Search

Early work on selective attention used auditory-based tasks, such as dichotic listening, to shed light on capacity limitations and individual differences in these limitations. Today, there is great interest in individual differences in attentional abilities, but the field has shifted towards visual-modality tasks. Furthermore, most conflict-based tests of attention control lack reliability due to low signal-to-noise ratios and the use of difference scores. Critically, it is unclear to what extent attention control generalizes across sensory modalities, and without reliable auditory-based tests, an answer to this question will remain elusive. To this end, we developed three auditory-based tests of attention control that use an adaptive response deadline (DL) to account for speed-accuracy trade-offs: Auditory Simon DL, Auditory Flanker DL, and Auditory Stroop DL. In a large sample (N = 316), we investigated the psychometric properties of the three auditory conflict tasks, tested whether attention control is better modeled as a unitary factor or modality-specific factors, and estimated the extent to which unique variance in modality-specific factors contributed incrementally to the prediction of dichotic listening and multitasking performance. Our analyses indicated that the auditory conflict tasks have strong psychometric properties and demonstrate convergent validity with visual tests of attention control. Auditory and visual attention control factors were highly correlated (r = .81)-even after controlling for perceptual processing speed (r = .75). Modality-specific attention control factors accounted for unique variance in modality-matched criterion measures, but the majority of the explained variance was modality-general. The results suggest an interplay between modality-general attention control and modality-specific processing., (© 2024. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)

The overlap between Autism and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is widely observed in clinical settings, with growing interest in their co-occurrence in neurodiversity research. Until relatively recently, however, concurrent diagnoses of Autism and ADHD were not possible. This has limited the scope for large-scale research on their cross-condition associations, further stymied by a dearth of open science practices in the neurodiversity field. Additionally, almost all previous research linking Autism and ADHD has focused on children and adolescents, despite them being lifelong conditions. Tackling these limitations in previous research, 5504 adults - including a nationally representative sample of the UK (Study 1; n = 504) and a large pre-registered study (Study 2; n = 5000) - completed well-established self-report measures of Autism and ADHD traits. A series of network analyses unpacked the associations between Autism and ADHD at the individual trait level. Low inter-item connectivity was consistently found between conditions, supporting the distinction between Autism and ADHD as separable constructs. Subjective social enjoyment and hyperactivity-impulsivity traits were most condition-specific to Autism and ADHD, respectively. Traits related to attention control showed the greatest Bridge Expected Influence across conditions, revealing a potential transdiagnostic process underlying the overlap between Autism and ADHD. To investigate this further at the cognitive level, participants completed a large, well-powered, and pre-registered study measuring the relative contributions of Autism and ADHD traits to attention control (Study 3; n = 500). We detected age- and sex-related effects, however, attention control did not account for the covariance between Autism and ADHD traits. We situate our findings and discuss future directions in the cognitive science of Autism, ADHD, and neurodiversity, noting how our open datasets may be used in future research., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Decades of research in industrial-organizational psychology have established that measures of general cognitive ability ( g ) consistently and positively predict job-specific performance to a statistically and practically significant degree across jobs. But is the validity of g stable across different levels of job experience? The present study addresses this question using historical large-scale data across 31 diverse military occupations from the Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement/Enlistment Standards Project ( N = 10,088). Across all jobs, results of our meta-analysis find near-zero interactions between Armed Forces Qualification Test score (a composite of math and verbal scores) and time in service when predicting job-specific performance. This finding supports the validity of g for predicting job-specific performance even with increasing job experience and provides no evidence for diminishing validity of g . We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, along with directions for personnel selection research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) predict military job (and training) performance better than any single variable so far identified. However, it remains unclear what factors explain this predictive relationship. Here, we investigated the contributions of fluid intelligence (Gf) and two executive functions- placekeeping ability and attention control -to the relationship between the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score from the ASVAB and job-relevant multitasking performance. Psychometric network analyses revealed that Gf and placekeeping ability independently contributed to and largely explained the AFQT-multitasking performance relationship. The contribution of attention control to this relationship was negligible. However, attention control did relate positively and significantly to Gf and placekeeping ability, consistent with the hypothesis that it is a cognitive "primitive" underlying the individual differences in higher-level cognition. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses revealed stronger evidence for the incremental validity of Gf and placekeeping ability in the prediction of multitasking performance than for the incremental validity of attention control. The results shed light on factors that may underlie the predictive validity of global measures of cognitive ability and suggest how the ASVAB might be augmented to improve its predictive validity.

