4.4 Article

Individual Differences in Updating Are Not Related to Reasoning Ability and Working Memory Capacity

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL
Volume 151, Issue 6, Pages 1341-1357

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/xge0001141

Keywords

updating; executive functions; working memory; reasoning

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous research suggests that executive functions explain individual differences in cognitive abilities, but reanalyzing the data shows that specific updating differences do not contribute significantly to performance in higher cognitive tasks.
Previous research assumes that executive functions such as inhibition, shifting, and updating explain individual differences in cognitive abilities. Of these three executive functions, updating was previously found to relate most strongly to fluid intelligence. However, this relationship could be a methodological artifact: Measures of inhibition and shifting usually isolate the contribution of this executive function to performance by contrasting conditions with high and low demands on these processes, whereas updating is measured by overall accuracy in working memory tasks involving updating. This updating measure conflates updating-specific individual differences (e.g., removal of outdated information) with variance in working memory maintenance. Reanalyzing data (N = 111) from von Bastian et al. (2016), we separated updating-specific variance from working memory maintenance variance. Updating contributed only 15% to individual differences in performance in the updating tasks, and it correlated neither with fluid intelligence nor with independent working memory measures reflecting storage and processing or relational integration. In contrast, the working memory maintenance component of the updating task correlated with both abilities. These findings challenge the view that updating contributes to variance in higher cognitive abilities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available