Journal of Experimental Psychology: © 2011 American Psychological Association

Learning, Memory, and Cognition 0278-7393/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0021613

2011, Vol. 37, No. 1, 256 –263

New Rule Use Drives the Relation Between Working Memory Capacity
and Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices

Jennifer Wiley, Andrew F. Jarosz, Patrick J. Cushen, and Gregory J. H. Colflesh

University of Illinois at Chicago

The correlation between individual differences in working memory capacity and performance on the
Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) is well documented yet poorly understood. The present
work proposes a new explanation: that the need to use a new combination of rules on RAPM problems
drives the relation between performance and working memory capacity scores. Evidence for this account
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

is supported by an item-based analysis of performance during standard administration of the RAPM and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

an experiment that manipulates the need to use new rule combinations across 2 subsets of RAPM items.

Keywords: problem solving, working memory capacity, executive function, attentional control

The need to hold multiple rules, subgoals, or the results of
previous solution attempts in memory is thought to be a major
determinant of problem-solving difficulty (Baddeley & Hitch,
1974; Cary & Carlson, 2001; Kotovsky, Hayes, & Simon, 1985;
Sweller, 1988). As working memory capacity (WMC) is thought to
relate to the number of distinct representations that can be main-
tained, manipulated, or integrated in active memory, models of
problem solving usually include a parameter that represents a
limited capacity buffer in order to accurately fit human perfor-
mance (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998; Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990;
Newell & Simon, 1972). However, surprisingly few studies have
used individual differences approaches to explore how variations
in WMC may actually affect the problem-solving process (Ash &
Wiley, 2006; Hambrick & Engle, 2003).
The working memory system was originally conceptualized by
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) as a temporary storage and processing
space for information that contains phonological and visuospatial
storage buffers, as well as a more domain-general central executive
charged with regulating the flow of information in and out of those
buffers. In order to involve both the buffers and the central
executive, assessments of individual differences in WMC involve
a storage component as well as a concurrent processing compo-
nent. For example, in the operation span (OSpan) task (Conway et
al., 2005), participants need to remember a list of words while they
evaluate the correctness of simple math equations. Performance on
complex span tasks, such as OSpan, is thought to be driven by the
ability to maintain information and control attention in the face of
distraction (Conway et al., 2005).
Jennifer Wiley, Andrew F. Jarosz, Patrick J. Cushen, and Gregory J. H.
Colflesh, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago.
This research was supported by National Science Foundation CAREER
Grant REC 0347887 to Jennifer Wiley. We are indebted to Andy Conway,
Thomas Griffin, Melinda Jensen, Tim Miura, Travis Ricks, and Chris
Sanchez for their assistance in collecting the data and discussions about
this line of research.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
Wiley, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007
West Harrison Street (M/C 285), Chicago, IL 60607. E-mail: jwiley@uic.edu
One task frequently investigated in conjunction with individual
differences in WMC is Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices
(RAPM; Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998). This visuospatial reason-
ing and problem-solving task, developed as a psychometric assess-
ment of intellectual ability (especially Gf), requires participants to
derive a set of rules or relations between stimuli in order to
complete a visual pattern. Performance on this test has been
suggested to be dependent on executive control processes that
allow a solver to analyze complex problems, assemble solution
strategies, monitor performance, and adapt as performance pro-
ceeds (Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow, 1983).
Thus, performance on both complex span tasks and RAPM has
been argued to rely on executive function or attentional control,
and, across a number of studies in college populations, simple
correlations between scores on OSpan and RAPM assessments are
typically found to be around .30 (r ⫽ .20, Conway, Cowan,
Bunting, Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; r ⫽ .32, Kane et al., 2004;
r ⫽ .34, Unsworth & Engle, 2005). What drives the relationship
between these tasks is not yet clear. As such, our goal in the
current paper was to obtain a finer grained understanding of the
association between problem-solving ability on the RAPM and
individual differences in WMC.
In an earlier analysis of the RAPM problem set, Carpenter et al.
(1990) suggested the relation with WMC might exist because
RAPM problems vary in the number of rules and instances of those
rules (tokens) that must be considered to solve the problems. More
difficult problems were seen to require more rules or rule tokens to
be solved. Consistent with this explanation, they generated two
computational models of performance, one with a limited WMC
and one with a larger WMC. Carpenter et al. demonstrated that a
more limited model provided a good fit for average performance
but a model with a larger WMC provided a better fit for superior
performance.
Logically, this rule/capacity account suggests that individuals
with low WMC should do more poorly on RAPM problems as the
number of rules that are required to solve a problem increases.
However, subsequent studies have failed to support this prediction.
Salthouse (1993) examined how individual differences in WMC
related to solution success on early versus later items. The Raven

