OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Memory & cognition
01, 2020;48 (1): 96-110.

Individual differences in relational reasoning.

Maureen E Gray, Keith J Holyoak
Author Information
  1. Maureen E Gray: Department of Psychology, University of California, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1563, USA. maureengray@ucla.edu.
  2. Keith J Holyoak: Department of Psychology, University of California, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1563, USA.
PMID: 31317394 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00964-y

Abstract

Various forms of relational processing have been linked to cognitive capacity measures, such as working memory and fluid intelligence. However, previous work has not established the extent to which different forms of relational processing reflect common factors, nor whether individual differences in cognitive style also contribute to variations in relational reasoning. The current study took an individual-differences approach to investigate the prerequisites for relational processing. In two studies, college students completed a battery of standardized tests of individual differences related to fluid intelligence and cognitive style, as well as a series of experimental tasks that require relational reasoning. Moderate correlations were obtained between relational processing and measures of cognitive capacity. Questionnaire measures of cognitive style generally did not improve predictions of relational processing beyond the influence of measures of cognitive capacity.

Keywords

Cognitive capacity Cognitive style Individual differences Relational reasoning

References

  1. Mem Cognit. 2000 Oct;28(7):1205-12 [PMID: 11126942]
  2. Mem Cognit. 2011 Apr;39(3):502-15 [PMID: 21264608]
  3. Mem Cognit. 2011 Oct;39(7):1275-89 [PMID: 21541821]
  4. J Exp Child Psychol. 2002 Sep;83(1):26-52 [PMID: 12379417]
  5. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 24;9:1235 [PMID: 30140242]
  6. Psychol Rev. 2012 Jul;119(3):617-48 [PMID: 22775500]
  7. Mem Cognit. 2015 Feb;43(2):283-97 [PMID: 25315925]
  8. Mem Cognit. 2018 Nov;46(8):1398-1412 [PMID: 30073638]
  9. Psychol Bull. 2016 Jul;142(7):729-57 [PMID: 26950007]
  10. Behav Brain Sci. 1998 Dec;21(6):803-31; discussion 831-64 [PMID: 10191879]
  11. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Mar;16(2):260-71 [PMID: 15068596]
  12. Front Psychol. 2016 Aug 10;7:1188 [PMID: 27559324]
  13. Mem Cognit. 2005 Apr;33(3):471-8 [PMID: 16156182]
  14. Psychol Rev. 2003 Apr;110(2):220-64 [PMID: 12747523]
  15. Psychol Bull. 2005 Jan;131(1):30-60 [PMID: 15631550]
  16. J Soc Psychol. 2003 Oct;143(5):559-68 [PMID: 14609052]
  17. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1967;26(2):107-29 [PMID: 6037305]
  18. Neuropsychologia. 2016 Oct;91:499-508 [PMID: 27647553]
  19. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Apr;94(4):672-95 [PMID: 18361678]
  20. PLoS One. 2015 Apr 10;10(4):e0123886 [PMID: 25860228]
  21. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(7):2020-32 [PMID: 18355881]
  22. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1997 Jul;23(4):946-67 [PMID: 9231438]
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar 5;116(10):4176-4181 [PMID: 30770443]
  24. Behav Res Methods. 2016 Mar;48(1):341-8 [PMID: 25740762]
  25. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):637-71 [PMID: 12613671]
  26. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Oct;23(5):1615-1623 [PMID: 26907600]
  27. Mem Cognit. 2015 Feb;43(2):226-36 [PMID: 25217113]
  28. Mem Cognit. 2017 May;45(4):576-588 [PMID: 28039662]
  29. Psychon Bull Rev. 2017 Dec;24(6):1774-1784 [PMID: 28224482]
  30. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Apr;143(2):668-93 [PMID: 23750912]
  31. Mem Cognit. 2014 Jan;42(1):1-10 [PMID: 23784742]
  32. Psychol Sci. 2014 Apr;25(4):928-33 [PMID: 24463552]
  33. Cereb Cortex. 2010 Mar;20(3):524-33 [PMID: 19549622]
  34. Psychol Aging. 2004 Dec;19(4):581-91 [PMID: 15584784]
  35. Mem Cognit. 2014 Apr;42(3):434-47 [PMID: 24132723]
  36. Cogn Psychol. 1991 Apr;23(2):222-62 [PMID: 2055001]

MeSH Term

Adult
Aptitude
Cognition
Female
Humans
Individuality
Intelligence
Male
Thinking
Young Adult
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0relationalcognitiveprocessingcapacitymeasuresdifferencesstylereasoningformsfluidintelligenceindividualIndividualCognitiveVariouslinkedworkingmemoryHoweverpreviousworkestablishedextentdifferentreflectcommonfactorswhetheralsocontributevariationscurrentstudytookindividual-differencesapproachinvestigateprerequisitestwostudiescollegestudentscompletedbatterystandardizedtestsrelatedwellseriesexperimentaltasksrequireModeratecorrelationsobtainedQuestionnairegenerallyimprovepredictionsbeyondinfluenceRelational

Similar Articles

Cited By