The Importance of Social Intelligence among University Students

The Importance of Social Intelligence among University Students

Ouanouki Abdelkader¹, Mzara Aissa²

^1,2Ziane Achour University of Djelfa (Algeria)

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300075

Received: 23 February 2025; Accepted: 01 March 2025; Published: 31 March 2025

ABSTRACT

The subject of the study revolves around the importance of social intelligence among university students. The importance of this study comes from the importance of its variables, as it deals with the most important variables in the personality of the university student, which is social intelligence, which gives the individual the ability to behave well in social situations and succeed in dealing with others and knowing the psychological state of others and applying the student’s personality to social situations and establishing successful social relationships between the student and his colleagues and his university environment, and increasing the student’s social competence and developing a love of belonging to groups and individuals and forming close friendships and sympathizing with others and respecting their points of view and providing them with advice and guidance and managing daily challenges and transforming negative emotions into positive emotions and developing all skills related to social intelligence by practicing them in daily life, and for this reason social intelligence will be addressed by analysis.

ملخص:

يتمحور موضوع الدراسة حول أهمية الذكاء الاجتماعي لدى الطلبة الجامعيين، وتأتي أهمية هذه الدراسة من أهمية متغيراتها فهي تتناول أهم متغيرات في شخصية الطالب الجامعي وهو الذكاء الاجتماعي، الذي يعطي للفرد القدرة على حسن التصرف في المواقف الاجتماعية والنجاح في التعامل مع الآخرين و معرفة الحالة النفسية للآخرين وإطفاء شخصية الطالب على المواقف الاجتماعية وإقامة علاقات اجتماعية ناجحة بين الطالب وزملائه ومحيطه الجامعي، وزيادة الكفاءة الاجتماعية لدى الطالب وتنمية حب الانتماء إلى الجماعات والأفراد وتكوين صداقات حميمة والتعاطف مع الآخرين واحترام وجهات نظرتهم وتقديم النصح والإرشاد لهم وإدارة التحديات اليومية وتحويل الانفعالات السلبية إلى انفعالات إيجابية وتنمية جميع المهارات التي تتصل بالذكاء الاجتماعي من خلال ممارستها في الحياة اليومية، ولهذا سيتم تناول الذكاء الاجتماعي بالتحل

INTRODUCTION

The efforts of researchers who have addressed the subject of social intelligence have varied, and their view of it has differed due to the difference in the frame of reference and thought to which these researchers belong, and the difference in their points of view. Each of them has his own view of the subject from a certain angle, and these points of view have sometimes taken the form of a theory, or a specific model for the dimensions or manifestations of this type of intelligence at other times, thus forming dimensions of this complex and intricate concept, which is still being explored from aspects that may be absent today from some and discovered by others in the near future. A university student who is characterized by social intelligence has the ability to behave politely in normal social situations. We find him successful in his dealings with others, and influential in them, through his possession of a spirit of joking and fun, and he has the ability to perceive and understand the behaviors and actions of others, and to share with them in their sadness or joy in every interaction, which always makes him a person who is loved and accepted by others.

Social knowledge allows the individual to gain social effectiveness through his knowledge of the general etiquette of behavior, social customs and traditions, values ​​and laws. As for his social competence, it gives the individual the ability to build successful relationships based on good behavior in social situations and conditions, through compatibility with social situations and using the available social information to behave positively in these situations. Social intelligence gives its owner the ability to perceive the moods of others and distinguish between them, and to perceive their intentions, motives and feelings, and the ability to distinguish between the different indicators that are guides to social relations, with the ability to deal effectively with others, confront them and influence them. Social intelligence represents one of the most important personal components of a person, as it helps to control oneself, build positive relationships with others and confront the pressures of life, as well as social adaptation, which is the basic building block for optimal benefit from the goals and services that society sets for its members, and then achieve harmony for the individual with others, thus achieving success in all areas of life within society.

Considering that the university student will move from a simple environment (his family) to a larger environment (the university) that includes individuals of different scientific, economic, cultural and social levels, the necessity of the individual adapting to the new environment in which he lives becomes apparent, and how to deal with and adapt to the problems that he faces from time to time. Perhaps the knowledge obtained from this study will benefit the individual and enable him to address any problems that arise, whether they relate to the relational aspect with others or the individual’s personal psychological aspect, so that the individual’s social intelligence grows until he learns how to build his relationships with all participants in society.

