Componential Investigations of Human Intelligence

  • Robert J. Sternberg
Part of the Nato Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 5)


For the past several years, I have been using a set of procedures that I call “componential analysis” to investigate performance in a variety of reasoning tasks: analogies, linear syllogisms, categorical syllogisms, classification problems, and series completion problems. The goal of componential analysis is to identify the component mental operations underlying a series of related information processing tasks, and to discover the organization of these component operations in terms of their relationships both to each other and to higher-order constellations of mental abilities. From a psychometric point of view, componential analysis may be viewed as a detailed algorithm for construct validation - the effort to elaborate the inferred traits (in our case, mental operations) determining test behavior (Campbell, 1960). From an information processing point of view, componential analysis may be viewed as a set of procedures for discovering the identity and organization of a set of elementary information processes (Newell & Simon, 1972).


Spatial Model Component Process Analogical Reasoning Combination Rule Human Intelligence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    Sternberg, R. J. Representation and process inference. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sternberg, R. J., & Rifkin, B. The development reasoning. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1977.Google Scholar


  1. Campbell, D. T. Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait, or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 1960, 15, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H. Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeSoto, C. B., London, M., & Handel, S. Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 513–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garner, W. R. The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Huttenlocher, J. Constructing spatial images: A strategy in reasoning. Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huttenlocher, J., & Higgins, E. T. Adjectives, comparatives, and syllogisms. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 487–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jöreskog, K. G. Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis. Pyschometrika, 1966, 31, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jöreskog, K. G., & Lawley, D. N. New methods in maximum likelihood factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1968, 21, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. Factor analysis as a statistical method. London: Butterworth, 1963.Google Scholar
  10. Newell, A., & Simon, H. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  11. Spearman, C. The nature of “intelligence” and the principles of cognition. London: Macmillan, 1923.Google Scholar
  12. Sternberg, R. J. Component processes in analogical reasoning. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 353–378. (a)Google Scholar
  13. Sternberg, R. J. Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. (b)Google Scholar
  14. Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Sternberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations