Top

Gepubliceerd in:

17-08-2016 | Original Article

A drop in performance on a fluid intelligence test due to instructed-rule mindset

Auteurs: Hadas ErEl, Nachshon Meiran

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2017

Abstract

A ‘mindset’ is a configuration of processing resources that are made available for the task at hand as well as their suitable tuning for carrying it out. Of special interest, remote-relation abstract mindsets are introduced by activities sharing only general control processes with the task. To test the effect of a remote-relation mindset on performance on a Fluid Intelligence test (Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices, RAPM), we induced a mindset associated with little usage of executive processing by requiring participants to execute a well-defined classification rule 12 times, a manipulation known from previous work to drastically impair rule-generation performance and associated cognitive processes. In Experiment 1, this manipulation led to a drop in RAPM performance equivalent to 10.1 IQ points. No drop was observed in a General Knowledge task. In Experiment 2, a similar drop in RAPM performance was observed (equivalent to 7.9 and 9.2 IQ points) regardless if participants were pre-informed about the upcoming RAPM test. These results indicate strong (most likely, transient) adverse effects of a remote-relation mindset on test performance. They imply that although the trait of Fluid Intelligence has probably not changed, mindsets can severely distort estimates of this trait.

volgende artikel Effect of combined motor and spatial cues on mathematical reasoning: a polarity correspondence account

Aronson, J., & McGlone, M. S. (2008). Stereotype and social identity threat. In T. Nelson (Ed.), The handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 153–178). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on african american college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491.CrossRef

Ashby, F. G., Alfonso-Reese, L., Turken, A. U., & Waldron, E. M. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of multiple systems in category learning. Psychological Review, 105, 442–481. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.442.CrossRefPubMed

Ashby, F. G., & Isen, A. M. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.CrossRefPubMed

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532–535. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008.CrossRef

Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: a resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18, 130–150. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.2.130.CrossRef

Bors, D. A., & Stokes, T. L. (1998). Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: norms for first-year university students and the development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 382–398. doi:10.1177/0013164498058003002.CrossRef

Brown, R. P., & Day, E. A. (2006). The difference isn’t black and white: stereotype threat and the race gap on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 979–985. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.979.CrossRefPubMed

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404.CrossRefPubMed

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: its structure, growth and action. Oxford: North-Holland.

Cole, M. W., Yarkoni, T., Repovš, G., Anticevic, A., & Braver, T. S. (2012). Global connectivity of prefrontal cortex predicts cognitive control and intelligence. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 8988–8999. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0536-12.2012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Colzato, L. S., van der Wel, P., Sellaro, R., & Hommel, B. (2016). A single bout of meditation biases cognitive control but not attentional focusing: evidence from the global–local task. Consciousness and Cognition, 39, 1–7.CrossRefPubMed

Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163–184. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00096-4.CrossRef

Crescentini, C., Seyed-Allaei, S., De Pisapia, N., Jovicich, J., Amati, D., & Shallice, T. (2011). Mechanisms of rule acquisition and rule following in inductive reasoning. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 7763–7774. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4579-10.2011.CrossRefPubMed

Denney, N. W., & Heidrich, S. M. (1990). Training effects on Raven’s Progressive Matrices in young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 144–145. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.5.1.144.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control the functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 227–231.CrossRef

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 343–353.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2008). That’s what task sets are for: shielding against irrelevant information. Psychological Research, 72, 355–361.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 477–486. doi:10.1037/a0014647.CrossRefPubMed

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 7716–7720. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018601108.CrossRef

ErEl, H., & Meiran, N. (2011). Mindset changes lead to drastic impairments in rule finding. Cognition, 119, 149–165. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.002.CrossRefPubMed

Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303–307. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.11.015.CrossRefPubMed

Förster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177.CrossRefPubMed

Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739–752. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003.CrossRef

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological science, 17, 172–179.CrossRef

Fujita, K., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Mindsets and pre-conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 48–61. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.004.CrossRef

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351–367. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.351.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Galinsky, A. D., & Kray, L. J. (2004). From thinking about what might have been to sharing what we know: the effects of counterfactual mind-sets on information sharing in groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 606–618. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.005.CrossRef

Ginossar, Z., & Trope, Y. (1987). Problem solving in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 464–474. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.464.CrossRef

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (pp. 53–92). New York: Guilford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 526–545). London: Sage.

