Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27454042›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2016

Individual differences in the executive control of attention, memory, and thought, and their associations with schizotypy.

Michael J Kane, Matt E Meier, Bridget A Smeekens, Georgina M Gross, Charlotte A Chun, Paul J Silvia, Thomas R Kwapil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strategy and processing speed eclipse individual differences in control ability in conflict tasks.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Lapses of attention.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Testing individual differences in the preparation effect.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael J KaneDepartment of Psychology.
Matt E MeierDepartment of Psychology, Western Carolina University.
Bridget A SmeekensDepartment of Psychology.
Georgina M GrossDepartment of Psychology.
Charlotte A ChunDepartment of Psychology.
Paul J SilviaDepartment of Psychology.
Thomas R KwapilDepartment of Psychology.ORCID 0000-0003-1116-5954

Funding

Executive Control and Schizotypy in the Laboratory and Daily LifeR15MH093771 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA GREENSBORO · PI KANE, MICHAEL JOHN · 2011 to 2011
$419k
NIMH NIH HHS R15 MH093771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large correlational study took a latent-variable approach to the generality of executive control by testing the individual-differences structure of executive-attention capabilities and assessing their prediction of schizotypy, a multidimensional construct (with negative, positive, disorganized, and paranoid factors) conveying risk for schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia is convincingly linked to executive deficits, the schizotypy literature is equivocal. Subjects completed tasks of working memory capacity (WMC), attention restraint (inhibiting prepotent responses), and attention constraint (focusing visual attention amid distractors), the latter 2 in an effort to fractionate the "inhibition" construct. We also assessed mind-wandering propensity (via in-task thought probes) and coefficient of variation in response times (RT CoV) from several tasks as more novel indices of executive attention. WMC, attention restraint, attention constraint, mind wandering, and RT CoV were correlated but separable constructs, indicating some distinctions among "attention control" abilities; WMC correlated more strongly with attentional restraint than constraint, and mind wandering correlated more strongly with attentional restraint, attentional constraint, and RT CoV than with WMC. Across structural models, no executive construct predicted negative schizotypy and only mind wandering and RT CoV consistently (but modestly) predicted positive, disorganized, and paranoid schizotypy; stalwart executive constructs in the schizophrenia literature-WMC and attention restraint-showed little to no predictive power, beyond restraint's prediction of paranoia. Either executive deficits are consequences rather than risk factors for schizophrenia, or executive failures barely precede or precipitate diagnosable schizophrenia symptoms. (PsycINFO Database Record

Indexed as

IndividualityAdolescentAttentionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansInhibition, PsychologicalMaleMemory, Short-TermNeuropsychological TestsReaction TimeSchizotypal Personality DisorderThinkingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27454042
PMCPMC4965188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.