Advertisement

The Relationship of Attention and Intelligence

  • Karl Schweizer
Chapter
Part of the The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality book series (SSHE)

Abstract

The relationship between attention and intelligence is usually considered as the relationship between a basic ability and a complex ability in the sense that attention is a source, determinant or constituent of intelligence. In this chapter, the term constituent is preferred since it represents the idea of an assembly of basic abilities giving rise to a complex ability especially well. The assembly of basic abilities is usually addressed as the cognitive basis of intelligence (Schweizer, 2005). Although at first view attention may appear as a natural member of the assembly of basic abilities, the close consideration of the complexity of the concept may lead to doubts in the trueness of the assumed membership. This complexity is the result of the research efforts of a large number of experimental researchers who have created a variety of facets, types, dimensions and measures of attention (Pashler, 1998), and it provides a number of perspectives for considering the relationship between attention and intelligence. Such a number of different perspectives, however, are not really an advantage since the perspectives are a source of inconsistency and even controversy. Therefore, in this field of research, it is necessary to evaluate the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between attention and intelligence especially carefully and to concentrate on attempts of integrating the various perspectives.

Keywords

Executive Control Divided Attention Fluid Intelligence General Attention Executive Attention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 185–202). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjusting model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdon, B. (1902). Recherches sur l’habitude. Année Psychologique, 8, 327–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehner, M., Krumm, S., & Pick, M. (2005). Reasoning = working memory ≠ attention. Intelligence, 33, 251–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buehner, M., Krumm, S., Ziegler, M., & Pluecken, T. (2006). Cognitive abilities and their interplay: Reasoning, crystallized intelligence, working memory components, and sustained attention. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coull, J. T. (1998). Neural correlates of attention and arousal: Insights from electrophysiology, functional neuroimaging and psychopharmacology. Progress in Neurobiology, 55, 343–361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving concepts of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 163–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and memory: An integrated framework. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, J. D. (1991). The relationship between tests of sustained attention and fluid intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 599–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Jong, P. F., & Das-Small, A. (1995). Attention and intelligence: The validity of the Star Counting Test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deary, I. (2000). Simple information processing and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 267–284). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time control. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  21. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez-Duque, D., & Johnson, M. L. (1999). Attention metaphors: How metaphors guide the cognitive psychology of attention. Cognitive Science, 23, 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fernandez-Duque, D., & Johnson, M. L. (2002). Cause and effect theories of attention: The role of conceptual metaphors. Review of General Psychology, 6, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fogarty, G., & Stankov, L. (1988). Abilities involved in performance on competing tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuster, J. M. (2005). The cortical substrate of general intelligence. Cortex, 41, 228–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grudnik, J. L., & Kranzler, J. H. (2001). Meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and inspection time. Intelligence, 29, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities. Intelligence, 8, 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 803–864.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Heitz, R. P., Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity, attention control, and fluid intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 61–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heyden, M. (1999). Entwicklung und Erprobung einer multidimensionalen Aufmerksamkeits-Testbatterie [Development and validation of a multidimensional attention test battery]. Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation, Senckenbergische Bibliothek, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  31. Heyden, M., & Moosbrugger, H. (1997). Die Entwicklung einer computerbasierten Testbatterie zur Erfassung der fünf Aufmerksamkeitskomponenten nach Neumann [The development of a computerized test battery for assessing the five attention components according to Neumann]. Frankfurt a. M.: Arbeiten aus dem Institut für Psychologie der J. W. Goethe-Universität, Issue 2, 1997.Google Scholar
  32. Hunt, E. (1980). Intelligence as an information-processing concept. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 449–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published in 1890)Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, A. R. (1982). The chronometry of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in research on intelligence (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Jensen, A. R. (1987). Individual differences in the Hick paradigm. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Speed of information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kinchla, R. A. (1992). Attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 711–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kranzler, J. H., & Jensen, A. R. (1991). The nature of psychometric g: Unitary proces or a number of independent process? Intelligence, 15, 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lansman, M. (1978). An attentional approach to individual differences in immediate memory. Technical Report, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  42. Lansman, M., & Hunt, E. (1982). Individual differences in secondary task performance. Memory and Cognition, 10, 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lansman, M., Poltrock, S., & Hunt, E. (1983). Individual differences in the ability to focus and divide attention. Intelligence, 7, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Logan, G. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 317–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 136–181). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  47. Mirsky, A. F., Anthony, B. J., Duncan, C. C., Ahearn, M. B., & Kellam, S. G. (1991). Analysis of elements of attention: A neuropsychological approach. Neuropsychology Review, 2, 109–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moosbrugger, H., Goldhammer, F., & Schweizer, K. (2006). Latent factors underlying individual differences in attention measures: Perceptive attention and executive control. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myors, B., Stankov, L., & Oliphant, G. (1989). Competing tasks, working memory, and intelligence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Navon, D. (1984). Resources – a theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nęcka, E. (1996). The attentive mind: Intelligence in relation to selective attention, sustained attention and dual task performance. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 27, 3–24.Google Scholar