256
 RESEARCH REPORTS
problem sets are traditionally arranged in order of increasing
normative difficulty. Salthouse reasoned that if WMC helped
solvers to keep multiple rules, subgoals, or intermediate products
in memory, WMC should have a larger effect on later problems in
the set. However, he found the relation between WMC and solu-
tion success was constant across problem order.
Unsworth and Engle (2005) also found that the relation between
RAPM and WMC did not increase as the normative difficulty of
problems increased. In addition, they tested the rule/capacity ac-
count more directly. Using the Carpenter et al. (1990) rule tokens,
Unsworth and Engle tested the prediction that WMC should be
most strongly related to performance on RAPM problems requir-
ing the most rule tokens. This prediction was not supported. The
relation between WMC and RAPM performance was similar across
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
problems with different numbers of rule tokens. Based on these
findings, there is little evidence to support the idea that WMC predicts
RAPM performance as a direct function of an individual’s ability to
consider a larger number of rules or rule tokens.
What, then, does account for the correlations between perfor-
mance on WMC tasks and the RAPM? As RAPM is considered to
be one of the best measures of fluid intelligence, it suggests that
the RAPM taps the ability to learn a new task quickly. Along these
lines, Guthke and Stein (1996) and Verguts and De Boeck (2002)
have proposed that more successful solvers may benefit from the
fact that a small set of rules is repeated across the test set. Better
solvers may be more likely to learn to apply the rules fluently
while taking the test. Thus, one possible hypothesis is that high
WMC solvers learn the rules better than low WMC solvers do.
However, although Verguts and De Boeck demonstrated that re-
peated exposure to rules can affect the likelihood of rule use on
later problems, neither their study nor the Guthke and Stein study
correlated performance with individual differences in WMC. A
simple prediction based on this learning efficiency account is that
performance on problems requiring the reuse of a rule combination
seen earlier in the set should be more strongly predicted by WMC
or, alternatively, that the relation of WMC and RAPM success
should increase with the number of instances in which the same
rule combination is applied.
Alternatively, Raven designed the RAPM to tap the ability to
“educe” new relations or find meaning in complex stimuli (Raven
et al., 1998). This perspective on what the task requires maps well
onto more recent conceptualizations of individual differences in
WMC as being related to better executive function, or the ability
to control one’s attention especially under conditions of distraction
or interference (Conway et al., 2005; Engle, 2002). Consistent with
this view, Darowski, Helder, Zacks, Hasher, and Hambrick (2008)
demonstrated that RAPM performance was negatively predicted
by a measure of distractibility. Further, Unsworth and Engle
(2005) have suggested that one reason why RAPM and complex
span task performance may be correlated is because susceptibility
to proactive interference is an important source of individual
differences in both tasks. Similarly, Miyake et al. (2000) proposed
that a critical aspect of central executive functioning may be the
ability to perform new operations in the face of proactive interfer-
ence. Based on these conceptions, a second possible hypothesis is
that WMC may be related to RAPM performance via individual
differences in the susceptibility to distraction or interference dur-
ing each task. This interference/distraction account would suggest
that the need to reject previously used rule combinations and
257
identify new rule combinations as one works through the problem
set could potentially underlie the relation between RAPM and
WMC. This view makes the opposite prediction from the learning
efficiency account. In particular, it suggests that the relation be-
tween WMC and RAPM performance should be highest on prob-
lems that require the first use of a rule combination.
Study 1
In the first study, we explored these alternative hypotheses by
creating a new coding scheme for the standard RAPM Set II. In
this analysis, as opposed to Carpenter et al. (1990), which omitted
nine of 36 items in its coding, all items were coded for the rules
they require. Additionally, we coded whether the problems intro-
duced a new rule combination (first use) or repeated the combi-
nation used in a previous problem (repeated rule use) and whether
they required a different rule combination than the one used on the
previous problem (switch) or the same combination as in a previ-
ous problem (nonswitch). In the case of repeated rule use, we
counted the number of times that each rule combination was used
across items (rule combination repetitions). To test for the second-
order relations with individual differences in WMC, we collected
OSpan measures on all participants.
Method
The sample consisted of 255 undergraduates in introductory
psychology at a large midwestern U.S. university. OSpan was
administered according to Conway et al. (2005) with
experimenter-controlled presentation and proportional scoring. All
participants completed RAPM Set I with a 5-min time limit fol-
lowed by Set II with a 40-min limit, per instructions given in the
manual. The odd– even reliability estimate for this sample on the
full RAPM Set II using Cronbach’s alpha was .83.
A complete coding of the rules required to solve each problem
was developed. The coding was derived by the convergence of
three methods. First, protocol data were collected from 16 partic-
ipants as they solved the problems. However, because so few
students actually solved the final problems, participants in a sec-
ond group (N ⫽ 18) were told the intended answers and asked to
indicate the rules that were needed to determine the correct solu-
tion. For both protocol studies, participants were told to note
patterns both across rows and down columns, as directed by the
standard instructions for Set II. Third, two independent coders
analyzed the problems using a coding scheme of eight rules
developed from the protocol descriptions. Six were similar to
Carpenter et al.’s (1990) rules. Two new rules were created for two
unique problems not included in the Carpenter et al. coding
(Morph Shape and Change Color). The protocols supported the
observation made by Carpenter et al. that patterns with objects
rotating in orientation can be perceived either as a distribution of
3 (Dist 3) or as a progression. Similarly, distributions of 2 (Dist 2)
can be seen as instances of subtraction. To be consistent, we coded
these as Dist 3 and Dist 2, respectively. Interrater reliability for
the coding was .94. Discrepancies were resolved by referring to the
protocols. Finally, using this coding scheme, we computed the
number of rule tokens (total instances of all rules needed to select
the correct response alternative).
 258 RESEARCH REPORTS

A sample problem similar to an RAPM item is presented in Table 1

Figure 1 to illustrate the coding procedure. In this example, the Descriptive Statistics for RAPM and WMC Measures for
size of the shape changes (decreases) across the columns. This best Both Studies
fits the progression rule. The identity of the shape stays constant
across the columns. This fits the constant rule. Finally, to deter- Study and task M SD Min Max
mine the correct response in the answer bank, one also needs to Study 1
attend to the outer shape. This would also be a constant. So this RAPM Set II .55 .16 .17 .97
requires two rules (progression and constant) and three rule tokens OSpan .61 .15 .15 .95
(1 progression and 2 constants) to determine that the correct Study 2
RAPM subsets
answer would be Option 3. Because Carpenter et al. (1990) excluded
Novel .44 .18 .17 .75
the constant rule from their rule token counts, we performed analyses Repeated .48 .16 .17 .79
using token counts without including constant rules. A detailed report WMC composite
of the full coding is provided in the Appendix. Novel .61 .11 .36 .83
Repeated .61 .11 .39 .83
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Results Note. RAPM ⫽ Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices; OSpan ⫽

Descriptive statistics for performance on the RAPM and OSpan
tasks are reported in Table 1. Overall RAPM performance on Set
II and WMC as measured by OSpan scores was correlated at r ⫽
.33, N ⫽ 255, p ⬍ .001, which is similar to previously reported
magnitudes.
Problem subset analyses. Following the analyses of Unsworth
and Engle (2005), the relation of WMC and RAPM was tested in
various subsets of the Set II problems. The first analysis tested for
increases in correlations due to problem order (as a proxy for
difficulty) using subsets representing the first, second, third, and
fourth quartiles of problems in order of appearance on the test. As
shown in Table 2, the relation between RAPM and WMC did not
increase as a function of problem quartile. If anything the initial
operating span; WMC ⫽ working memory capacity.
quartile (r ⫽ .27, N ⫽ 255) was a stronger predictor than the last
(r ⫽ .21, N ⫽ 255).
A second analysis tested whether the problem sets, categorized
by the number of rule tokens required to solve them, predicted the
correlation. The correlation between RAPM and WMC also did
not increase as a function of the number of rule tokens. As such,
these results fail to support the rule/capacity account.
Analyses comparing first-use with repeated-rule-use subsets
were more informative. Performance on problems in which a
combination of rules was used for the first time was more strongly
related to WMC (r ⫽ .39) than was performance on problems in
which the rule combination had been used previously in either Set
I or Set II, r ⫽ .26, t(252) ⫽ 2.85, p ⬍ .01.
The specific predictions of the learning efficiency and interfer-
ence/distraction accounts were tested in a series of simultaneous
regressions (see Table 3). When performance on first-use problems
and overall performance were entered simultaneously to predict
WMC (Model 1), the contribution of first-use performance was
significant but that of overall performance was not. When perfor-
mance on repeated-rule-use problems and overall performance
were entered simultaneously to predict WMC (Model 2), both
effects remained significant. The relation of overall performance
and WMC remained positive, but the unique relation of perfor-
mance on repeated-rule-use problems to WMC was negative. This
significant effect was actually in the opposite direction of what