Hence, our research came to shed light on the importance of social intelligence among university students by clarifying its concept, appearance, components, characteristics and theories, because many scientists believe that social intelligence can be acquired, developed, improved and learned because it is ultimately social communication skills. They also see its indispensable importance in our era in which communication has become a great inevitability among people.

Definition of social intelligence:

Social intelligence is defined in the dictionary of social sciences as “the individual’s ability to deal with new situations that involve mutual relationships with members of the group.” (Al-Mutairi, 2000, 9)

Karl Albrecht defines social intelligence as: the individual’s ability to get along with others, deal with and cooperate with them, and the individual’s possession of skills that enable him to succeed in interacting with them at all times and places, and therefore social intelligence gives you a superior ability to communicate, understand, understand, and deal with different situations with great effectiveness. (Karl Albrecht, 2006, 2).

It is also known as: the ability that an individual possesses, which includes perceiving and distinguishing the mood, intentions, motives and feelings of others, and this includes sensitivity to facial expressions, voice and the ability to distinguish between different types of signs of interaction between individuals to respond efficiently to these signs in meaningful ways. (Tareq Abdel Raouf and Rabie Mohamed, 2008, 23).

As for Sufyan Nabil Saleh, he defined it as: understanding people with all the branches that this understanding means, i.e. understanding their thoughts, attitudes, feelings, nature and motives and acting properly in social situations based on this understanding. (Dhamia and Mahdi, 2010, 324)

While Marlowe sees that the emergence of the concept of social intelligence is linked to the assumption of the existence of a different structure of mental abilities that deals with social content, and this concept refers to the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts and behaviors of others in different social situations, and to deal with them correctly according to this understanding, and consists of a set of skills that help the individual solve social problems, and achieve good and useful social outcomes for him and others. (Al-Sayed, 2008, 159)

Social intelligence can be defined as the extent to which a university student possesses communication skills between himself and others, through good understanding of others, dealing, harmony and interaction within the university, to achieve social harmony that helps him achieve his goals.

 The emergence of social intelligence

One of the first to reveal the concept of social intelligence was the scientist Edward Lee Thorndike. His definition of social intelligence was the beginning from which Hober launched an article he published in 1925 in the Journal of Theorists to delve into the concept of social intelligence (Muntaha Al-Saheb, 2011, 198).

Kerr & Speroff confirmed in 1953 that social intelligence is the individual’s perception of himself in the place of another individual and anticipating his behavior, and on this basis their test of social intelligence was built. Wechsler saw in 1958 that the behavioral characteristic of social intelligence is an application of general intelligence according to the social context (Adeeb Al-Khalidi, 2001, 27)

Abu Hatab confirms that the most important research in this field is a research titled Social Intelligence, named “O’Sullivan, Guilford, and DeMille, 1965”, where Guilford studied social intelligence in 1967 and presented research on social behavior, which represents social intelligence in the behavioral content of mental abilities, then Guilford’s six-factor scale of social intelligence appeared, then in 1978, a study appeared to determine the extent of independence of social intelligence from general intelligence and the study concluded that the independence of social intelligence from general intelligence is weak, while in 1979, Ford and Tyske’s attempt to prove the existence of social intelligence as an independent ability using Guilford’s scale failed, and Marlowe proved the independence of social intelligence as a mental ability, as Ford confirmed in 1995, in his subsequent research that social intelligence is equal to the concept of social competence (Muntaha Al-Saheb, 2011, 202).

From the above, it becomes clear that the behavioral aspect of social intelligence is an application of general intelligence within the framework of the social context, and the student’s use of social intelligence in the university environment will generate in him and his other colleagues a love for maintaining the human relationships that connect them with Some, it pushes them to participate consciously and effectively in everything related to social relations.

