Comparing Spearman and Gardner: Theories of Intelligence

Edward Spearman and Howard Gardner are two prominent figures in the field of psychology, each offering distinct perspectives on intelligence. Spearman is renowned for his work on general intelligence, often denoted as "g," while Gardner introduces the concept of multiple intelligences. This essay explores the foundations, implications, and criticisms of these theories, shedding light on their impact on the understanding of human intelligence.

Spearman's General Intelligence: "g" and Cognitive Abilities

Edward Spearman's contributions to the study of intelligence are significant, particularly through his development of factor analysis and the proposal of a two-factor theory.

According to Spearman, every activity involves a general factor (g) and a specific factor (s), expressed as G + S. He posited that individuals excelling on intelligence tests would also perform well across various intellectual tasks, encompassing vocabulary, mathematical abilities, and spatial reasoning (Wilderdom, 2003).

In simple terms, Spearman argued that a high score on a verbal test, for example, indicated not only a proficiency in verbal tasks but also a broader intellectual capacity.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Theory

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The crux of his theory lies in the existence of a general intelligence factor influencing diverse cognitive abilities. However, one limitation of Spearman's theory is its potential oversight of individual talents and skills not adequately captured by traditional intelligence tests.

Gardner's Multiple Intelligences: A Broader Perspective

Howard Gardner, in contrast, challenges the notion of a singular intelligence factor. He proposes seven distinct intelligences: Verbal, Mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. Unlike Spearman, Gardner's approach is broader and encompasses various forms of intelligence that operate independently (Wilderdom, 2003).

• Premise 1: Certain brain parts distinctly map with specific cognitive functions.
• Premise 2: Brain damage can lead to the loss of certain cognitive functions (Washington U, 2002).

Gardner's theory is rooted in biological evidence, suggesting that different brain regions are responsible for various cognitive functions. For instance, damage to the motor control region affects motor functions. This biological perspective forms the basis for Gardner's argument that intelligence is not a singular entity but a combination of distinct cognitive abilities.

Comparative Analysis and Critiques

While Spearman and Gardner share similarities in their acknowledgment of intelligence as a multifaceted concept, they differ in their emphasis. Spearman's theory is narrower, concentrating on a general intelligence factor, whereas Gardner's theory spans multiple intelligences. Spearman's model aligns more closely with traditional intelligence testing, providing a measurable link between IQ and everyday tasks.

However, both theories face critiques. Spearman's model may not fully account for individual talents and skills that fall outside the scope of traditional intelligence tests. For example, a child with a unique talent may not be accurately assessed using Spearman's framework. On the other hand, Gardner's theory is criticized for its complexity and difficulty in precisely measuring each intelligence component. The abundance of intelligences makes it challenging to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships.

In conclusion, the comparison of Spearman's and Gardner's theories offers insights into the evolving understanding of intelligence. While Spearman's general intelligence theory aligns more closely with traditional testing and demonstrates a measurable connection between IQ and everyday tasks, Gardner's multiple intelligences provide a broader and more inclusive perspective. The critiques each theory faces highlight the ongoing challenges in defining and measuring intelligence, emphasizing the need for continued exploration and refinement of these theoretical frameworks.