1 原文：Social Intelligence社会智力Intelligence, as defined in standard dictionaries, has two rather different meanings. In its most familiar meaning, intelligence has to do with the individuals ability to learn and reason. It is this meaning which underlies common psychometric notions such as intelligence testing, the intelligence quotient, and the like. In its less common meaning, intelligence has to do a body of information and knowledge. This second meaning is implicated in the titles of certain government organizations, such as the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, and its British counterparts MI-5 and MI-6. Similarly, both meanings are invoked by the concept of social intelligence. As originally coined by E.L. Thorndike (1920), the term referred the persons ability to understand and manage other people, and to engage in adaptive social interactions. More recently, however, Cantor and Kihlstrom (1987) redefined social intelligence to refer to the individuals fund of knowledge about the social world.2 1、The Psychometric ViewThe psychometric view of social intelligence has its origins E.L. Thorndikes (1920) division of intelligence into three facets, pertaining to the ability to understand and manage ideas (abstract intelligence), concrete objects (mechanical intelligence), and people (social intelligence). In his classic formulation: “By social intelligence is meant the ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls - to act wisely in human relations“ (p. 228). Similarly, Moss and Hunt (1927) defined social intelligence as the “ability to get along with others“ (p. 108). Vernon (1933), provided the most wide-ranging definition of social intelligence as the persons “ability to get along with people in general, social technique or ease in society, knowledge of social matters, susceptibility to stimuli from other members of a group, as well as insight into the temporary moods or underlying personality traits of strangers“ (p. 44).By contrast, Wechsler (1939, 1958) gave scant attention to the concept. Wechsler did acknowledge that the Picture Arrangement subtest of the WAIS might serve as a measure of social intelligence, because it assesses the individuals ability to comprehend social situations (see also Rapport, Gill, Campbell Taylor Walker Hunt, 1928; Moss, 1931; Moss, Hunt, Omak, for later editions, see Moss, Hunt, Moss, Hunt, Omak, Memory for Names and Faces;Observation of Human Behavior;Recognition of the Mental States Behind Words;Recognition of Mental States from Facial Expression;Social Information; andSense of Humor:The first four subtests were employed in all editions of the GWSIT. The Facial Expression and Social Information subtests were dropped, and the Humor subtest added, in later editions.Hunt (1928) originally validated the GWSIT through its correlations with adult occupational status, the number of extracurricular activities pursued by college students, and supervisor ratings of employees ability to get along with people. However, some controversy ensued about whether social 5 intelligence should be correlated with personality measures of sociability or extraversion (e.g., String, 1930; Thorndike Hoepfner verbal materials were avoided wherever possible, presumably in order to avoid contamination of social intelligence by verbal abilities. In the final analysis, OSullivan et. al developed at least three different tests within each product domain, each test consisting of 30 or more separate items - by any standard, a monumental effort at theory-guided test construction. The six cognitive abilities defined by OSullivan et al. were:Cognition of behavioral units: the ability to identify the internal mental states of individuals;Cognition of behavioral classes: the ability to group together other peoples mental states on the basis of similarity;Cognition of behavioral relations: the ability to interpret meaningful connections among behavioral acts;Cognition of behavioral systems: the ability to interpret sequences of social behavior;9 Cognition of behavioral transformations: the ability to respond flexibly in interpreting changes in social behavior; andCognition of behavioral implications: the ability to predict what will happen in an interpersonal situation.A later study by Chen and Michael (1993), employing more modern factor-analytic techniques, essentially confirmed these findings. In addition, Chen and Michael extracted a set of higher-order factors which largely conformed to the theoretical predictions of Guilfords (1981) revised structure-of-intellect model. A similar re-analysis of the OSullivan et al. (1965) has yet to be reported.In summary, Guilford and his colleagues were successful in devising measures for two rather different domains of social intelligence: understanding the behavior of other people (cognition of behavioral content), and coping with the behavior of other people (divergent production of behavioral content). These co