Components of social intelligence according to Corinne and Oliver

Corinne and Oliver (1993) reached the components of social intelligence and classified them as follows:

1. Dealing with others and adapting to them : Muhammad Imad al-Din Ismail believes that social intelligence is the ability to deal with others and that the manifestations of dealing with others can be analyzed into several abilities, each of which expresses a simple aspect of social intelligence.
2. Communication with others : Communication with others reflects the individual’s ability to deal with them and the extent of his adaptation to them and taking into account their moods and motivating them, and social communication in turn leads the individual to benefit from all the social parties surrounding him, and a person is considered dead without social relations, as communication means life.
3. Understanding others : Understanding others is one of the pillars on which the social intelligence scale is built, and the abilities in the behavioral aspect can be described as social intelligence that helps us understand the behavior of others and understand our behavior. Gardner (1991) is interested in the characteristics of social intelligence and defines it as a person’s ability to understand the motives and desires of other people. Muhammad Imad al-Din also believes that one of the most important aspects of social intelligence is the ability to understand others, which means the ability to recognize the psychological state of others. (Ibrahim Basil Abu Amsha, 2013, 28). For clarification purposes, social intelligence can be shown as defined by Corinne and Oliver through Figure No. (01) shown below. (Ibrahim Basil Abu Amsha, 2013, 30).

The emergence of social intelligence

One of the first to reveal the concept of social intelligence was the scientist Edward Lee Thorndike. His definition of social intelligence was the beginning from which Hober launched an article he published in 1925 in the Journal of Theorists to delve into the concept of social intelligence (Muntaha Al-Saheb, 2011, 198).

Kerr & Speroff confirmed in 1953 that social intelligence is the individual’s perception of himself in the place of another individual and anticipating his behavior, and on this basis their test of social intelligence was built. Wechsler saw in 1958 that the behavioral characteristic of social intelligence is an application of general intelligence according to the social context (Adeeb Al-Khalidi, 2001: 27).

Abu Hatab confirms that the most important research in this field is a research titled Social Intelligence, named “O’Sullivan, Guilford, and DeMille, 1965”, where Guilford studied social intelligence in 1967 and presented research on social behavior, which represents social intelligence in the behavioral content of mental abilities, then Guilford’s six-factor scale of social intelligence appeared, then in 1978, a study appeared to determine the extent of independence of social intelligence from general intelligence and the study concluded that the independence of social intelligence from general intelligence is weak, while in 1979, Ford and Tyske’s attempt to prove the existence of social intelligence as an independent ability using Guilford’s scale failed, and Marlowe proved the independence of social intelligence as a mental ability, as Ford confirmed in 1995, in his subsequent research that social intelligence is equal to the concept of social competence (Muntaha Al-Saheb, 2011, 202).

From the above, it becomes clear that the behavioral aspect of social intelligence is an application of general intelligence within the framework of the social context, and the student’s use of social intelligence in the university environment will generate in him and his other colleagues a love for maintaining the human relationships that connect them with each other, it pushes them to participate consciously and effectively in everything related to social relations.

Components of social intelligence according to Corinne and Oliver

Corinne and Oliver (1993) reached the components of social intelligence and classified them as follows:

1. Dealing with others and adapting to them : Muhammad Imad al-Din Ismail believes that social intelligence is the ability to deal with others and that the manifestations of dealing with others can be analyzed into several abilities, each of which expresses a simple aspect of social intelligence.
2. Communication with others : Communication with others reflects the individual’s ability to deal with them and the extent of his adaptation to them and taking into account their moods and motivating them, and social communication in turn leads the individual to benefit from all the social parties surrounding him, and a person is considered dead without social relations, as communication means life.
3. Understanding others : Understanding others is one of the pillars on which the social intelligence scale is built, and the abilities in the behavioral aspect can be described as social intelligence that helps us understand the behavior of others and understand our behavior. Gardner (1991) is interested in the characteristics of social intelligence and defines it as a person’s ability to understand the motives and desires of other people. Muhammad Imad al-Din also believes that one of the most important aspects of social intelligence is the ability to understand others, which means the ability to recognize the psychological state of others. (Ibrahim Basil Abu Amsha, 2013, 28). For clarification purposes, social intelligence can be shown as defined by Corinne and Oliver through Figure No. (01) shown below. (Ibrahim Basil Abu Amsha, 2013, 30).

