytic approach is that it was purely
psychometric and failed to provide a cognitive theory. However, Sternberg and
Frensch (1990) have convincingly argued that this criticism was misplaced.

Spearman (1923) proposed that intelligence depended on a number of qualitative

principles of cognition, for example “the presenting of any character together
with any relation tends to evoke immediately the knowing of the correlative
character” (p.91).

According to M. W. Eysenck (1990) Spearman also described “five quantitative

principles of cognition, which are relevant to intelligence: conative control,
fatigue, mental energy, primordial potencies, and retentivity” (p. 192).

Jensen (1998) confirmed the existence of “g” by the method of confirmatory

factor analysis.

Carroll (1993) also noted the presence of “g” at Stratum III in her hierarchical
factor analysis. We will now attempt a critical appraisal of the two-factor theory
and see how it has helped in the development of newer models of intelligence.

1.3.1.1 Thorndike’s Theory

One of the sharpest critics of Spearman’s two-factor theory was E. L. Thorndike
(1926), who believed that the inter correlations studied by Spearmen were too
small to test the question of a common factor. He objected very strongly to the
idea of the existence of a characteristic such as general intelligence. Instead of
one kind of factor, he maintained that there are a large number of separate
characteristics that make up intelligence.

He argued that instead of generality of intelligence, communality in the acts of

people to perform intelligently needed to be looked into. According to Thorndike,
the common element does not reside in the individual but in the nature of the
tasks themselves. People differ in their ability to perform any specific act in
terms of the level of difficulty they can manage. They also differ in the range or
number of tasks they can or cannot perform.

For Thorndike, intelligence was more like a series of skills or talents and several
or many tasks might call for the same kind of ability. According to him, the
correlations between various tests are the result of the fact that the tests have
features in common with each other even though they are called as measures of
different aspects.

Thorndike’s contention that there is no general intelligence but very specific acts
has, however, does not hold water in view of the fact that some tasks have so
many elements in common that it is desirable to classify them into groups such
as arithmetical reasoning, visual perception, word meaning, analogy, etc.

13
Intelligence and Creativity Thorndike has classified intellectual activity into three broad types: (i) social
intelligence, (ii) concrete intelligence, and (iii) abstract intelligence. However,
this is a classification of the type of tasks and not an analysis of mental organisation
itself. One can notice that the discrepancy of point of view between Spearman
and Thorndike is basically a theoretical one and the types that interested Thorndike
are essentially the same as the measures which Spearmen used in his correlation
matrix.

1.3.1.2 Thomson’s Theory

Among the other critics of Spearman, G. H. Thomson (1939) has argued that the
inter correlations between tests are actually the result of common samplings of
independent factors. As such if the tests incorporate many of these independent
factors in common, i.e., the tests are all measuring some of the same factors,
they will be highly inter correlated and it will appear that they are measuring one
general factor “g.”
Thomson has accordingly proposed a sampling theory, which maintains that every
test samples a certain range of elementary abilities; some with a wide range and
some with a narrow range. The degree of correlation between any two tests
depends upon the number of units of ability that they have in common.
According to Thomson, abilities combine in such a way that their correlations
approach Spearman hierarchical order. Thomson believed in a “general ability”
like Spearman’s “g”, but according to him it was not a basic entity; it was rather
a constant combination of the ability elements.
In like manner, the group factors are combinations of more limited collections of
ability elements, while specific factors are composed of elements that restrict
their appearance to single tests.
Guilford (1953) has refuted Thomson’s contentions saying that “there seems to
be little likelihood of demonstrating experimentally the existence of the elements
hypothesized” (p.476).

1.3.1.3 Thurstone’s Theory

L .L. Thurstone (1935) offered a new factor model in the nineteen thirties. Using
improved techniques of statistical analysis, he came to vastly different conclusions
from Spearman about nature of intelligence. Thurstone generalised Spearmen’s
methods and formulas, translated them into matrix algebra and carried out large-
scale studies, using as many as fifty-seven tests on one group of subjects. On the
basis of these studies he concluded that instead of Spearmen’s “g” factor, seven
primary abilities fitted the data much better.