Individual differences in the ability to control attention are correlated with a wide range of important outcomes, from academic achievement and job performance to health behaviors and emotion regulation. Nevertheless, the theoretical nature of attention control as a cognitive construct has been the subject of heated debate, spurred on by psychometric issues that have stymied efforts to reliably measure differences in the ability to control attention. For theory to advance, our measures must improve. We introduce three efficient, reliable, and valid tests of attention control that each take less than 3 min to administer: Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared. Two studies (online and in-lab) comprising more than 600 participants demonstrate that the three "Squared" tasks have great internal consistency (avg. = .95) and test-retest reliability across sessions (avg. r = .67). Latent variable analyses revealed that the Squared tasks loaded highly on a common factor (avg. loading = .70), which was strongly correlated with an attention control factor based on established measures (avg. r = .81). Moreover, attention control correlated strongly with fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and processing speed and helped explain their covariation. We found that the Squared attention control tasks accounted for 75% of the variance in multitasking ability at the latent level, and that fluid intelligence, attention control, and processing speed fully accounted for individual differences in multitasking ability. Our results suggest that Stroop Squared, Flanker Squared, and Simon Squared are reliable and valid measures of attention control. The tasks are freely available online: https://osf.io/7q598/. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The self-generation effect refers to the finding that people's memory for information tends to be better when they generate it themselves. Counterintuitively, when proofreading, this effect may make it more difficult to detect mistakes in one's own writing than in others' writing. We investigated the self-generation effect and sources of individual differences in proofreading performance in two eye-tracking experiments. Experiment 1 failed to reveal a self-generation effect. Experiment 2 used a studying manipulation to induce overfamiliarity for self-generated text, revealing a weak but non-significant self-generation effect. Overall, word errors (i.e., wrong words) were detected less often than non-word errors (i.e., misspellings), and function word errors were detected less often than content word errors. Fluid intelligence predicted proofreading performance, whereas reading comprehension, working memory capacity, processing speed, and indicators of miserly cognitive processing did not. Students who made more text fixations and spent more time proofreading detected more errors., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Scores on the ACT college entrance exam predict college grades to a statistically and practically significant degree, but what explains this predictive validity? The most obvious possibility is general intelligence-or psychometric " g ". However, inconsistent with this hypothesis, even when independent measures of g are statistically controlled, ACT scores still positively predict college grades. Here, in a study of 182 students enrolled in two Introductory Psychology courses, we tested whether pre-course knowledge, motivation, interest, and/or personality characteristics such as grit and self-control could explain the relationship between ACT and course performance after controlling for g . Surprisingly, none could. We speculate about what other factors might explain the robust relationship between ACT scores and academic performance.

