Abstract
Do individuals with higher levels of task-relevant cognitive resources gain more from training, or do they gain less? For episodic memory, empirical evidence is mixed. Here, we revisit this issue by applying structural equation models for capturing individual differences in change to data from 108 participants aged 9–12, 20–25, and 65–78 years. Participants learned and practiced an imagery-based mnemonic to encode and retrieve words by location cues. Initial mnemonic instructions reduced between-person differences in memory performance, whereas further practice after instruction magnified between-person differences. We conclude that strategy instruction compensates for inefficient processing among the initially less able. In contrast, continued practice magnifies ability-based between-person differences by uncovering individual differences in memory plasticity.
Highlights
A long-standing debate in psychometrically oriented developmental and non-developmental intelligence research deals with the issue of whether intelligence equals learning efficiency (e.g., Sternberg and Detterman, 1986; Neisser et al, 1996; Garlick, 2002) and with the related issue of aptitude by treatment interactions (e.g., Ferguson, 1956; Cronbach, 1957; Sullivan, 1964)
Do individuals with higher levels of task-relevant cognitive resources gain more from training? For the cognitive ability focused on in this article, episodic memory, the empirical evidence is still mixed: while positive correlations between cognitive ability and gains from instructions and practice on cognitive tasks have been reported (e.g., Kliegl et al, 1990; Verhaeghen and Marcoen, 1996; Kwon and Lawson, 2000), negative correlations are common (e.g., Gaultney et al, 1996; Cox, 2001)
This article reports that between-person differences in associative memory performance are reduced after mnemonic instructions and that baseline performance within age groups correlates negatively with instruction gains
Summary
A long-standing debate in psychometrically oriented developmental and non-developmental intelligence research deals with the issue of whether intelligence equals learning efficiency (e.g., Sternberg and Detterman, 1986; Neisser et al, 1996; Garlick, 2002) and with the related issue of aptitude by treatment interactions (e.g., Ferguson, 1956; Cronbach, 1957; Sullivan, 1964). For the cognitive ability focused on in this article, episodic memory, the empirical evidence is still mixed: while positive correlations between cognitive ability and gains from instructions and practice on cognitive tasks have been reported (e.g., Kliegl et al, 1990; Verhaeghen and Marcoen, 1996; Kwon and Lawson, 2000), negative correlations are common (e.g., Gaultney et al, 1996; Cox, 2001) These different findings have given rise to competing views on interindividual differences in training gains, which are most notably represented by the magnification and compensation accounts. Demographic questionnaire, psychometric battery of intellectual abilities, visual and auditory acuity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