Eysenck (1972) has given two reasons of this type of apparently conflicting
findings. The first related to population sampled. Spearman had worked with
random samples of the population (usually children), Thurstone worked only
with students. The second related to the choice of tests: “Spearman has explicitly
stated that tests should not be too similar to each other; if they were, then the “s”
factors would overlap and cause additional correlations which would emerge as
separate factors and disturb the unit rank of the matrix. Thurstone used groups
of tests which were very similar, often almost identical, and consequently his
study could certainly not be considered as a test of Spearman’s hypothesis”
(Eysenck, 1972, p. 2).
14
Thurstone later on recognised the force of these points and incorporated them in Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
his subsequent work which enabled him to find “a hierarchical structure of of JP Das)
intellect, with “g” at the top, and the “primary abilities” (whose inter correlations
necessitated the postulation of “g”) at a lower level; the actual tests used, whose
inter correlations gave rise to the “primary abilities”, would if course be at a
lower level still” (Eysenck, 1972, p.2).

Self Assessment Questions

1) How did Spearman develop his two-factor theory?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
2) How an intercorrelation matrix is used for identifying the factors?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
3) What are the two main contributions of Spearman according to
Nunnally?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
4) Present a critical appraisal of two-factor theory?.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.4 DAS, NAGLIERY AND KIRBY’S PASS THEORY

The theories of Spearman, Thorndike, Thomson, Thurstone that we discussed
above, and other similar ones, are based on isolating factors after administering
several intelligence tests over a large sample of subjects. They did not take into
account how an input, e.g. a test item is received and processed and how a
cognitive reorganisation takes place prior to giving a response. Das, Nagliery,
and Kirby (1994) have developed a theory-based, multidimensional view of
intelligence with constructs borrowed from contemporary research in
neuropsychology, information processing and human cognition. 15
Intelligence and Creativity This theory has four components: Planning, Attention-Arousal, Simultaneous,
and Successive (PASS) processing systems (see Fig.1.3).

Input Output
Serial Concurrent Serial Concurrent

First Third
Functional Unit Functional Unit
AROUSAL/
ATTENTION PLANNING

Conceptual
Conceptual

Perceptual
Perceptual
Knowledge Base

Knowledge Base
Memory

Memory
Brain Stem Frontal
Functiona Unit

Occipital, Parietal and Temporal

Second

Memory Conceptual Perceptual

SIMULTANEOUS & SUCCESSIVE

Fig. 1.3: Pictorial presentation of PASS model

(Source: Das, 2004; p.10)

Alexander R. Luria’s (1966; 1973; 1980) pioneering researches in the fields of

neuropsychology, information processing, and cognitive psychology have
provided the theoretical foundation to the PASS theory. Luria divided human
cognitive processes into three primary functional units.
i) Maintaining appropriate cortical arousal and attention to allow for adequate
vigilance and discrimination between stimuli is the primary function of the
first unit.
ii) The second unit is responsible for obtaining, elaborating upon, and storing
information using successive and simultaneous processes.
iii) The third functional unit is responsible for programming as well as the
regulation and control of mental activity (i.e., executive functioning).
Planning, self-monitoring, and structuring of cognitive activities are provided
by this functional unit.
To elaborate further, the first functional unit, attention-arousal, is located in the
brain stem and reticular activating system. This unit provides the brain with the
appropriate level of arousal or cortical tone and “directive and selective attention”
(Luria, 1973, p. 273).
Attentional processes are engaged when a multidimensional stimulus array is
presented to the subject, and the task requires selective attention to one dimension,
16
and the inhibition of response to other, often more salient stimuli. Luria stated Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
that only under optimal conditions of arousal can the more complex forms of of JP Das)
attention involving “selective recognition of a particular stimulus and inhibition
of responses to irrelevant stimuli” occur (Luria, 1973, p.271). Moreover, Luria
also maintains that only when sufficiently aroused and when attention is adequately
focused can an individual utilise processes within the second and third functional
units.
About the second functional unit, Luria described “two basic forms of integrative
activity of the cerebral cortex” which are responsible for “receiving, analysing,
and storing information” through the use of simultaneous and successive
processing.