Table 2
Correlations of RAPM Subsets With OSpan (N ⫽ 255) in
1 2 3 4 Study 1

Variable 0 1 2 3 4
ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ
Quartiles .27 .27 .24 .21ⴱⴱ
All rule tokens
(with constant) .25ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ
5 6 7 8 Rule tokens (no
constant) .14ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ
Rule combination
repetitions .39ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ

Note. RAPM ⫽ Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices; OSpan ⫽

operating span.
ⴱⴱ
Figure 1. Example matrix problem similar to Raven’s. p ⬍ .01.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 259

Table 3 Table 4
Simultaneous Regressions Predicting OSpan for Study 1 Correlations Among WMC–RAPM Point-Biserial Correlations
(Correlation) and Predictor Variables (Solution Rate, Problem
Model and predictor ␤ t sr2 R2 F Order, Rule Tokens Without Constant Rules, Switch, First Use)
Model 1 for Each Problem (N ⫽ 36) in Study 1
First use .42 3.60ⴱⴱ 0.22
Overall RAPM ⫺.04 ⫺0.34 ⫺0.02 .15 22.2ⴱⴱ Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Model 2
Repeated rule use ⫺.73 ⫺3.56ⴱⴱ ⫺0.22 1. Solve rate —
Overall RAPM 1.03 5.00ⴱⴱ 0.30 .15 22.1ⴱⴱ 2. Order ⫺.96ⴱⴱ —
Model 3 3. Rule tokens ⫺.65ⴱⴱ .66ⴱⴱ —
First use .46 3.56ⴱⴱ 0.22 4. Switch .15 ⫺.09 ⫺.15 —
Switch ⫺.08 ⫺0.61 ⫺0.04 .15 22.4ⴱⴱ 5. First use ⫺.13 .15 .11 .36ⴱ —
Correlation .23 ⫺.26 ⫺.19 .16 .60ⴱⴱ
Note. OSpan ⫽ operating span; RAPM ⫽ Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Note. WMC ⫽ working memory capacity; RAPM ⫽ Raven’s Advanced
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Matrices.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. Progressive Matrices.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.

would be predicted by the learning efficiency account. Thus, the

results of both simultaneous regressions provide support for the
interference/distraction account.
Similarly, performance on problems that required a different
rule than the previous problem (switch problems) was more
strongly correlated with WMC (r ⫽ .33, p ⬍ .001) than was
performance on nonswitch problems that used the same rules as
the preceding problem, r ⫽ .22, p ⬍ .001, t(252) ⫽ 2.07, p ⬍ .05.
However, when performance on first-use problems and switch
problems were simultaneously regressed against WMC (see Table
3, Model 3), only the relation between first-use problems and
WMC was significant. This suggests that performance on prob-
lems where novel rule combinations are required, and not just the
need to switch between rule combinations, is driving the relation
between RAPM and WMC.
Item-based point-biserial correlations. To test for the effect
of first-use problems in another way, we examined the point-
biserial correlations between performance and WMC for each item
(shown in Figure 2). The correlations with item-based point-
biserial correlations are shown in Table 4. Performance on the
RAPM showed the usual relation with problem order, with the first
problem yielding the highest solution rate and the last problem being
solved the least. The number of rule tokens required for solution was
also related to solution rate, consistent with all prior analyses.
However, when problem order, number of rule tokens (without
constant rules), whether or not the problem required a switch in
rules from the preceding problem; and whether or not the problem
required the first use of a rule combination were all entered into a
simultaneous regression on the point-biserial correlations between
RAPM performance and WMC for each problem, only first use
was a significant predictor. The results of the regression are shown
in Table 5. Although the contribution of problem order was mar-
ginal, the effect was in the opposite of the direction predicted by
difficulty, such that performance on earlier (or easier) problems
tended to be more highly correlated with WMC than did perfor-
mance on later (more difficult) problems.
The critical role of first-use problem performance was also
observed in a reanalysis of the Unsworth and Engle (2005) data.
For this analysis, several additional first-use problems, marked as
(I) in the Appendix, were included as the practice Set I was not
administered. As in the original study, only problems from the first
three quartiles were used to test relationships. When we performed
a similar analysis on their published point-biserial correlation data,

