Most psychological theories predict associations among processes that transpire within individuals. However, these theories are often tested by examining relationships at the between-persons (BP) rather than the within-persons (WP) level. The authors examined the WP and BP relationships between daily stress and daily variability in cognitive performance. Daily stress and cognitive performance were assessed on 6 occasions in 108 older adults and 68 young adults. WP variability in stress predicted WP variability in response times (RTs) on a 2-back working memory task in both younger and older adults. That is, RTs were slower on high-stress days compared with low-stress days. There was evidence of an amplified WP stress effect in the older adults on a serial attention task. There was no evidence of stress effects on simple versions of these tasks that placed minimal demands on working memory. These results are consistent with theories that postulate that stressrelated cognitive interference competes for attentional resources.
Keywordsaging; cognition; working memory; stress; intraindividual variability There is impressive evidence of stable individual differences on cognitive measures, even across very long time spans (Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004). Accordingly, most theories of intellectual and cognitive function have focused on these stable individual differences for inferences regarding relationships among cognitive processes (e.g., Carroll, 1993). Despite impressive stability in intellectual functioning, individuals do vary in cognitive performance even over very short retest intervals (Hertzog, Dixon, & Hultsch, 1992;Li, Aggen, Nesselroade, & Baltes, 2001). Such "state-based" variability is often relegated to the domain of measurement error and viewed as both a theoretical and a methodological nuisance. However, a number of psychologists have argued that the focused study of intraindividual or within-persons (WP) cognitive variability is critical for understanding developmental cognitive changes (Hultsch & MacDonald, 2004;Nesselroade & Ram, 2004;Siegler, 1994). We concur with this view and hope to demonstrate that modeling WP cognitive variability can facilitate understanding of basic cognitive function.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin J. Sliwinski, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244. mjsliwin@syr.edu.
NIH Public Access
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author ManuscriptA number of researchers have postulated that trial-to-trial performance variability is a fundamental characteristic of both brain function and individual differences in human intelligence. Specifically, higher levels of cognitive variability correlate with lower levels of intelligence (Jensen, 1992;Rabbitt, Osman, Moore, & Stollery, 2001). A recent life span study (Li et al., 2004) demonstrated that trial-to-trial variability becomes increasingly predictive of fluid intelligence in older age. Such increased trial-to-trial variabilit...