  52. Neubauer, A. C. (1997). The mental speed approach to the assessment of intelligence. Advances in Cognition and Educational Practice, 4, 149–173.Google Scholar
  53. Neubauer, A. C., Bauer, C., & Hoeller, G. (1992). Intelligence attention, motivation and speed-accuracy trade-off in the HICK paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1325–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neumann, O. (1992). Theorien der Aufmerksamkeit: Von Metaphern zu Mechanismen [Theories of attention: from metaphors to mechanisms].Psychologische Rundschau, 43, 83–101.Google Scholar
  55. Neumann, O. (1996). Theories of attention. In O. Neumann & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action (pp. 389–446). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1980). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior (CHIP Report no. 99). San Diego, CA: University of California, Center of Human Information Processing.Google Scholar
  57. Pashler, H. E. (1998). The Psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Pogge, D. L., Stokes, J. M., & Harvey, P. D. (1994). Empirical evaluation of the factorial structure of attention in adolescent psychiatric patients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16, 344–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Posner, M. I., & Boise, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Posner, M. I., & Rafal, R. D. (1987). Cognitive theories of attention and the rehabilitation of attention deficits. In M. Meier, A. Benton, & L. Diller (Eds.), Neuropsychological rehabilitation (pp. 182–201). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  62. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 655–668). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  63. Pribram, K. H., & McGuinnes, D. (1974). Arousal, activation, and effort in the control of attention. Psychological Review, 82, 116–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roberts, R. D., Beh, H. C., Spilsbury, G., & Stankov, L. (1991). Evidence for an attentional model of human intelligence using the competing task paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberts, R. D., Beh, H. C., & Stankov, L. (1988). Hick’s Law, competing tasks, and intelligence. Intelligence, 12, 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roberts, R. D., & Stankov, L. (1999). Individual differences in speed of mental processing and human cognitive abilities: Toward a taxonomic model. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 1–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rockstroh, S., & Schweizer, K. (2001). The contributions of memory and attention processes to cognitive abilities. The Journal of General Psychology, 128, 30–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403–428.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmidt, M., Trueblood, W., Merwin, M., & Durham, R.L. (1994). How much do “attention” tests tell us? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 383–394.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Bühner, M. (2000). Aufmerksamkeit und Intelligenz [Attention and intelligence]. In K. Schweizer (Ed.), Intelligenz und Kognition (pp. 125–151). Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
  71. Schmidt-Atzert, L., Bühner, M., & Enders, P. (2006). Do concentration tests assess concentration? Analyzing components of concentration test performance. Diagnostica, 52, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schweizer, K. (1994). Focal-attentive and preattentive processes in letter- and figure-search tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1347–1354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schweizer, K. (1996a). The speed-accuracy transition due to task complexity. Intelligence, 22, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schweizer, K. (1996b). Level of encoding, preattentive processing, and working-memory capacity as sources of cognitive ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 759–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schweizer, K. (2001). On the role of mechanisms when the processing complexity is high. European Psychologist, 6, 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schweizer, K. (2005). An overview of research into the cognitive basis of intelligence. Journal of Differential Psychology, 26, 43–51.Google Scholar
  78. Schweizer, K. (2007). Investigating the relationship of working memory tasks and fluid intelligence tests by means of the fixed-links model in considering the impurity problem. Intelligence, 35, 591–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schweizer, K., & Koch, W. (2003). Perceptual processes and cognitive ability. Intelligence, 31, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schweizer, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (1999). Aufmerksamkeit, Intelligenz und Verarbeitungsgeschwindigkeit als Komponenten der mentalen Leistungsfähigkeit [Attention, intelligence and processing speed as components of mental ability]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 20, 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schweizer, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Goldhammer, F. (2005). The structure of the relationship between attention and intelligence. Intelligence, 33, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schweizer, K., Zimmermann, P., & Koch, W. (2000). Sustained attention, intelligence and the crucial role of perceptual processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 12, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shallice, T., & Burgess, P. (1993). Supervisory control of action and thought selection. In A. D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness and control: A tribute to donald broadbent (pp. 171–187). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  84. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1987). Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and attitude testing. American Psychologist, 42, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Spearman, C. (1927). The ability of man. London: McMillan.Google Scholar
  87. Stankov, L. (1983). Attention and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stankov, L. (1988). Single tests, competing tasks and their relationship to the broad factors of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stankov, L. (1989). Attentional resources and intelligence. A disappearing link. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 957–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Stankov, L., Roberts, R., & Spilsbury, G. (1994). Attention and speed of test-taking in intelligence and aging. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Szymura, B., & Nęcka, E. (1998). Visual selective attention and personality: An experimental verification of three models of extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 713–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in prime memory and controlled search form secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114, 104–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Van Zomeren, A. H., & Brouwer, W. H. (1994). Clinical neuropsychology of attention. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Velmans, M. (1991). Is human information processing conscious? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 651–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wachtel, P. L. (1967). Consequences of broad and narrow attention. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 417–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zubin, J. (1975). Problem of attention in schizophrenia. In M. L. Kietzman, S. Sutton, & J. Zubin (Eds.), Experimental approaches to psychopathology (pp. 139–166). New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt a. M.Germany

Personalised recommendations