Figure 2. Point-biserial correlations with working memory capacity for performance on individual Raven’s
Advanced Progressive Matrices problems in Study 1. (Values for first-use problems are circled.)
 260 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 5 Method
Simultaneous Regression Predicting WMC–RAPM Point-Biserial
Correlations for Study 1 An independent sample of 50 undergraduates at the same uni-
versity participated as part of the introductory psychology subject
Variable ␤ t sr2 R2 F pool. To ensure reliable measurement of WMC, we administered
multiple span tasks following Conway et al. (2005). Participants
Order ⫺.34 ⫺1.97† ⫺.33
completed both OSpan and Reading Span (RSpan), and we created
Rule tokens .04 0.25 .04
Switch .06 0.42 .08 a composite measure by averaging across the tasks. The scores on
First use .64 4.61ⴱⴱ .64 .50 7.59ⴱⴱ the two tasks were correlated at .69, which is a high level of
agreement (correlations among span tasks typically range from .4
Note. WMC ⫽ working memory capacity; RAPM ⫽ Raven’s Advanced to .6; Conway et al., 2005). For the RAPM, all participants
Progressive Matrices.
†
p ⬍ .10. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. completed two practice items (Items 1 and 2 from RAPM Set I)
with no time limit and then 16 items from Set II with a 20-min
limit. In the repeated rules condition, items were presented in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

blocks based on rule, with all items of the same rule combination
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

only the first-use variable significantly predicted WMC, ␤ ⫽ .38,
t(26) ⫽ 2.05, p ⬍ .05.Thus, the results of all analyses are consis-
tent with the interference/distraction account, as the relation be-
tween WMC and RAPM is being driven by performance on
problems that require the first use of a rule combination.
Study 2
Based on the observation that problems with novel rule combi-
nations are critical for the WMC and RAPM correlation, the goal
in our second study was to experimentally manipulate the presence
of novel rule combinations and examine the resultant effect on the
WMC–RAPM relationship. To do this, we selected one subset of
16 RAPM items such that each problem required a unique rule
combination (referred to as the novel rules condition). Then,
we selected a second set of 16 RAPM items that required only five
different rule combinations (the repeated rules condition). The
normative difficulty of these sets was matched. If the explanation
supported by our item analyses in Study 1 is correct, performance
in the novel rules condition should be more related than perfor-
mance in the repeated rules condition to WMC.
being presented in series from the easiest to the most difficult.
Following the final (most difficult) item of that rule combination,
the easiest item from the next rule combination was presented.
Items in the novel rules condition were presented in an order that
matched the difficulty of items in the repeated rules condition on
a problem-by-problem basis. The items used for the novel rules
condition, in order, were 4, 35, 7, 17, 12, 13, 10, 20, 25, 18, 14, 21,
30, 33, 29, and 32. The items used for the repeated rules condition,
in order, were 5, 24, 7, 9, 11, 19, 16, 22, 23, 33, 8, 26, 27, 28, 29,
and 34. Odd– even reliability estimates computed using Cron-
bach’s alpha were similar for the two subsets (novel ⫽ .67,
repeated ⫽ .74).
Results
Descriptive statistics for RAPM and WMC performance in both
conditions are shown in Table 1. No differences were found
between conditions in either RAPM performance or WMC (ts ⬍
1). However, as shown in Figure 3, the relation between RAPM
and WMC differed as a function of condition. A regression pre-
dicting RAPM performance using WMC and condition in the first

