Cross-Linkage Theory, Everyday Intelligence: An Investigation into the Role of Cognitive Load
In recent years, the field of cognitive psychology has seen a shift in focus away from traditional, single-process theories of intelligence towards an understanding of intelligence as a multi-faceted construct consisting of a number of interconnected processes. This ‘cross-linkage theory’ of intelligence has been proposed as an alternative to the traditional view of intelligence as a unitary construct, and has been found to be a useful framework for the investigation of individual differences in cognitive capacity. This paper examines the implications of cross-linkage theory for understanding everyday intelligence by exploring the role of cognitive load in mediating the effects of cross-linkage on performance.
The traditional view of intelligence was that it was a single, unitary construct, with intelligence being determined by a single factor or set of factors (e.g., Spearman, 1904). This view has since been challenged by the emergence of a multi-faceted understanding of intelligence. This ‘cross-linkage theory’ of intelligence (Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1985) proposes that intelligence is composed of a number of interconnected processes, with the ability to perform well on any one task relying upon the successful integration of the different processes. This view has been found to be a useful framework for the investigation of individual differences in cognitive capacity (e.g., Robinson & Sternberg, 2006).
Recent research has explored the implications of cross-linkage theory for understanding everyday intelligence. The findings of this research suggest that cross-linkage can have a significant impact on performance, particularly when tasks are complex or require a high level of cognitive load. Specifically, it has been suggested that cross-linkage can be used to explain why some individuals are more successful than others at performing everyday tasks (e.g., Robinson & Sternberg, 2006).
One key factor that has been found to mediate the effects of cross-linkage on performance is cognitive load. Cognitive load refers to the amount of mental effort that is required to perform a task, or to process information. It is an important factor in the field of cognitive psychology, as it has been found to influence a variety of cognitive processes, including memory, attention, and problem solving (e.g., Sweller, 1988). The findings of recent research suggest that cognitive load can also play a role in mediating the effects of cross-linkage on everyday intelligence. Specifically, it has been found that individuals with a high level of cognitive load may be more likely to benefit from the integration of multiple processes in order to perform tasks successfully (e.g., Robinson & Sternberg, 2006).
In conclusion, the findings of recent research suggest that cross-linkage can have a significant impact on everyday intelligence, particularly when tasks are complex or require a high level of cognitive load. Specifically, it appears that cognitive load can mediate the effects of cross-linkage on performance, with individuals with a high level of cognitive load being more likely to benefit from the integration of multiple processes in order to perform tasks successfully. These findings suggest that cross-linkage theory can be a useful framework for understanding individual differences in cognitive capacity and can provide insight into how to optimize performance on everyday tasks.
References
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Robinson, C. & Sternberg, R. (2006). Cognitive Load and Its Effects on Problem-Solving Ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 434-445.
Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence,” Objectively Determined and Measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-293.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.