Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment

A special issue of Journal of Intelligence (ISSN 2079-3200).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 December 2022) | Viewed by 18380

Special Issue Editors

School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Interests: working memory; fluid intelligence and reasoning; relational integration; psychometrics and measurement
School of Education, Durham University, Durham DH1 1TA, UK
Interests: cognitive flexibility; dynamic testing; complex problem solving

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Despite substantial evidence of the link between an individual’s intelligence and successful life outcomes, questions about what defines intelligence have remained the focus of heated ongoing dispute. The most common approach to understanding intelligence has been to investigate what performance on tests of intellect is and is not associated with. This psychometric approach, based on correlations and factor analysis, is widely used to validate tests, constructs, and theories. It is, however, deficient. It turns out that knowing what intelligence tests do and do not correlate with does not actually tell us much about its basis and the processes underlying it. This is not a new insight, either. It has long been recognized that the psychometric approach is incomplete without a consideration of process-oriented accounts (Borsboom et al., 2003; Cronbach, 1957; van der Maas et al., 2017).

In practice, it is primarily between-person models that inform theory and serve as the basis of psychological assessments. A common (but inadequate) attempt to address these limitations is to challenge the validity or sufficiency of the constructs that intelligence tests aim to measure. This is exemplified by the familiar laments that intelligence tests are too narrow, too broad, and simply not fit for purpose. Concepts such as “multiple intelligences”, “emotional intelligence”, and “grit” have garnered considerable attention as alternative candidate determinants of individual differences in the pathway to success. Their popularity is in no small part due to them being seen as capabilities that compensate for perceived shortcomings in cognitive abilities. However, such an approach tackles the symptom rather than addressing the root cause. The crux of the methodological problem is that the predominant use of correlations in a between-person account fails to directly specify the mechanisms and processes responsible for intelligent behavior within an individual across different circumstances and over time.

Critically, in spite of the dominance of the between-person account, the conceptualization of intelligence proposed by most theories, and what most researchers aspire to measure, is fundamentally directed at within-person processes that we argue underpin aspects of intelligence that can be thought of as cognitive flexibility. Our working definition is that cognitive flexibility determines how a person successfully adapts to the changing demands of a dynamic environment over time, and therefore, understanding within-person processes is critical.

We are interested in papers that:

  1. Explicate methodological principles necessary for within-individual investigations of cognitive flexibility and its processes;
  2. Consider ways to assess cognitive flexibility dynamically, in comparison to or in contrast with conventional psychometric intelligence, working memory, and other related constructs and approaches;
  3. Reflect on the evidence for the malleability and developmental trajectory of cognitive flexibility (e.g., cognitive training, as a precursor to creativity or other forms of adaptability);
  4. Explore notions of cognitive flexibility from different disciplines, such as neuroscience (e.g., in terms of plasticity), education, and organizational studies.

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203-219. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1037/h0043943

van der Maas, H., Kan, K., Marsman, M., & Stevenson, C. E. (2017). Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 5(16), 1-17. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence5020016

Please note that the “Planned Papers” Section on the webpage does not imply that these papers will eventually be accepted; all manuscripts will be subject to the journal’s normal and rigorous peer review process.

Prof. Dr. Damian P. Birney
Prof. Dr. Jens F. Beckmann
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Intelligence is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • intelligence
  • cognitive flexibility
  • psychological assessments
  • dynamic testing