Studies that dealt with social intelligence

Many researchers have dealt with social intelligence and we can provide you with some of these studies

Study (Qasim Intisar Kamal, 2009): The study focuses on: Social intelligence and its relationship to the problem-solving style.

The researcher prepared a scale for social intelligence and relied on the (Cassidy & Long) scale for the problem-solving style after modifying it, and the two scales were applied to a sample of 400 male and female students distributed across 8 colleges in the scientific and humanities specialization.

Study hypotheses:

1. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the sample score as a whole and the hypothetical mean of the (social intelligence) scale
2. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the male student sample and the arithmetic mean of the female sample scores for the (social intelligence) scale.
3. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students with scientific specialization and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students with humanities specialization on the (social intelligence) scale.
4. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students in the fourth stage and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students in the second stage on the (social intelligence) scale.
5. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students on the (social intelligence) scale according to the variable (gender, specialization and stage).
6. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample as a whole and the hypothetical mean of the (problem solving) scale.
7. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of male students and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of females on the (problem solving) scale.
8. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students with scientific specialization and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students with humanities specialization on the (problem solving) scale.
9. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students in the fourth stage and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students in the second stage on the (problem solving) scale.
10. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students on the (problem solving) scale according to the variable (gender, specialization and stage).

Study limits

The current research is limited to students of the University of Baghdad for morning study for the academic year (2007-2008) of both sexes (males-females) and for both specializations (scientific-humanities) and for the second and fourth grades.

Study results

The most important results reached by the researcher are: There is a correlation between social intelligence and problem-solving style, and there are no statistically significant differences on the social intelligence scale according to the gender, specialization and academic stage variables, and they can be summarized as follows:

1. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the sample score as a whole and the hypothetical mean of the (social intelligence) scale.
2. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of male students and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of female students on the (social intelligence) scale.
3. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students with scientific specialization and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students with humanities specialization on the (social intelligence) scale.
4. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students in the fourth stage and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students in the second stage on the (social intelligence) scale
5. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students on the (social intelligence) scale according to the variable (gender, specialization and stage).
6. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample as a whole and the hypothetical mean of the (problem solving) scale
7. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of male students and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of female students on the (problem solving) scale.
8. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students with scientific specialization and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students with human specialization on the (problem solving) scale
9. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the score of the sample of students in the fourth stage and the arithmetic mean of the scores of the sample of students in the second stage On the (problem solving) scale.
10. There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level between the arithmetic mean of the students’ sample score on the (problem solving) scale according to the variable (gender, specialization, and stage). (Qasim, 2009, 10).

Study of Saleh Al-Dahri and Sufyan Saleh Nabil (1997)

The study revolves around: Social intelligence and social values ​​and their relationship to psychological and social compatibility among psychology students at Taiz University.

The study aimed to know the level of social intelligence and social values ​​among psychology students at Taiz University and their relationship to psychological and social compatibility. The study was conducted on a random sample of psychology students. In order to achieve the research objectives, the researcher prepared two tools and standardized the third. The first measures social intelligence, the second measures psychological and social compatibility, and the third measures social values. The data were statistically processed using arithmetic means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s lag coefficient.

Study hypotheses

1. The mean of social intelligence for the research sample is statistically higher than the hypothetical mean.
2. The mean of social values ​​is statistically higher than the mean of other values ​​in the research sample.
3. The mean of psychological and social compatibility for the research sample is statistically higher than the hypothetical mean.
4. There is a statistically significant relationship between social intelligence and both social adjustment and psychological adjustment.
5. There is a statistically significant relationship between social values ​​and both social adjustment and psychological adjustment.
6. There are statistically significant differences in social intelligence among the research sample according to the variables of gender and academic level.
7. There are statistically significant differences in psychological adjustment among the research sample according to the variables of gender and academic level.
8. There are statistically significant differences in social adjustment among the research sample according to the variables of gender and academic level.
9. There are statistically significant differences in social values ​​among the research sample according to the variables of gender and academic level.
10. There are statistically significant differences in psychological adjustment according to the variables of social intelligence and social values ​​together.
11. There are statistically significant differences in social adjustment according to the variables of social intelligence and social values ​​together.

