Are People-Centered Intelligences Psychometrically Distinct from Thing-Centered Intelligences? A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) or three-stratum model of intelligence envisions human intelligence as a hierarchy. General intelligence (g) is situated at the top, under which are a group of broad intelligences such as verbal, visuospatial processing, and quantitative knowledge that pertain to more specific areas of reasoning. Some broad intelligences are people-centered, including personal, emotional, and social intelligences; others concern reasoning about things more generally, such as visuospatial and quantitative knowledge. In the present research, we conducted a meta-analysis of 87 studies, including 2322 effect sizes, to examine the average correlation between people-to-people intelligences relative to the average correlation between people-to-thing-centered intelligences (and similar comparisons). Results clearly support the psychometric distinction between people-centered and thing-centered mental abilities. Coupled with evidence for incremental predictions from people-centered intelligences, our findings provide a secure foundation for continued research focused on people-centered mental abilities.

Using game‐like animations of geometric shapes to simulate social interactions: An evaluation of group score differences

“…More specifically, Bryan and Mayer (2021) reported a meta-analytic correlation of r = .43 (95% CI = 0.39, 0.48) between people-centered ability measures across 87 unique studies. Our observed correlation may also be somewhat attenuated by unshared method variance due to the differences in format between the two tests (Spector et al, 2019) Even though both the Shapes Test and SSIT were developed to assess social intelligence, and even though both exhibit construct validity evidence in assessing their intended construct domains (Brown et al, 2019;Speer et al, 2019), an additional layer of validity evidence was obtained for this study.…”

Personal Intelligence Is Evident in the Sophistication of People’s Narratives about Personality

“…Personal intelligence itself is focused on an understanding of mental traits, motives, and goals in oneself and other people. Personal intelligence is fairly independent of spatial intelligence, moderately related to verbal–propositional intelligence, and more closely related—but still conceptually and psychometrically distinct from—emotional and social intelligences ( Bryan and Mayer 2021 ; Schlegel et al 2019 ).…”

“…Personal intelligence—the term is parallel to emotional and social intelligences—is a mental ability that involves accurate reasoning about personality in oneself and in other people. It includes the capacities to monitor personality-relevant information, to form accurate models of personality, and to use such information to guide goals and longer-term plans ( Bryan and Mayer 2021 ; Mayer 2008 ; Mayer et al 2012 ). We believe that people high and low in personal intelligence will produce narratives that vary in their sophistication about personality.…”

“…Since then, however, more people-focused intelligences have been introduced including ability-measured emotional and personal intelligences or have been subject to renewed study, as with social intelligence ( Mayer 2018 ). Recent research indicates that personal, emotional, and social intelligences fit the CHC as part of the broad intelligence level (e.g., subsidiary to g ) alongside such other instances as spatial, verbal comprehension, and quantitative reasoning ( Bryan and Mayer 2020 , 2021 ; MacCann et al 2014 ; Schlegel et al 2019 ). Personal intelligence is distinct in its focus on reasoning about individual differences in personality ( Buss 2009 ; Christiansen et al 2005 ).…”

Understanding the Emotional Intelligence Discourse on Social Media: Insights from the Analysis of Twitter

“…When talking about emotions and emotional intelligence, the domains of psychology, philosophy, sociology, organizational behavior, etc. have been extensively researched over a long time ( Sailunaz and Alhajj 2019 ; Bryan and Mayer 2021 ). Initially, it was a part of biological evaluation, but with time, neuroscience has opened avenues for evaluating emotions as a socio-cognitive function ( Tago and Jin 2018 ).…”