Figure 3. Relation of working memory capacity to Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) performance
in novel rule and repeated rule conditions in Study 2.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
step demonstrated a significant improvement in model fit with the
addition of the dummy-coded interaction in the second step, R ⫽
.45, R2 change ⫽ .08, F(1, 46) ⫽ 4.71, MSE ⫽ .01, p ⬍ .04. The
interaction term significantly predicted RAPM performance, ␤ ⫽
.873, t(46) ⫽ 2.17, p ⬍ .04, sr2 ⫽ .31, indicating that performance
in the novel rules condition was more strongly related to WMC
(r ⫽ .62, p ⬍ .001) than performance in the repeated rules
condition (r ⫽ .02, ns).
General Discussion
The results of both studies offer a new insight into the relation
between individual differences in WMC and problem solving,
particularly on the RAPM. In the first study, it was performance on
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
problems in which a combination of rules was used for the first
time that was critical for the relationship between WMC and
RAPM. Confidence in the generalizability of this result is garnered
by its replication in the data from Unsworth and Engle (2005). The
second study further supports this finding by manipulating the
novelty of rule combinations needed to solve problems and dem-
onstrating that WMC was critical to performance when solving
required the frequent use of new rules.
Our results converge with previous findings in terms of the
correlations found between WMC and RAPM. They are consistent
with previous findings in that neither the normative difficulty of
RAPM items nor the number of rule tokens required for solution
showed the positive relation with WMC that would be predicted by
a rule/capacity explanation. Additionally, the relationship between
WMC and RAPM performance did not increase as a function of
repeated rule use, arguing against the learning efficiency account.
Note that these results should not be taken to suggest that the
number of rules required to solve problems, or other aspects of
item complexity, will not affect problem-solving performance.
These factors clearly can relate to problem difficulty, and our data
do, indeed, demonstrate a significant relationship between the
number of rule tokens required to solve a problem and perfor-
mance on the RAPM items. However, these factors do not seem to
be what drives the relation with WMC.
The breakthrough finding here, that performance on first-use
problems underlies the WMC–RAPM relation, can be seen as
consistent with recent conceptions of individual differences in
WMC that emphasize the role of executive functioning, including
the ability to flexibly control one’s focus of attention (Colflesh &
Conway, 2007; Engle, 2002; Kane, Bleckley, Conway, & Engle,
2001) and susceptibility to distraction or interference during cog-
nitive tasks (Bunting, 2006; Hasher & Zacks, 1988; Unsworth &
Engle, 2007). The present results may be explained by the notion
that previously learned and used rules may interfere with perfor-
mance on problems when a new rule combination is needed. High
WMC participants may do better on the RAPM because they are
better able to ignore or reject known rules when they do not lead
to a solution on new-rule-combination problems. On the other
hand, low WMC participants may be less successful at removing
their attention from previously learned rules, resulting in deficien-
cies in finding new rules, or perseverating in attempts to retrieve
and apply ineffective rules. A similar finding was obtained by Ash
and Wiley (2006), who found that low WMC participants were less
likely than high WMC participants to recognize that their first
solution attempts were inappropriate when solving a set of insight
261
problems. Thus, differences in the quality of executive function,
and not capacity per se, may be responsible for the relationship
between WMC and RAPM.
We note that there is not yet direct evidence for the interference/
distraction account and suggest that the examination of process mea-
sures collected during performance of both tasks is an important next
step in order to further test this explanation. Although there is much
left to explore, the present results do support the conclusion that
individual differences in WMC are related to an ability to identify and
apply new relations when engaged in problem solving and provide a
much-needed explanation for the association between performance on
WMC measures and performance on the RAPM.
References
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). Atomic components of thought.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ash, I. K., & Wiley, J. (2006). The nature of restructuring in insight: An
individual differences approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13,
66 –73.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of
Learning and Motivation, 8, 47– 89. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
Bunting, M. (2006). Proactive interference and item similarity in working
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 32, 183–196. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.2.183
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test
measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progres-
sive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404 – 431. doi:10.1037/
0033-295X.97.3.404
Cary, M., & Carlson, R. A. (2001). Distributing working memory resources
in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 27, 836 – 848. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.3.836
Colflesh, G. J. H., & Conway, A. R. A. (2007). Individual differences in
working memory capacity and divided attention in dichotic listening.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 699 –703.
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff,
S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity,
short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intel-
ligence. Intelligence, 30, 163–184. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00096-4
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O.,
& Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological
review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769 –786.
Darowski, E. S., Helder, E., Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Hambrick, D. Z.
(2008). Age-related differences in cognition: The role of distraction
control. Neuropsychology, 22, 638 – 644. doi:10.1037/0894-
4105.22.5.638
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19 –23. doi:10.1111/
1467-8721.00160
Guthke, J. J., & Stein, H. (1996). Are learning tests the better version of
intelligence tests? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 12,
1–13. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.12.1.1
Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2003). The role of working memory in
problem solving. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
psychology of problem solving (pp. 176 –206). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771.007
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and
aging: A review and a new view. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22,
pp. 193–225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A
controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 130, 169 –183. doi:10.1037/0096-
3445.130.2.169
 262 RESEARCH REPORTS
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W.,
& Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A
latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and
reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189 –
217. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some
problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology,
17, 248 –294. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90009-X
Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity
continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelli-
gence, 7, 107–127. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(83)90023-5
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., &
Wager, T. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49 –100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s
Appendix
Rule Coding Details
Rules Identified With Examples
Constant. One feature does not change across row or down
column, for example the outer box in below example.
Progression. Features increase or decrease in size, number or
distance, for example the triangles in above example from left to
right.
Figure addition. Overlay or append features, as in example
below from left to right.
Figure subtraction. Delete common or unique parts from
earlier figures as shown below from left to right.
(Appendix continues)
Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales: Section 4. The Advanced
Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Salthouse, T. A. (1993). Influence of working memory on adult age
differences in matrix reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 84,
171–199.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects
on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285. doi:10.1207/
s15516709cog1202_4
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid
abilities: Examining the correlation between Operation Span and Raven.
Intelligence, 33, 67– 81. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.08.003
Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences
in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory
and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review,
114, 104 –132. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104
Verguts, T., & De Boeck, P. (2002). The induction of solution rules in
Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 14, 521–547. doi:10.1080/09541440143000230
Distribution of 3. Three discrete values appear in each row or
column such as the shapes in example below. Code three orienta-
tions of objects as Dist 3.
Distribution of 2. An element appears in only 2 out of 3
cases, such as the horizontal line above.
Morph shape. Change curve of lines or shape.
Change color. Change shading at overlap.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 263