Study Limits

This research is limited to Yemeni psychology students at Taiz University for the academic year 1996/1997. It is also limited in its study of values ​​to social values ​​only according to Spranger’s classification and the Elport Vernon and Lindsay Values ​​Test.

Study Community: The research community consists of psychology students at Taiz University for the year 1997 from the second, third and fourth academic stages, males and females, totaling (828) male and female students. The first academic stage was excluded as a special category, as all of its students were from the remaining students from the previous year.

Study Sample

A random sample was selected, the final number of which was (327) male and female students, representing a percentage of 39.49%.

Study Tools

In order to achieve the research objectives, two tools were prepared, the first measuring social intelligence and the second measuring psychological and social compatibility, and to provide a suitable tool measuring social values, which is the Elport Vernon Lindsay Values ​​Test, which the researcher adapted to the Yemeni environment.

Study results

1. Psychology students at Taiz University enjoyed high levels of social intelligence, social values, and psychological and social compatibility.
2. There is a statistically significant relationship between social intelligence and social and psychological compatibility.
3. There is no statistically significant relationship between social values ​​and psychological and social compatibility.
4. There were no statistically significant differences in social intelligence according to the gender variable, while there were differences according to the educational level in favor of the fourth level.
5. There were no differences in psychological compatibility and social compatibility according to the educational stage variable, but differences were found according to the gender variable in favor of males.
6. There was no interaction in the social values ​​variable between gender and educational stage, as while females showed higher social values ​​than males in the second and fourth stages, males showed higher social values ​​than females in the third stage.
7. There were no statistically significant differences in psychological compatibility according to the social intelligence and social values ​​variables together.
8. There were no statistically significant differences in social compatibility according to the social intelligence and social values ​​variables together in favor of those with high social intelligence and average social values. (Sobhi, 2007, 57).

Frentz’s study (Frentz, 1991):

The study revolves around: Title of the study: Social intelligence and its relationship to academic achievement.

This study came to reveal the efficiency and social skills that are among the most important areas of social intelligence, and it was considered that they have a relationship with academic achievement, and this is through comparing teachers’ estimates and students’ self-estimates for each of the social skills, behavioral problems, and academic achievement, in a sample of 331 in grades (1-10).

The results of the study showed that students with high popularity showed more socially skilled behaviors and less behavioral problems compared to socially rejected students, and students with high popularity obtained high scores in achievement tests compared to their other colleagues (Frentz, 1991, 109).

Social Intelligence Theories

There are many theories that have discussed and explained social intelligence, some of which we can mention as follows:

R. Thorndike’s Theory

Thorndike is considered the first to address the term social intelligence, dividing intelligence into types and denying what is known as general intelligence.

Thorndike concluded that there are three types of intelligence: abstract intelligence, mechanical intelligence, and the latter, which is represented by the ability to communicate with others and form social relationships, which he called social intelligence (Al-Zaghloul, Al-Hindawi, 2010, 309).

Thorndike considered abstract intelligence to be the ability to process ideas and symbols, while mechanical intelligence is the ability to process objects and tangible materials. As for social intelligence, it is the ability to deal effectively with others, and includes the ability to understand people, deal with them, and act in social situations.

Thorndike believes that the three types of intelligence are consistent with each other by general agreement, and he is one of the first to suggest that there is a social intelligence distinct from the traditional type of intelligence or what is called the ability to perform school work, as he believes that social ability undoubtedly changes according to gender, age, social status, etc. in the people you deal with (Qasim, 2009, 11). Thorndike is considered one of the first to suggest the existence of a social intelligence distinct from the traditional type of intelligence, because he does not believe in the existence of what is called general intelligence, and considers intelligence to be a group of elements that share and are intertwined, thus forming a group of intelligences. He divided intelligence into: abstract, mechanical, and social, and thus his ideas and trends were the motivation for many researchers to delve into studying this concept and approaching it from several aspects, and thus abandoning the idea that each individual has a specific intelligence, but rather the individual has several different intelligences that he enjoys.

