ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
Task Engagement in Matrix Reasoning Performance: A Cross-Cultural Investigation in China and the United Kingdom.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Matrix reasoning tasks remain among the most widely used instruments for assessing abstract reasoning and are often assumed to be culturally neutral. However, this assumption has been challenged by studies reporting significant cross-cultural variation in performance on nonverbal matrix reasoning tasks, even when groups show comparable performance on verbal measures of general cognitive ability. One plausible reason is that many matrix reasoning tasks rely primarily on accuracy-based performance metrics while providing limited insight into response timing and task engagement during problem solving. The present study examined the Matrix Reasoning Item Bank (MaRs-IB), a new online matrix reasoning instrument integrating both accuracy and response time, in 458 participants from China and the UK. Results demonstrated strong psychometric properties across both cultural contexts, while also revealing systematic between-group differences in overall task performance. Chinese participants were generally slower but more accurate, whereas UK participants responded more quickly with lower overall accuracy. Rather than reflecting a classical speed-accuracy trade-off, these patterns may indicate cross-cultural variation in persistence, deliberative engagement, and the metacognitive regulation of cognitive effort during reasoning tasks. In particular, Chinese participants allocated more time before responding and persisted longer on challenging task items, whereas UK participants demonstrated relatively faster responding and shorter response times on more challenging items. These findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in matrix reasoning performance may reflect not only differences in observed performance levels, but also variation in how participants allocate time and sustain engagement during cognitively demanding tasks.
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.