Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model

Description and intended use

Guilford’s Structure of Intellect (SI) model is a theory which aims to explain the nature of intelligence (Guilford, 1956; 1967; 1977; 1982; 1983; Guilford and Hoepfner, 1971). The purpose of the theory is to provide ‘a firm, comprehensive and systematic foundation’ and ‘empirically based’ concept of intelligence (Guilford, 1967, p. vii). It is based on experimental application of multivariate factor analysis of extensive studies of performance on psychometric tests. The resulting model (figure 5.1) is represented as a three-dimensional cuboid (5 4 6) with three main dimensions: operations, content and product complexity. The SI model is therefore a way of explaining thinking processes with these dimensions as key interrelated concepts. Subsequently, Guilford increased the possible number of subcategories to 150 (Guilford, 1982) and to 180 (Guilford, 1983).

The first dimension of ‘operations’ represents main intellectual functions, namely:

1.Cognition: recognising, understanding or comprehending information

2.Memory: stored information

3.Divergent production: generating a variety or quantity of alternative information

4.Convergent production: generating information through analysis and reason

5.Evaluation: comparing the information generated with established criteria.

196 Frameworks for Thinking

Fig. 5.1. Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model.

The second concept is ‘content’ or broad classes of information. These are identified as:

1.Figural: concrete information in images, using the senses of sight, touch, and hearing

2.Symbolic: with information represented by signs, letters, numbers or words which have no intrinsic value in and of themselves

3.Semantic: where meaning is contained in words such as verbal communication and thinking, or in pictures

4.Behavioural: nonverbal information about people’s attitudes, needs, moods, wishes and perceptions.

Products, or the form or characteristics of processed information make up the third concept:

1.Units: the separated items of information

2.Classes: items grouped by common characteristics

3.Relations: the connections between items based on the characteristics that can change

4.Systems: interrelated parts and/or structured items of information

5.Transformations: changes in the existing information or its function

6.Implications: predictions, expected outcomes, or the particular consequences of the information.

Guilford is well-known for his work on creativity, where divergent production is the key concept (Guilford, 1950; 1986). In his view, creative people are sensitive to problems, fluent in their thinking and expression, and flexible (i.e. spontaneous and adaptable) in coming up with novel solutions.

The distinction between convergent and divergent production is just one of the features of the Structure of Intellect model which led Guilford (1980) to propose that it also provides a unifying theoretical basis for explaining individual differences in cognitive style as well as intelligence. He suggested that field independence may correspond with a broad set of ‘transformation’ abilities and that many cognitive style models are based on preferences for different types of content, process or product (e.g. visual content, the process of evaluation, products which are abstract).

Evaluation

SI theory is intended to be a general theory of human intelligence, capable of describing different kinds of skilled thinking as well as more basic cognitive processes. It is, for example, a high-level skill to evaluate (E) non-verbal information (B) about people’s attitudes to war and make reasonable predictions (I). Guilford’s cuboid model successfully conveys the idea that any or all of the operations, contents and products can work together in the course of thinking. His three dimensions are hard to challenge, since they refer to mental processes, forms of representation and structural properties of the elements and outcomes of thought. However, as Guilford himself notes, SI theory takes little account of the social nature of cognition (1967, p. 434).

Guilford researched and developed a wide variety of psychometric tests to measure the specific abilities predicted by the model. These tests provide operational definitions of these abilities. Factor

198 Frameworks for Thinking

analysis has been used to determine which tests appear to measure the same or different abilities and the literature contains both confirmatory evidence and criticism of the methods used by Guilford (see, for example, Horn and Knapp, 1973; Kail and Pellegrino, 1985; Bachelor, Michael and Kim, 1992; Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2000/2001).

There are clear theoretical links with Piaget (Guilford, 1967, p. 23) and with Bloom’s taxonomy (Guilford, 1967, p. 67). Guilford’s operations dimension lacks only Bloom’s ‘apply’ category. Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000/2001) state that Guilford was an early exponent of a broad definition of intelligence and, thus, he is owed a debt by later theorists such as Sternberg and Gardner who have argued for other conceptions than ‘g’.

A key facet of Guilford’s approach is his interest in creativity (Guilford, 1950). The ‘divergent production’ operation encompasses different combinations of process, product and content, and later theorists have built on these ideas (e.g. Torrance, 1966, McCrae, Arenberg and Costa, 1987 and Runco, 1992). However, Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000/2001) point out that more recent theories of creativity (including Sternberg’s own) differ from Guilford’s largely cognitive focus by also incorporating affective and motivational elements. They suggest that tests that include only cognitive variables will not strongly predict creative performance.

In relation to education, an important aspect of Guilford’s theory is that it considers intelligence as modifiable and that through accurate diagnosis and remediation, an individual’s performance in any of the areas of thinking can be improved. In addition, it can help educators to determine which skills are emphasised in any educational programme or system and which are neglected (Groth-Marnat, 1997). However, the very large number of different components of intelligence that can be derived renders practical examination and utilisation very complex.

Guilford’s SI model has been widely applied in employment recruitment through personnel selection and placement, as well as in education (e.g. the SOI programmes developed by Meeker, 1969). Sternberg and Bhana (1986) acknowledge that most children completing SOI programmes perform better on the post-test than on the pre-test, but

suggest that this may be because of the similarity between SOI items and test items.

Concluding their review of his work, Sternberg and Grigorenko (2000/2001) acknowledge that ‘the interpersonal and intrapersonal factors of Gardner’s theory and the creative and practical facets of Sternberg’s theory both were adumbrated by Guilford’s behavioral dimension’ (Sternberg and Grigorenko, 2000/2001, p. 314). They also praise his scientific approach to theorising which permits rigorous testing and the possibility of disconfirmation.

Summary: Guilford