Howard Gardner’s theory (Howard Gardner, 1983)

Gardner proposed a new point of view on intelligence, as he believes that intelligence is a complex structure consisting of a large number of separate and independent abilities, each of which constitutes a special type of intelligence that is specific to a specific area of ​​the brain. Gardner’s theory came as a result of his observations of many individuals who have extraordinary mental abilities in some aspects but do not obtain high scores on intelligence tests (Al-Zaghloul, Al-Hindawi, 2010, 313).

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences has become a subject of widespread interest, and has been adopted by educators and included in teacher training courses. In his book “Frames of the Human Mind”, Gardner referred to a new concept of human intelligence, stating that humans possess several types of intelligence, up to seven types. Then, in 1995, he added an eighth type, which he called naturalistic intelligence.

When presenting his theory, he emphasized the connection between personal intelligence and social intelligence, and stated that despite their separation, the narrow relationships within most cultures often make them linked together. He emphasized that each individual possesses these eight intelligences, and they work together in unique ways, and each individual has the capacity to develop this intelligence at a relatively high level (Dhamia and Mahdi, 2010, 327).

This theory is one of the theories that has enjoyed widespread dissemination. Gardner’s ideas are somewhat similar to Thorndike’s, as the latter developed the theory of multiple intelligences, and he believes that there is no single intelligence, and he pointed out that humans possess eight types of intelligences and the difference between individuals is not in the degree of intelligence but in its quality, in addition to that he presented a new vision of intelligence that has a biological cognitive basis within a specific cultural framework, and he considers intelligence to be more broad and knowledgeable and capable of growth as a result of the accumulation of knowledge. Gardner’s ideas are clearer for the concept of social intelligence, as he explained social intelligence on the basis of the interaction between biological factors and social factors, as he was more free from the narrow restrictions in measuring and evaluating intelligence, as he looked at intelligence from a holistic perspective and that humans differ in their abilities and interests, so they do not learn in the same way.

Guilford’s theory

Guilford believes that mental abilities include three main dimensions: (content, processes, and outcomes). Guilford believes that Thorndike referred, in 1920, to an aspect of personality that can be called social intelligence, and that it is distinct from what is known as practical intelligence or abstract intelligence. Guilford explained at the annual American Psychology Conference that many prominent scientists have tried to study social intelligence and develop a theory for it for about sixty years, but they could not provide a clear picture of the nature of this type of intelligence specifically. In the sixties, Guilford and his students were interested in social intelligence and reached a number of abilities that belong to what is called behavioral content, as he stated that social intelligence is the ability to remember and prepare information for other people in relation to their perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. It is an ability that is important for those who deal directly with others in some way (Musa, 2007, 16).

Guilford sees intelligence as a complex behavior consisting of a number of abilities, and the sum of these abilities is what leads the individual to deal with others and form successful social relationships with them. This thinker was interested in the behaviors of individuals, as he considered the behavioral content of the individual to constitute social intelligence.

Sternberg’s theory (R. Sternberg)

Sternberg sees intelligence as a structure consisting of three dimensions (components, contextual, experiences) and it was called the triadic theory of intelligence. He pointed out that the contextual dimension includes the multiple problems that individuals face during their lives and daily interactions, and this dimension can be classified into three types of intelligence: analytical, creative, and practical intelligence.

Sternberg also points out that social intelligence is one of the multiple intelligences that fall within practical intelligence and is represented in the ability to understand others and respond appropriately and politely to individuals with different moods and motivations and the ability to form social relationships and make friends, as well as the ability to recognize the desires of others (Al-Zaghloul, Al-Hindawi, 2010, 314).

In this regard, Sternberg proposed a theory based on analyzing the components of intelligence and analyzing the methods that humans use when solving problems. He considered that there are basic aspects of intelligence upon which a complete theory of practical intelligence, which is used in everyday life situations and is not easy to measure because life situations are not easy to limit, must be based, and creative intelligence, which is manifested in discovering new solutions to new problems or discovering different, unfamiliar solutions. This theory expanded the concept of intelligence to cover areas that were not confirmed by other theories of intelligence.

CONCLUSION

Finally, it can be said that social intelligence is one of the dimensions that make up total intelligence in some traditional intelligence theories, but Gardner opened the way for social intelligence to be an independent intelligence in itself, and it is not necessarily linked to the degree of total intelligence.