Goschke, T. (2003). Voluntary action and cognitive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz, & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action. An issue at the interface of nature and culture (pp. 49–85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.). (2014). Task switching and cognitive control. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heitz, R. P., Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity, attention control, and fluid intelligence. In O. Wilhelm R. W. Engle (Ed.), Understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Sage Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452233529.n5.

Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The yin and yang of action control. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 33-67). New York: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.adms.2015.04.003.

Inzlicht, M., & Schmader, T. (2011). Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Irwing, P., Cammock, T., & Lynn, R. (2001). Some evidence for the existence of a general factor of semantic memory and its components. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 857–871. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00078-7.CrossRef

Jeffreys, H. (Ed.). (1939/1961). The theory of probability (1st/3rd ed.) Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Jimura, K., Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2010). Prefrontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 8871–8876. doi:10.1073/pnas.1002007107.CrossRef

Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2014). A labor/leisure tradeoff in cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 131–141.CrossRef

Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 665–682. doi:10.1037/a0020198.CrossRef

Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind: neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17, 882–890. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01798.x.CrossRefPubMed

Love, J., Selker, R., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Verhagen, A. J., Ly, A.,… Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). JASP (version 0.6.6) [computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org.

Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54, i-95. doi:10.1037/h0093502.

Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7, 107–127CrossRef

Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 312–324. doi:10.1177/0146167206296106.CrossRefPubMed

McGuire, J. T., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Prefrontal cortex, cognitive control, and the registration of decision costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 7922–7926. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910662107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314–1334. doi:10.1037/a0012702.CrossRefPubMed

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012a). Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin. American Psychologist, 67, 503–504. doi:10.1037/a0029772.CrossRefPubMed

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012b). Intelligence: new findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130–159. doi:10.1037/a0026699.CrossRefPubMed

Rasmussen, D., & Eliasmith, C. (2011). A neural model of rule generation in inductive reasoning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 140–153. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01127.x.CrossRefPubMed

Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary scales Oxford. England: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Reisenauer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). The impact of task rules on distracter processing: automatic categorization of irrelevant stimuli. Psychological Research, 77, 128–138.CrossRefPubMed

Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1500.CrossRef

Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (2013). The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79, 217–240. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19, 441–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x.CrossRefPubMed

Sprenger, J. (2013). Testing a precise null hypothesis: the case of Lindley’s paradox. Philosophy of Science, 80, 733–744. doi:10.1086/673730.CrossRef

Steele, C. M. (1998). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. In J. L. Eberhardt S. & T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 202-233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797.CrossRefPubMed

Steenbergen, L., Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Tyrosine promotes cognitive flexibility: evidence from proactive vs. reactive control during task switching performance. Neuropsychologia, 69, 50–55. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.01.022.CrossRefPubMed

Verguts, T., & de Boeck, P. (2002). The induction of solution rules in Raven’s Progressive Matrices test. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14, 521–547. doi:10.1080/09541440143000230.CrossRef

Verguts, T., De Boeck, P., & Maris, E. (1999). Generation speed in Raven’s Progressive Matrices test. Intelligence, 27, 329–345. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00023-9.CrossRef

Titel: A drop in performance on a fluid intelligence test due to instructed-rule mindset
Auteurs: Hadas ErEl
Nachshon Meiran
Publicatiedatum: 17-08-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0796-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2017

Familiar units prevail over statistical cues in word segmentation

Response-specific effects in a joint action task: social inhibition of return effects do not emerge when observed and executed actions are different

On the importance of considering heterogeneity in witnesses’ competence levels when reconstructing crimes from multiple witness testimonies

Anticipation of delayed action-effects: learning when an effect occurs, without knowing what this effect will be

The interaction between practice and performance pressure on the planning and control of fast target directed movement

Choices enhance punching performance of competitive kickboxers