ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Individual differences in relational reasoning.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence for rule versus exemplar learning strategies as stable individual differences independent from working memory.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Effects of generating versus evaluating distant analogies on subsequent relational integration: mediating and moderating mechanisms.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Promoting Complex Problem Solving by Introducing Schema-Governed Categories of Key Causal Models.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evidence in Support of Analogical Reasoning Improvements with Executive Attention Intervention in Healthy Young Adults.Neuroscience bulletin · 2022Article
- Generating distant analogies facilitates relational integration: Intermediary role of relational mindset and cognitive load.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Cognitive Predictors of Precautionary Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The Development of Relational Reasoning in South Korean Elementary and Middle-School Students: A Cross-Sectional Investigation.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various forms of relational processing have been linked to cognitive capacity measures, such as working memory and fluid intelligence. However, previous work has not established the extent to which different forms of relational processing reflect common factors, nor whether individual differences in cognitive style also contribute to variations in relational reasoning. The current study took an individual-differences approach to investigate the prerequisites for relational processing. In two studies, college students completed a battery of standardized tests of individual differences related to fluid intelligence and cognitive style, as well as a series of experimental tasks that require relational reasoning. Moderate correlations were obtained between relational processing and measures of cognitive capacity. Questionnaire measures of cognitive style generally did not improve predictions of relational processing beyond the influence of measures of cognitive capacity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31317394What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.