According to mindset theory, students who believe their personal characteristics can change-that is, those who hold a growth mindset-will achieve more than students who believe their characteristics are fixed. Proponents of the theory have developed interventions to influence students' mindsets, claiming that these interventions lead to large gains in academic achievement. Despite their popularity, the evidence for growth mindset intervention benefits has not been systematically evaluated considering both the quantity and quality of the evidence. Here, we provide such a review by (a) evaluating empirical studies' adherence to a set of best practices essential for drawing causal conclusions and (b) conducting three meta-analyses. When examining all studies (63 studies, N = 97,672), we found major shortcomings in study design, analysis, and reporting, and suggestions of researcher and publication bias: Authors with a financial incentive to report positive findings published significantly larger effects than authors without this incentive. Across all studies, we observed a small overall effect: d ¯ = 0.05, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.09], which was nonsignificant after correcting for potential publication bias. No theoretically meaningful moderators were significant. When examining only studies demonstrating the intervention influenced students' mindsets as intended (13 studies, N = 18,355), the effect was nonsignificant: d ¯ = 0.04, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.10]. When examining the highest-quality evidence (6 studies, N = 13,571), the effect was nonsignificant: d ¯ = 0.02, 95% CI = [-0.06, 0.10]. We conclude that apparent effects of growth mindset interventions on academic achievement are likely attributable to inadequate study design, reporting flaws, and bias. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Performance on a range of spatial and mathematics tasks was measured in a sample of 1592 students in kindergarten, third grade, and sixth grade. In a previously published analysis of these data, performance was analyzed by grade only. In the present analyses, we examined whether the relations between spatial skill and mathematics skill differed across socio-economic levels, for boys versus girls, or both. Our first aim was to test for group differences in spatial skill and mathematics skill. We found that children from higher income families showed significantly better performance on both spatial and mathematics measures, and boys outperformed girls on spatial measures in all three grades, but only outperformed girls on mathematics measures in kindergarten. Further, comparisons using factor analysis indicated that the income-related gap in mathematics performance increased across the grade levels, while the income-related gap in spatial performance remained constant. Our second aim was to test whether spatial skill mediated any of these effects, and we found that it did, either partially or fully, in all four cases. Our third aim was to test whether the "separate but correlated" two-factor latent structure previously reported for spatial skill and mathematics skill was (Mix et al., 2016; Mix et al., 2017) replicated across grade, SES, and sex. Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses conducted for each of these subgroups indicated that the same latent structure was present, despite differences in overall performance. These findings replicate and extend prior work on SES and sex differences related to spatial and mathematics skill, but provide evidence that the relations between the domains are stable and consistent across subgroups., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The Mindset Assessment Profile is a popular questionnaire purportedly designed to measure mindset-an individual's belief in whether intelligence is malleable or stable. Despite its widespread use, the questionnaire appears to assess an individual's need for cognition and goal orientation more than mindset. We assessed the reliability, construct validity, and factor structure of the Mindset Assessment Profile in a sample of 992 undergraduates. The reliability of the Mindset Assessment Profile was questionable (α = .63) and significantly lower than the reliability of the Implicit Theories of Intelligence Questionnaire (α = .94), an established measure of mindset. The Mindset Assessment Profile also lacked convergent and discriminant validity. Overall scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition than with mindset. Item-level analyses supported this finding: most items correlated weakly or not at all with mindset, and correlated significantly more strongly with need for cognition and learning goal orientation. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that three factors were underlying scores on the Mindset Assessment Profile: need for cognition, mindset, and performance goal orientation. Based on its questionable reliability and poor construct validity, we do not recommend that researchers and educators use the Mindset Assessment Profile to measure mindset.

Multitasking is ubiquitous in everyday life, which means there is value in developing measures that predict successful multitasking performance. In a large sample (N = 404 contributing data), we examined the predictive and incremental validity of placekeeping, which is the ability to perform a sequence of operations in a certain order without omissions or repetitions. In the context of multitasking, placekeeping should play a role in the performance of procedural subtasks and the interleaving of subtasks that interrupt each other. Regression analyses revealed that placekeeping ability accounted for 11% of the variance in multitasking performance, and had incremental validity relative to each of a diverse set of cognitive abilities (working memory capacity, fluid intelligence, perceptual speed, and crystallized intelligence). The predictive validity of placekeeping for multitasking was stable across samples of performance and robust to placekeeping practice. Broader measures of performance on our placekeeping task accounted for 21% of the variance in multitasking performance and had incremental validity relative to an estimate of psychometric g. The results provide evidence that placekeeping is a distinct cognitive ability with its own specific role to play in multitasking, and raise the possibility that measures of placekeeping ability could have utility in selecting personnel for occupations that require certain kinds of multitasking, such as interleaving of procedures.

One of the most replicated findings in psychology is the positive manifold between cognitive ability measures (Jensen 1998; Spearman 1904) [...].

Mind-set refers to people's beliefs about whether attributes are malleable ( growth mind-set ) or unchangeable (  fixed mind-set ). Proponents of mind-set theory have made bold claims about mind-set's importance. For example, one's mind-set is described as having profound effects on one's motivation and achievements, creating different psychological worlds for people, and forming the core of people's meaning systems. We examined the evidentiary strength of six key premises of mind-set theory in 438 participants; we reasoned that strongly worded claims should be supported by equally strong evidence. However, no support was found for most premises. All associations ( r s) were significantly weaker than .20. Other achievement-motivation constructs, such as self-efficacy and need for achievement, have been found to correlate much more strongly with presumed associates of mind-set. The strongest association with mind-set ( r = -.12) was opposite from the predicted direction. The results suggest that the foundations of mind-set theory are not firm and that bold claims about mind-set appear to be overstated.