Simultaneous processing is associated with the occipital-parietal areas of the

brain.

The essential aspect of simultaneous processing is the surveyability; that is, each
element is related to every other element. Das (2004) has explained with the
help of following example.

“To produce a diagram correctly when given the instruction, “draw a triangle
above a square that is to the left of a circle under a cross,” the relationships
among the shapes must be correctly comprehended” (Das, 2004, p. 9).

Successive processing is associated with the fronto-temporal areas of the brain

and involves the integration of stimuli into a specific serial order where each
component is related to the next. That is, in successive synthesis, “each link
integrated into a series can evoke only a particular chain of successive links
following each other in serial order”. For example, in language processing,
successive processes involved with are decoding and producing syntax, and
articulating speech.

The third functional unit is located in the prefrontal divisions of the frontal lobes
of the brain (Luria, 1980). Luria stated that “the frontal lobes synthesize the
information about the outside worlds . . . and are the means whereby the behaviour
of the organism is regulated in conformity with the effect produced by its actions”
(p.263).

Planning processes provide for the programming, regulation and verification of

behaviour and are responsible for behaviours, such as asking questions, problem
solving, and the capacity for self-monitoring. Other activities of the third
functional unit include regulation of voluntary activity, impulse control, and
various linguistic skills, such as spontaneous conversation. The third functional
unit provides for the most complex aspects of human behaviour including
personality and consciousness.

All four processes of the PASS theory have been operationally defined by Das,
Nagliery and Kirby (1994). Planning processes are required when a test demands
that the individual makes some decisions about how to solve a problem, execute
an approach, activate attentional, simultaneous, and successive processes, monitor
the effectiveness of the approach and modify it as needed.

Planning processes are involved when a person is asked to decide how to perform
a test and is inhibited by the imposition of strict rules about how to perform. For
17
Intelligence and Creativity example, writing a composition involves generation of a plan, organisation of
the ideas, control over what is presented when, examination of the product, and
revisions to make the final result consistent with the intended goal.

Planning is clearly associated with the frontal lobes, especially the prefrontal
cortex. It has connections with the rest of the brain as described before, including
the parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes that are responsible for information
coding (simultaneous and successive processing), as well as with sub cortical
areas that determine the level of arousal and affective reactions to different
conditions on the basis of past experiences.

Attention arousal is a complex process of the PASS theory. Arousal keeps the
persons alert. It is associated with the activity of the brain stem and the lower
part of the cerebral cortex. Attention on the other hand is associated with the
frontal lobes and the lower portion of the cortex together.

Simultaneous processing is broadly associated with the occipital and the parietal
lobes, while successive processing is associated with frontal temporal lobes

Knowledge base is an integral component of the PASS model and therefore all
processes are embedded within this dimension. The base of knowledge included
in the PASS model is intended to represent all information obtained from the
cultural and social background of the individual, because this determines the
form of mental activity. Children’s use of language to analyse, generalise, and
encode experience is a critical determinant of the base of knowledge, because
mental processes cannot develop apart from the appropriate forms of social life.

The final component of the PASS model is output or action and behaviour. It is
suggested that both simultaneous and successive processes must be used in the
processing of cognitive tasks. Das (1998, p. 221) has thus explained its salient
features: “The PASS theory of intelligence (1) has given us tests to measure
intelligence as a set of cognitive processes, (2) discusses what the major processes
are, and (3) guides us in the remediation of processing difficulties.”

Cognition is a dynamic process that works within the context of the individual’s
knowledge base, responds to his experiences, and is subject to developmental
variations When considering the measurement of cognitive processes, it must
be noted that the effective processing is accomplished through the integration of
knowledge with planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive processes as
demanded by the particular task. Although these processes are interrelated and
nonstop, they are not equally involved in all tasks. For that reason, cognitive
assessment tasks for planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive processing
were developed to adhere to PASS theory and predominantly require a specific
cognitive process (Das, Nagliery, & Kirby, 1994).

