Local but not global graph theoretic measures of semantic networks generalize across tasks.

"Dogs" are connected to "cats" in our minds, and "backyard" to "outdoors." Does the structure of this semantic knowledge differ across people? Network-based approaches are a popular representational scheme for thinking about how relations between different concepts are organized. Recent research uses graph theoretic analyses to examine individual differences in semantic networks for simple concepts and how they relate to other higher-level cognitive processes, such as creativity. However, it remains ambiguous whether individual differences captured via network analyses reflect true differences in measures of the structure of semantic knowledge, or differences in how people strategically approach semantic relatedness tasks. To test this, we examine the reliability of local and global metrics of semantic networks for simple concepts across different semantic relatedness tasks. In four experiments, we find that both weighted and unweighted graph theoretic representations reliably capture individual differences in local measures of semantic networks (e.g., how related pot is to pan versus lion). In contrast, we find that metrics of global structural properties of semantic networks, such as the average clustering coefficient and shortest path length, are less robust across tasks and may not provide reliable individual difference measures of how people represent simple concepts. We discuss the implications of these results and offer recommendations for researchers who seek to apply graph theoretic analyses in the study of individual differences in semantic memory.