He divided social intelligence into two aspects, the first of which contains the cognitive aspect, which in turn includes social perception and social knowledge, while the second is the behavioral aspect, which includes social compatibility and social competence. The individual enjoys the company of people more than being alone, which is a feature that makes the individual more integrated into society, so that he always seeks to build successful relationships with his peers, in addition to the advantage of group leadership, which is the most important advantage that makes the individual integrated into his environment because this advantage makes the individual bear his responsibility and the responsibility of those around him, so he always works to hold the group together to remain at its head, gives advice to friends who have problems, and this advantage makes him beloved by his other colleagues, and we find the advantage of loving to belong to clubs and gatherings or any organized groups that makes the individual more integrated into his society.

In addition to the student’s presence within the university (his small community), he seeks whenever he has free time to participate in various group activities. We also find him showing sympathy and interest in others, and others seeking his advice and requesting his counsel. The university student expresses his feelings, thoughts and needs in every interaction with others, and loves group discussions and learning about the views and ideas of others. He can recognize the feelings of others and name them, and he can pay attention to the changes in the moods of others. He loves to obtain the opinions of others and takes them into consideration. He is not afraid to confront others, and he can negotiate, influence others and motivate them to do their best. All of these behaviors indicate that the individual enjoys social intelligence, which contributes to his successful integration within his community, so his positive and social personality appears in all areas of life.

REFERENCES

1. Ibrahim Basil Abu Amsha, Social Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence and Their Relationship to Feeling Happiness, Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Education, Department of Psychology, Al-Azhar University, Gaza, Palestine, 2013.
2. Adeeb Al-Khalidi, Mental Health, University Library, 1st ed., Libya, 2001.
3. Thaer Ahmed Ghubari, Khaled Mohammed Abu Shaira, Learning Psychology and its Classroom Applications, Arab Community Library for Publishing and Distribution, 1st ed., Amman, Jordan, 2010.
4. Hamed Abdel Salam Zahran, Social Psychology, Alam Al-Kutub, 6th ed., Cairo, Egypt, 2000.
5. Khalil Mohammed Khalil, Social Intelligence and Its Relationship to Critical Thinking, Master’s Thesis, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Islamic University of Gaza, Palestine, 2009.
6. Al-Zaghloul Imad Abdel Al-Raheem, Al-Hindawi Ali Faleh, Introduction to Psychology, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Jami’i, 2nd ed., Al-Ain, UAE, 2010.
7. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Abu Hashim, Components of Social and Emotional Intelligence and the Relational Model between Them, Journal of the Faculty of Education, Benha University, Volume 18, Issue 76, Saudi Arabia, October 2008.
8. Dhimaa Ibrahim, Ahlam Mahdi, Social Intelligence and its Relationship to Academic Achievement, Diyala Magazine, Issue 47, 2010.
9. Tariq Abdul Raouf and Rabie Mohammed, Multiple Intelligences, Dar Al-Yazouri, Amman, Jordan, 2008.
10. Qasim Intisar Kamal, Social Intelligence and its Relationship to Problem Solving Style among University Students, Journal of Educational and Psychological Research, Issue 21, Center for Educational Studies and Psychological Research, Baghdad, Iraq, 2009.
11. Karl Albrecht, Social Intelligence, “The New Science of Success”, Issue 322, Arab Company for Scientific Media, Cairo, Egypt, 2006.
12. Al-Mutairi Khalid, Social Intelligence among High Achievers, Master’s Thesis, College of Graduate Studies, Arab Gulf University, Bahrain, 2000.
13. Muntaha Mutasher Abdul Sahib, Personality Types According to the Enneagram Theory, Values ​​and Social Intelligence, Safaa Publishing and Distribution House, Amman, Jordan, 2011.
14. Musa Subhi, Social Intelligence among Islamic University Students and its Relationship to Religiosity and Some Variables, Master’s Thesis, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education, Islamic University, Gaza, Palestine, 2007.
15. Miloud Bakay, Social Conformity and Heterogeneity in the Algerian School Environment, PhD Thesis in Educational Sociology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Ben Youssef Ben Khedda, Algeria, 2008.