Taking the lead of Das and by using the multivariate techniques of cluster analysis,
Ronning (2004) developed ability/achievement normative taxonomies for reading
and mathematics of children in the age group of 8 to 17 years. The core profiles
that emerged provided important comparisons for evaluating individual profiles,
as well as added to the information explaining common variability in the child
population. The taxonomies werebased upon 711 children in the 8 to 17 year old
portion of the standardisation sample ofthe Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)
who were co-administered the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement–Revised
18
(WJ-R ACH). Ability/reading and ability/mathematics normative taxonomies Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
were developed from the Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive of JP Das)
scales of the Cognitive Assessment System (Das, Nagliery, & Kirby, 1994) in
conjunction with four reading and three math WJ-RACH subscales. Eight reading
and five math clusters were identified and described using demographics and
overall ability and achievement levels, which enabled Ronning (2004) to develop
intervention programme also.

1.4.1 Critical Appraisal of PASS Theory

The PASS theory has provided a novel approach to assess intelligence. It is
cognitive in orientation and it bases its tests on neuropsychological theories of
Luria. Of great importance of Das, Nagliery, and Kirby (1994) was to move
away from conventional tests of intelligence and to provide a theory-based
multidimensional view of intelligence that is built on contemporary research on
human cognition. It has a practical utility also. Undoubtedly all tests of intelligence
attempt at tapping cognitive aspects. However, most of them approximate to the
underlying processing of informational input.
Another attribute of this theory is that it has developed a Cognitive Assessment
System (CAS) test also, which offers a unique opportunity to examine the relative
contribution of cognitive processes as a testee undergoes a testing scenario. CAS
has four subscales, named after PASS, and the test items are specially designed
to assess a testee’s proficiency in each of them separately as well as collectively.
Self Assessment Questions
1) How are neuropsychological concepts of Luria incorporated in the PASS
theory?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
2) Why planning has been given so much importance in PASS theory?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
3) What is the main contribution of knowledge base in PASS theory?
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
19
Intelligence and Creativity
4) Present a critical appraisal of PASS theory.
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................

1.5 LET US SUM UP

Intelligence is a concept that is so commonly referred by each one of us, but
which is so difficult to define. There is a general agreement that thinking,
reasoning, problem solving and decision making are all of relevance to
intelligence. However, there is less agreement about the extent to which each
component contributes to it. Much research on intelligence during the first half
of the twentieth century was based upon the factor-analytic approach. This
approach was pioneered by Spearman (1904;1923;1927) and his two-factor theory
achieved the desired success in stimulating a whole host of researches in
identifying the factors of intelligence. Eventually Spearman’s work culminated
in describing the hierarchical structure of intelligence. The research work that
was directed at testing his theory extended the evidence that is consistent with
the view that there is a general factor of intelligence (the “g”), together with a
number of more specific factors. The various measures of intelligence, about
which we shall study in a subsequent unit, have attested the ubiquitous presence
of “g” as well.

It is a known fact that tests of intelligence, beginning with that of Binet and
Simon (1905), have played an important input in predicting school success (or
its absence) since the turn of the century. The various tests that were developed
in criticism of Spearman, however, incorporated a number of similar
characteristics. Intelligence test batteries differ in other ways, such as the
theoretical underpinnings and appropriate uses of the test, as well as the types of
questions utilised.We have already discussed the views of Thurstone who
extended support to Spearman when methodology was followed as suggested by
Spearman. Jensen (1998) and Carroll (1993) have found the presence of “g” in
their factor analyses.

The PASS theory of Das, Nagliery and Kirby (1994) is an information processing
theory, which has taken its inspiration from the pioneering neuropsychological
and cognitive psychological researches of Alexander Luria (1966; 1973; 1980).
Luria described human cognitive processes within the framework of three
functional units. The function of the first unit is cortical arousal and attention;
the second unit codes information using simultaneous and successive processes;
and the third unit provides for planning, self-monitoring, and structuring of
cognitive activities. Luria’s work on the functional aspects of brain structures
formed the basis of the PASS model and was used as a blueprint for defining the
important components of human intellectual competence.
20
A Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) has also been developed by Das, Nagliery Theories of Intelligence (G
and S Factor and the Model
and Kirby (1994) and a number of researches on various aspects of human of JP Das)
cognition have extended increasing support to the contentions of the proponents
of this theory. The Cognitive Assessment System is an individualised assessment
that may be used for a variety of purposes, including diagnosis, eligibility,
determination of discrepancies, reevaluation, and instructional planning.

