Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy.

IF 1.6 4区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Australian Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2023-02-19 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684

Caitlin A Howlett, Stephanie Miles, Carolyn Berryman, Andrea Phillipou, G Lorimer Moseley

{"title":"Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy.","authors":"Caitlin A Howlett, Stephanie Miles, Carolyn Berryman, Andrea Phillipou, G Lorimer Moseley","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive flexibility is a widely studied construct and is considered an important treatment target for several psychological disorders. The convergence of several independent fields of research has led to assumptions about the assessment of cognitive flexibility - assumptions that are not empirically supported and often conflate different notions of flexibility. This critical review discusses how the conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has seemingly arisen from literature on eating disorders. We describe how seminal early observations of \"inflexible\" personality characteristics, communication competence research, and investigations of frontal lobe function after injury led to two methods of assessing \"cognitive flexibility\". We discuss the impact that conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has had on the field, and we provide recommendations for assessing cognitive flexibility in both research and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"2174684"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12175648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive flexibility is a widely studied construct and is considered an important treatment target for several psychological disorders. The convergence of several independent fields of research has led to assumptions about the assessment of cognitive flexibility - assumptions that are not empirically supported and often conflate different notions of flexibility. This critical review discusses how the conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has seemingly arisen from literature on eating disorders. We describe how seminal early observations of "inflexible" personality characteristics, communication competence research, and investigations of frontal lobe function after injury led to two methods of assessing "cognitive flexibility". We discuss the impact that conflation of self-report and neurocognitive assessments has had on the field, and we provide recommendations for assessing cognitive flexibility in both research and clinical settings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自我报告和认知灵活性的神经认知评估之间的合并:对叮当声谬误的批判性回顾

认知灵活性是一个被广泛研究的概念，被认为是多种心理障碍的重要治疗目标。几个独立研究领域的融合导致了对认知灵活性评估的假设——这些假设没有经验支持，而且经常将不同的灵活性概念混为一谈。这篇批判性的综述讨论了自我报告和神经认知评估的合并是如何从饮食失调的文献中出现的。我们描述了早期对“不灵活”人格特征的开创性观察、沟通能力研究和损伤后额叶功能的调查如何导致了评估“认知灵活性”的两种方法。我们讨论了自我报告和神经认知评估的合并对该领域的影响，并提供了在研究和临床环境中评估认知灵活性的建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.