ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
Relational Integration and Attentional Control Are Crucial to Fluid Intelligence Together but Not Alone-An Experimental Investigation of Individual Difference in Relational Monitoring Processes.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Working memory (WM) and fluid intelligence (Gf) are highly correlated, which provides the basis for the claim that they share common cognitive processes. Attentional Control Theory and the Relational Integration Hypothesis are two process theories linking WM and Gf. Additionally, both have empirical evidence to support them; the strength of this evidence can be limited by the experimental manipulations used and the operationalisation of performance metrics. To investigate the cognitive processes related to Gf, levels of relational integration and attentional control in the relation monitoring task (RMT) were manipulated. Study 1 (N = 39) focused on calibrating RMT response time windows for different levels of relational integration to strengthen validity claims by reducing possible ceiling effects in RMT performance observed in prior research. Study 2 (N = 146) examined how Gf was related to manipulations of relational integration and attentional control. The research extends previous studies by (a) using experimental manipulations that align more closely to underlying process accounts, and (b) contrasting simple-composite scores, a common operationalisation of performance, with a variance decomposition approach that statistically isolates the hypothetical processes aligned with the experimental manipulations. Results suggest that the way performance is operationalised matters, and that neither relational integration nor attentional control processes alone relate to Gf; instead, predictive utility is greatest when they are operationalised together.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.