The science of intelligence
Sternberg's triarchic theory of intelligence
Short answer
Robert Sternberg’s triarchic theory (1985) says intelligence has three parts: analytic, creative and practical. It argues that mainstream IQ tests measure only the analytic part to any significant extent. The idea is influential, but a 2003 critique concluded the evidence for a separate practical intelligence that predicts success as well as g collapses on close examination.
Want your own number? The test is 25 visual puzzles, about 12 minutes, no sign-up.
The three parts
Robert Sternberg's 1985 triarchic theory proposes three fundamental aspects of intelligence: analytic, creative and practical. Of these, only the first is measured to any significant extent by mainstream tests (Neisser et al., 1996).
- Analytic intelligence: reasoning, comparing, judging and solving well-defined problems. This is the part a standard IQ test samples.
- Creative intelligence: dealing with new situations and producing new ideas.
- Practical intelligence: solving the ill-defined problems of everyday life and work, often using know-how that is never formally taught.
The theory's appeal is that it matches ordinary experience. Most people know someone who tests well but struggles with real-world problems, or the reverse. Sternberg's claim is that those are not just exceptions but evidence of separate kinds of intelligence.
The case for it
The strongest evidence offered for the theory concerns practical intelligence, measured as “tacit knowledge”: the unwritten know-how of a job or setting. The 1996 APA task force reported that tacit knowledge measures predict criteria such as job performance fairly well even though they are relatively independent of intelligence test scores (Neisser et al., 1996). In the same passage, the task force noted that this work, too, has its critics (Neisser et al., 1996).
Try one · Quantitative Reasoning
Which number comes next?
14, 36, 18, 38, 22, ?
Tap the option you think is right, or show the answer.
Show the answer
The next number is 40 (option 5).
How to solve it
- The gaps jump around, so look at every other number.
- The 1st, 3rd, 5th numbers (14, 18, 22) go up by 4 each time.
- The 2nd, 4th, 6th numbers (36, 38) go up by 2 each time.
- The missing number continues the second series: 38 + 2 = 40.
That was 1 puzzle. The full test has 25.
The case against it
The most detailed critique came from Linda Gottfredson in 2003. She examined the claim that there is a general practical intelligence, distinct from g, which predicts future success as well as g or better. Her conclusion: the evidence collapses on close examination (Gottfredson, 2003). She argued that the key empirical claims rest largely on the illusion of evidence, enhanced by selective reporting of results (Gottfredson, 2003).
The comparison matters because general ability has a strong track record. A meta-analysis of 85 years of personnel research put the validity of general mental ability for predicting job performance at 0.51 (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). For practical intelligence to be a rival, it would need to match that with independent, replicated evidence, and the critique argues it has not. See IQ and life outcomes for what general ability does and does not predict.
What about the creative part?
Sternberg is right that IQ tests do not measure creativity; the 1994 mainstream statement said the same (Gottfredson, 1997). Research also finds the two only loosely linked. A meta-analysis of 21 studies found a mean correlation of about .17 between creativity test scores and IQ (Kim, 2005), and a later study found that above a modest IQ level, personality matters more for creative potential (Jauk et al., 2013). Whether creativity should be called a kind of intelligence is a question about the word as much as the data. The creativity and intelligence page covers the evidence.
Where the theory stands
The triarchic theory is a fair reminder that tests sample a slice of what people mean by intelligence. As a scientific model, its distinctive claim, a practical intelligence that rivals g, remains contested. Compare it with the other models on theories of intelligence and with Gardner's multiple intelligences, the other popular broad theory. For what an IQ test does measure, see what an IQ test measures.
Sources
- Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77
- Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4), 343-397. doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00085-5
- Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
- Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16(2-3), 57-66. doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-473
- Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212-221. doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
- Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13-23. doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8