It is well established that measures of reasoning ability and of working memory capacity (WMC) correlate positively. However, the question of what explains this relationship remains open. The purpose of this study was to investigate the capacity hypothesis, which ascribes causality to WMC. This hypothesis holds that people high in WMC are more successful in capacity-demanding cognitive tasks than people lower in WMC because they can temporarily maintain more information in the form of sub-goals, hypotheses, and partial solutions. Accordingly, this hypothesis predicts that the correlation between WMC and reasoning performance should increase as the capacity demands of the reasoning items increase. We tested this prediction using items from Raven's Progressive Matrices and two measures of WMC, complex span and the k estimate from the Visual Arrays task. Neither WMC measure showed the effect predicted by the capacity hypothesis. Furthermore, the results cannot be attributed to restriction of range in performance on the individual reasoning items. This finding adds to existing evidence calling into question the capacity hypothesis, and, more generally, the view that WMC has a causal influence on fluid intelligence.

Multiple frameworks for categorizing spatial abilities exist but it has been difficult to verify them using exploratory factor analysis. The present study tested one of these frameworks-a 2 × 2 classification scheme that crossed the dimensions of static/dynamic and intrinsic/extrinsic (Uttal et al., 2013)-using confirmatory factor analysis with data on spatial performance from kindergarten (N = 251), third grade (N = 246) and sixth grade students (N = 241). For kindergarten and third grade students, four models were tested at each grade level: A 1-factor model, two 2-factor models (one static vs. dynamic, the other intrinsic vs. extrinsic), and a 4-factor model. In sixth grade, only the 2- and 1-factor models could be tested given the available data. Evidence that the 4-factor model was the best fit would have validated the 2x2 model. However, the 4-factor models failed to converge in kindergarten and third grade. Both the 1- and 2-factor models converged in these age groups, and chi-square tests demonstrated that the 2-factor intrinsic-extrinsic model was the best fit at both grade levels. In sixth grade, only one of the 2-factor models converged and it did not fit significantly better than the 1-factor model. Thus, there was limited validation of the model in these grades, as well as a trend toward less dimensionality in spatial skill over development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Mind-sets (aka implicit theories) are beliefs about the nature of human attributes (e.g., intelligence). The theory holds that individuals with growth mind-sets (beliefs that attributes are malleable with effort) enjoy many positive outcomes-including higher academic achievement-while their peers who have fixed mind-sets experience negative outcomes. Given this relationship, interventions designed to increase students' growth mind-sets-thereby increasing their academic achievement-have been implemented in schools around the world. In our first meta-analysis ( k = 273, N = 365,915), we examined the strength of the relationship between mind-set and academic achievement and potential moderating factors. In our second meta-analysis ( k = 43, N = 57,155), we examined the effectiveness of mind-set interventions on academic achievement and potential moderating factors. Overall effects were weak for both meta-analyses. However, some results supported specific tenets of the theory, namely, that students with low socioeconomic status or who are academically at risk might benefit from mind-set interventions.

The debate over the origins of individual differences in expertise has raged for over a century in psychology. The "nature" view holds that expertise reflects "innate talent"-that is, genetically determined abilities. The "nurture" view counters that, if talent even exists, its effects on ultimate performance are negligible. While no scientist takes seriously a strict nature-only view of expertise, the nurture view has gained tremendous popularity over the past several decades. This environmentalist view holds that individual differences in expertise reflect training history, with no important contribution to ultimate performance by innate ability ("talent"). Here, we argue that, despite its popularity, this view is inadequate to account for the evidence concerning the origins of expertise that has accumulated since the view was first proposed. More generally, we argue that the nature versus nurture debate in research on expertise is over-or certainly should be, as it has been in other areas of psychological research for decades. We describe a multifactorial model for research on the nature and nurture of expertise, which we believe will provide a progressive direction for future research on expertise., (© 2018 New York Academy of Sciences.)