Abstract:Statement-verification studies indicate the coexistence of intuitive conceptions and scientific concepts within learners. The underlying assumption is that the intuitive conceptions typically built in childhood never disappear, but are co-activated with scientific concepts when we face relevant situations. This is visible in increased reaction times and error rates when confronting statements for which intuitive conceptions and scientific concepts disagree. Studies that have tried to relate individual differences in this phenomenon to other variables such as inhibition have yielded inconclusive results. In the present study, we examine the structure of individual differences in the statement-verification paradigm by Shtulman and Valcarcel (2012). Using factor analytic model comparisons, we find that there is little stable variation in individuals' increases of reaction times and error rates across items covering scientific concepts from different domains, as well as across topics within domains. This finding suggests that a reason for inconsistent findings is the absence of stable individual differences in statement-verification tasks. One explanation for this finding is that the answer process draws more strongly on variable cognitive resources (e.g., content knowledge) than on more stable resources (e.g., inhibition ability). The occurrence and handling of interference between intuitive conceptions and scientific concepts appear to be driven by contextual factors rather than by stable cognitive processes. We discuss alternative explanations for the lack of reliable individual differences and implications for theories and the statistical modeling of cognitive pluralism.

Individual differences do matter

The future of experimental design: Integrative, but is the sample diverse enough?

Integrative experiments require a shared theoretical and methodological basis

Integrating Intra- and Interindividual Phenomena in Psychological Theories

Sampling complex social and behavioral phenomena

A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks

Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial

Experiment commensurability does not necessitate research consolidation

Small Sample Size and Group Homogeneity: A Crucial Ingredient to Inter-Group Bias

Does Interference Between Intuitive Conceptions and Scientific Concepts Produce Reliable Inter-individual Differences? A Psychometric Analysis

Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences

Adaptive Individual Differences

What is wrong with individual differences research?

Psychology Is a Property of Persons, Not Averages or Distributions: Confronting the Group-to-Person Generalizability Problem in Experimental Psychology

Generalization Issues in Experiments Involving Multidimensional Decisions

What predicts within-person variance in applied psychology constructs? An empirical examination.

Why the Single-N Design Should Be the Default in Affective Neuroscience

A common factor underlying individual differences in confirmation bias

The dominance of introspective measures and what this implies: The example of environmental attitude

There are no shortcuts to theory

Consensus meetings will outperform integrative experiments