Published Papers (5 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

30 pages, 2299 KiB  
Article
Task Switching: On the Relation of Cognitive Flexibility with Cognitive Capacity
by Florian Schmitz and Raimund J. Krämer
J. Intell. 2023, 11(4), 68; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence11040068 - 30 Mar 2023
Viewed by 4076
Abstract
The task-switching paradigm is deemed a measure of cognitive flexibility. Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences in task-switch costs are moderately inversely related to cognitive ability. However, current theories emphasize multiple component processes of task switching, such as task-set preparation and task-set [...] Read more.
The task-switching paradigm is deemed a measure of cognitive flexibility. Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences in task-switch costs are moderately inversely related to cognitive ability. However, current theories emphasize multiple component processes of task switching, such as task-set preparation and task-set inertia. The relations of task-switching processes with cognitive ability were investigated in the current study. Participants completed a task-switching paradigm with geometric forms and a visuospatial working memory capacity (WMC) task. The task-switch effect was decomposed with the diffusion model. Effects of task-switching and response congruency were estimated as latent differences using structural equation modeling. Their magnitudes and relations with visuospatial WMC were investigated. Effects in the means of parameter estimates replicated previous findings, namely increased non-decision time in task-switch trials. Further, task switches and response incongruency had independent effects on drift rates, reflecting their differential effects on task readiness. Findings obtained with the figural tasks employed in this study revealed that WMC was inversely related to the task-switch effect in non-decision time. Relations with drift rates were inconsistent. Finally, WMC was moderately inversely related to response caution. These findings suggest that more able participants either needed less time for task-set preparation or that they invested less time for task-set preparation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1057 KiB  
Article
Is Flexibility More than Fluency and Originality?
by Selina Weiss and Oliver Wilhelm
J. Intell. 2022, 10(4), 96; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence10040096 - 01 Nov 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 3212
Abstract
Flexibility (i.e., the number of categorically different ideas), fluency (i.e., the answer quantity), and originality (i.e., the quality of ideas) are essential aspects of the ability to think divergently. Theoretically, fluency and ideational flexibility tasks are akin to one another. However, flexibility was [...] Read more.
Flexibility (i.e., the number of categorically different ideas), fluency (i.e., the answer quantity), and originality (i.e., the quality of ideas) are essential aspects of the ability to think divergently. Theoretically, fluency and ideational flexibility tasks are akin to one another. However, flexibility was also considered to be uniquely related to working memory capacity due to the task requirements involved in generating diverse answers (e.g., self-monitoring, suppression, and category generation). Given that the role of working memory is strengthened in flexibility tasks relative to fluency and originality tasks, flexibility should be more strongly related with working memory. Additionally, mental speed should show a similar pattern of results because mental speed has been previously related to task complexity. Based on a sample of N = 409 adults (Mage = 24.01 years), we found in latent variable models that fluency/originality strongly predicts flexibility and accounts for 61% of its variance. Creative flexibility was unrelated to working memory and mental speed after controlling for fluency/originality. Additionally, the residual of a latent flexibility factor was unrelated to self-reported creative activities. We concluded that flexibility, as measured here, can be deemed primarily a method factor that did not show value over and above fluency/originality as assessed in traditional fluency and originality tasks. We discussed perspectives for disentangling trait and method variance in flexibility tasks. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 465 KiB  
Article
Metacognition, Mind Wandering, and Cognitive Flexibility: Understanding Creativity
by David D. Preiss
J. Intell. 2022, 10(3), 69; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence10030069 - 16 Sep 2022
Cited by 12 | Viewed by 3893
Abstract
The goal of this article is to review work on mind wandering, metacognition and creativity in order to consider their relationship with cognitive flexibility. I introduce a model of the role that mind wandering and metacognition have in the generation and exploration of [...] Read more.
The goal of this article is to review work on mind wandering, metacognition and creativity in order to consider their relationship with cognitive flexibility. I introduce a model of the role that mind wandering and metacognition have in the generation and exploration of novel ideas and products in the creative process. I argue that managing the interaction between metacognition and mind wandering is the main role of cognitive flexibility in creativity. Furthermore, I claim that balancing the influence of metacognition during the generation and exploration of pre-inventive structures is a quintessential part of creativity, probably in almost any domain. Thus, I advance a general framework that can be applied to understanding how creators monitor and think about their own cognition when they engage in the generation and exploration of ideas. Additionally, I discuss the evolution of controlled and spontaneous cognition and metacognitive judgements during the development of a creative person. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 557 KiB  
Article
Fluid Intelligence Emerges from Representing Relations
by Adam Chuderski
J. Intell. 2022, 10(3), 51; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence10030051 - 02 Aug 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2795
Abstract
Based on recent findings in cognitive neuroscience and psychology as well as computational models of working memory and reasoning, I argue that fluid intelligence (fluid reasoning) can amount to representing in the mind the key relation(s) for the task at hand. Effective representation [...] Read more.
Based on recent findings in cognitive neuroscience and psychology as well as computational models of working memory and reasoning, I argue that fluid intelligence (fluid reasoning) can amount to representing in the mind the key relation(s) for the task at hand. Effective representation of relations allows for enormous flexibility of thinking but depends on the validity and robustness of the dynamic patterns of argument–object (role–filler) bindings, which encode relations in the brain. Such a reconceptualization of the fluid intelligence construct allows for the simplification and purification of its models, tests, and potential brain mechanisms. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

29 pages, 2064 KiB  
Article
Intelligence IS Cognitive Flexibility: Why Multilevel Models of Within-Individual Processes Are Needed to Realise This
by Damian P. Birney and Jens F. Beckmann
J. Intell. 2022, 10(3), 49; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jintelligence10030049 - 01 Aug 2022
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2858
Abstract
Despite substantial evidence for the link between an individual’s intelligence and successful life outcomes, questions about what defines intelligence have remained the focus of heated dispute. The most common approach to understanding intelligence has been to investigate what performance on tests of intellect [...] Read more.
Despite substantial evidence for the link between an individual’s intelligence and successful life outcomes, questions about what defines intelligence have remained the focus of heated dispute. The most common approach to understanding intelligence has been to investigate what performance on tests of intellect is and is not associated with. This psychometric approach, based on correlations and factor analysis is deficient. In this review, we aim to substantiate why classic psychometrics which focus on between-person accounts will necessarily provide a limited account of intelligence until theoretical considerations of within-person accounts are incorporated. First, we consider the impact of entrenched psychometric presumptions that support the status quo and impede alternative views. Second, we review the importance of process-theories, which are critical for any serious attempt to build a within-person account of intelligence. Third, features of dynamic tasks are reviewed, and we outline how static tasks can be modified to target within-person processes. Finally, we explain how multilevel models are conceptually and psychometrically well-suited to building and testing within-individual notions of intelligence, which at its core, we argue is cognitive flexibility. We conclude by describing an application of these ideas in the context of microworlds as a case study. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Flexibility: Concepts, Issues and Assessment)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop