Cited by 238Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Working Memory Capacity and Fluid Intelligence: Maintenance and Disengagement

Shipstead, Zach, Harrison, Tyler L., Engle, Randall W.·2016·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence have been demonstrated to be strongly correlated traits. Typically, high working memory capacity is believed to facilitate reasoning through accurate maintenance of relevant information. In this article, we present a proposal reframing this issue, such that tests of working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are seen as measuring complementary processes that facilitate complex cognition. Respectively, these are the ability to maintain access to critical information and the ability to disengage from or block outdated information. In the realm of problem solving, high working memory capacity allows a person to represent and maintain a problem accurately and stably, so that hypothesis testing can be conducted. However, as hypotheses are disproven or become untenable, disengaging from outdated problem solving attempts becomes important so that new hypotheses can be generated and tested. From this perspective, the strong correlation between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence is due not to one ability having a causal influence on the other but to separate attention-demanding mental functions that can be contrary to one another but are organized around top-down processing goals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691616650647

Cites

165 of 165 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Shipstead et al. (2016) found that the negative correlation between fluid intelligence and n-back false alarms strengthened as lure position increased, indicating that lower fluid intelligence individuals were more likely to mistake far lures as targets.

    “Shipstead et al. (2016) found that the negative correlation between fluid intelligence and n-back false alarms strengthened as the lure position increased, indicating that individuals with lower fluid intelligence were more likely to mistake far lures as targets.”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Shipstead et al., 2016

  • Updating measures differ from working memory capacity measures mainly in how much they emphasize disengagement from outdated information.

    “What distinguishes updating measures from working memory capacity measures is their relative emphasis on disengagement from outdated information”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Shipstead et al., 2016

  • The disengagement hypothesis treats maintenance and disengagement as two critical factors linking executive functioning to fluid intelligence.

    “This framework views maintenance and disengagement as two critical factors linking executive functioning to fluid intelligence (Burgoyne & Engle, 2020;Burgoyne et al., 2019;Hambrick & Altmann, 2015;Shipstead et al., 2016).”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Shipstead et al., 2016

  • In n-back tasks, subjects must rapidly update working memory to disengage from outdated information in addition to maintaining n items.

    “One challenge is that, in addition to having to maintain n items, subjects must also rapidly update the contents of working memory to disengage from outdated information (Oberauer, 2009;Shipstead et al., 2016;Szmalec et al., 2011)”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Shipstead et al., 2016

  • Attention control supports both maintenance and disengagement.

    “Attention control supports both maintenance and disengagement (Burgoyne & Engle, 2020;Shipstead et al., 2016).”

    From Which “working memory” are we talking about? Complex span tasks versus N-back (2025) · cites this paper as Shipstead et al., 2016

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Shipstead, Zach
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2016-11
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
771-799
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2557282743
Cited by
238
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
31.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
working memory capacity, fluid intelligence, problem solving, hypothesis testing, disengagement, top-down processing, information maintenance, cognitive control
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Models, Psychological, Problem Solving, Psychological Tests, Executive Function

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review