Intelligence IS Cognitive Flexibility: Why Multilevel Models of Within-Individual Processes Are Needed to Realise This

Abstract

Despite substantial evidence for the link between an individual’s intelligence and successful life outcomes, questions about what defines intelligence have remained the focus of heated dispute. The most common approach to understanding intelligence has been to investigate what performance on tests of intellect is and is not associated with. This psychometric approach, based on correlations and factor analysis is deficient. In this review, we aim to substantiate why classic psychometrics which focus on between-person accounts will necessarily provide a limited account of intelligence until theoretical considerations of within-person accounts are incorporated. First, we consider the impact of entrenched psychometric presumptions that support the status quo and impede alternative views. Second, we review the importance of process-theories, which are critical for any serious attempt to build a within-person account of intelligence. Third, features of dynamic tasks are reviewed, and we outline how static tasks can be modified to target within-person processes. Finally, we explain how multilevel models are conceptually and psychometrically well-suited to building and testing within-individual notions of intelligence, which at its core, we argue is cognitive flexibility. We conclude by describing an application of these ideas in the context of microworlds as a case study.

Within-Individual Variation in Cognitive Performance Is Not Noise: Why and How Cognitive Assessments Should Examine Within-Person Performance

“…Consistent with Birney and Beckmann ( 2022 ), it is for this reason that we propose that dynamic cognitive tasks are by definition the most appropriate tasks to elicit meaningful within-individual variability. Specifically, these tasks allow analysis of different levels of time-structured variability—between-occasion variation (i.e., performance trajectories across different measurement occasions) and within-occasion variation (i.e., performance trajectories within measurement occasions, across different trials), both of which were outline in Section 3.2.1 .…”

“…This is because personality states are assumed to unfold organically and subconsciously; we do not have to exert substantial effort to answer personality survey items because our personality state is generally not something we consciously influence. On the other hand, our theoretical conceptualisation of successful cognitive performance in demanding environments is of one’s capacity to consciously engage and respond to discrete cognitive challenges, and to changes in these challenge once we are engaging with it (e.g., at school, university, or the workplace) ( Birney and Beckmann 2022 ). To respond to these cognitive challenges, one must effortfully disengage from other tasks, reflect on the challenge presented, and deliberately and effortfully allocate resources to complete it.…”

“…Attempts have been made to broaden our understanding of intelligence, for example, through dynamic testing and complex problem-solving movements, but progress has apparently not been promising enough to substantially shift the status quo. We argue that what is missing in intelligence research is an understanding of the role of within-individual variability in cognitive performance ( Birney and Beckmann 2022 ).…”

“…We propose that within-individual variability in cognitive performance can be construed as a meaningful property of an individual’s intelligence and that this is necessary for the development of a process theory of cognitive ability that can provide an explanatory account of why individuals with similar cognitive test results might perform differently in the real world. We argue that the predominantly between-individual approach to the measurement of cognitive ability obscures important within-individual variation in cognitive performance that may have significant implications for the use of cognitive tests ( Birney and Beckmann 2022 ).…”

Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Therapy in Response Inhibition and Cognitive Flexibility of Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

“…Flexibility enables a person to appropriately and efficiently deal with pressure, challenges, and other emotional and social problems. The main element of cognitive flexibility is the ability to change cognitive sets to adapt to variable stimuli in the environment (14). Denoting distress tolerance, flexibility is defined as a person's ability to cope with negative emotions (15).…”