Rule combinations
RAPM II All tokens Rule count (ⴱ First-Use) (I - Set I)

1 3 2 Dist 3, Dist 3, Const (I)

2 3 2 Prog, Prog, Constⴱ
3 2 2 Prog, Const (I)
4 2 2 Prog, Const
5 2 2 Prog, Const
6 2 2 Prog, Const
7 1 1 Add (I)
8 2 1 Dist 3, Dist 3 (I)
9 1 1 Add
10 3 2 Prog, Const, Constⴱ
11 1 1 Add
12 1 1 Sub (I)
13 3 2 Dist 3, Dist 3, Const
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

14 3 2 Dist 3, Const, Constⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

15 2 1 Add, Add (I)

16 2 2 Add, Subⴱ
17 2 2 Dist 3, Const (I)
18 1 1 Morphⴱ
19 1 1 Add
20 2 1 Add, Add
21 4 1 Const, Const, Const, Constⴱ
22 2 2 Add, Sub
23 2 2 Add, Sub
24 2 2 Prog, Const
25 3 3 Prog, Color, Constⴱ
26 2 1 Dist 3, Dist 3
27 2 1 Dist 3, Dist 3
28 3 1 Dist 3, Dist 3, Dist 3ⴱ
29 3 1 Dist 3, Dist 3, Dist 3
30 3 2 Dist 3, Dist 3, Dist 2ⴱ
31 3 2 Dist 3, Dist 2, Dist 2ⴱ
32 3 2 Dist 3, Dist 2, Dist 2
33 2 2 Add, Sub
34 3 1 Dist 3, Dist 3, Dist 3
35 4 3 Dist 3, Dist 2, Dist 2, constantⴱ
36 4 3 Dist 3, Dist 2, Dist 2, constant

Received December 21, 2009

Revision received May 28, 2010
Accepted June 11, 2010 䡲