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

IF 3.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Australian Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2023-02-19 DOI:10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684
Caitlin A. Howlett, S. Miles, C. Berryman, A. Phillipou, G. Moseley
{"title":"Conflation between self-report and neurocognitive assessments of cognitive flexibility: a critical review of the Jingle Fallacy","authors":"Caitlin A. Howlett, S. Miles, C. Berryman, A. Phillipou, G. Moseley","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2023.2174684","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. Key Points What is already known about this topic: (1) Self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are commonly used in research and clinical practice. (2) There is uncertainty in the field about whether or not self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” assess similar underlying constructs. (3) Both clinicians and researchers are susceptible to the jingle fallacy. What this topic adds: (1) This narrative critique of the literature reveals that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” have gradually been conflated over time. (2) Early research in eating disorders seems to have played an influential role in generating and reinforcing such conflation. (3) The assumption that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are causally linked has no empirical basis and yet it has been used to explain inflexible cognitions and behaviours in people with eating disorders.","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","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":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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. Key Points What is already known about this topic: (1) Self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are commonly used in research and clinical practice. (2) There is uncertainty in the field about whether or not self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” assess similar underlying constructs. (3) Both clinicians and researchers are susceptible to the jingle fallacy. What this topic adds: (1) This narrative critique of the literature reveals that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” have gradually been conflated over time. (2) Early research in eating disorders seems to have played an influential role in generating and reinforcing such conflation. (3) The assumption that self-report and neurocognitive assessments of “cognitive flexibility” are causally linked has no empirical basis and yet it has been used to explain inflexible cognitions and behaviours in people with eating disorders.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
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
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 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
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.
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy complications and their association with postpartum depression symptoms: a retrospective study Compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures during the onset of the pandemic in Australia: investigating the role of trust in federal and state governments and scientists The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts FoMO, but not self-compassion, moderates the link between social media use and anxiety in adolescence A critical analysis of online social support for young people experiencing chronic pain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1