Task structure complexity and goal neglect
Sixty-six children did the same three-rule matching task. The group that had first been given a fourth rule showed more goal neglect, and that neglect tracked fluid intelligence.
The idea
Goal neglect is failing to carry out a requirement you can still report. The hypothesis is that the complexity of the action plan, not the demands of the trial in front of the child, is what produces it. Sixty-six typically developing children between 7 and 11, mean age 9.5 years, did a Feature Match task.
The approach
Half were taught four matching rules and half were taught three. After practice, the four-rule group was told to ignore the extra rule, and both groups then did the identical three-rule task.
The extra rule increased goal neglect and its correlation with fluid intelligence. Moment-to-moment errors tracked fluid intelligence in both groups, but systematic rule failures tracked it only in the four-rule group. Performance improved with age, and that age relationship disappeared once fluid intelligence was controlled. The account is that fluid intelligence compiles verbal instructions into the goals that have to stay active, and the circumstances in which they apply.
- 66 children, ages 7 to 11, mean 9.5 years
- Feature Match: four rules taught, then ignored, versus three rules throughout
- Both groups then performed the same three-rule task
- The extra rule increased goal neglect and its link to fluid intelligence
- Age effects on performance dropped out once fluid intelligence was controlled
- Roberts and Anderson. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 120, 59-72
The paper: researchportal.murdoch.edu.au .