1.6 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) How do general people explain intelligence?
2) What commonalities has Sternberg noted in the 1921 and 1986 surveys about
definitions of intelligence?
3) Give a historical account of individual differences.
4) How far it is correct to state that Spearman was concerned much more with
understanding intelligence than measuring it?
5) Discuss the salient features of two-factor theory.
6) Critically appraise Spearman’s two-factor theory.
7) What constructs has PASS theory borrowed from the fields of
neuropsychology and information processing?
8) Give operational definitions of all four processes of PASS theory.

1.7 SUGGESTED READINGS AND REFERENCES

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: Their survey of factor analytic
studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Das, J. P. (1998). The working mind: An introduction to psychology. New Delhi:
Sage
Das, J. P. (2004). Theories of intelligence: Issues and applications. In M. Hersen
(Ed.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment.Vol. 1 Intellectual
and neuropsychological assessment. G. Goldstein,& S. R. Beers (Volume Eds.)
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (pp. 5-23)
References
American Psychological Association (1923). Intelligence and its measurement:
A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12 (Author)
Binet, A. (1890).Cited in Sattler, J. M. (1988).Assessment of children.Third
Edition. San Diego, CA: Jerome, Sattler.
Binet, A. & Simon, T. (1905).L‘Application des methods nouvelles au diagnostic
du niveau intellectual chez des enfantsnormouxaranormauxd ‘hospiceetd‘
ecoleprimatre. Anne‘ePsychologique, 11, 245-366
Boring, E.G. (1923). Intelligence as the test test it. New Republic, 34, 35-57.
Das, J. P., Nagliery, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994). Assessment of cognitive processes:
The PASStheory of intelligence. New York: Allyn& Bacon.
Eysenck, H. J. (1972). Abilities. In H. J. Eysenck,, W. J. Arnold, & R. Meili
(Eds.) Encyclopedia of psychology.Bungay, Suffolk: The Search Press (pp. 1-5)
Eysenck, M. W. (1990). Intelligence. In M. W. Eysenck (Ed.) TheBleckwell
21
Intelligence and Creativity dictionary of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Reference (pp. 192-193)
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York: Basic Books
Guilford, J. P. (1953) Psychometric methods.. New York: McGraw-Hill
Jensen, A. (1998) The g factor: The science of mental ability. New York: Praeger
Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper
& Row
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. London: Penguin Books
Luria, A.R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd Ed.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric theory.(2nd. Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill
Ronning, M. E. (2004). Core profile types for the Cognitive Assessment System
and Woofcock-Johnson Achievement Tests of Achievement: Their development
and description for low performing students. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Ohio State University, Ohio
Snyderman, M. & Rothman, S. (1987), Survey of expert opinion on intelligence
and aptitude testin., American Psychologist42: 137–144
Spearmen, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15,, 201-292
Spearman, C. (1923).The nature of intelligence and the principles of cognition.
London: Macmillan
Spearman, C. (1927).The abilities of man. London: Macmillan
Stern, W. (1914).The psychological methods of testing intelligence.(Tr. By G.
M. Whipple) Baltimore: Barwick&York
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong
learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1030-1037.
Sternberg R, &Detterman DK. (1986).What is Intelligence? : Contemporary
Viewpoints on its Nature and Definition.Ablex Publishing
Sternberg, R. J. R. J. &Frensch, P. A. (1990) Intelligence and cognition. In M. W.
Eysenck (Ed.) International review of cognitive psychology. Chichester: Wiley
Terman, L. M. (1921). In Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 12
Thomson, G. H. (1939). The factorial analysis of human ability. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin
Thorndike, E. L. (1926). The measurement of intelligence. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Thurstone, L. L. (1935). The vectors of mind: Multiple factor analysis for the
isolation of primary traits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Wechsler,D. (1944). The measurement of adult intelligence.(Revised Ed.)
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins
Wechsler, D. (1975). Intelligence defined and undefined: A relativistic reappraisal.
American Psychologist, 30, 135-139
22