David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):848-860 (1998)
The core issue of our target article concerns how relational complexity should be assessed. We propose that assessments must be based on actual cognitive processes used in performing each step of a task. Complexity comparisons are important for the orderly interpretation of research findings. The links between relational complexity theory and several other formulations, as well as its implications for neural functioning, connectionist models, the roles of knowledge, and individual and developmental differences, are considered.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Derek C. Penn, Keith J. Holyoak & Daniel J. Povinelli (2008). Darwin's Mistake: Explaining the Discontinuity Between Human and Nonhuman Minds. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (2):109-130.
Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Philip Johnson-Laird (2005). Reasoning About Relations. Psychological Review 112 (2):468-493.
Similar books and articles
Margaret Chalmers & Brendan McGonigle (1998). On the Psychological Reality of Parallel Relational Architectures: Whose Knowledge System is It Anyway? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):833-834.
James A. Waltz, Barbara J. Knowlton & Keith J. Holyoak (1998). Relational Complexity, the Central Executive, and Prefrontal Cortex. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):846-847.
John Sweller (1998). Can We Measure Working Memory Without Contamination From Knowledge Held in Long-Term Memory? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):845-846.
Richard A. Heath & Brett K. Hayes (1998). Why is Capacity Limited? Missing Dynamics and Developmental Controversies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):839-840.
Graeme S. Halford, William H. Wilson & Steven Phillips (1998). Processing Capacity Defined by Relational Complexity: Implications for Comparative, Developmental, and Cognitive Psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):803-831.
Damian P. Birney & Graeme S. Halford (2002). Cognitive Complexity of Suppositional Reasoning: An Application of the Relational Complexity Metric to the Knight-Knave Task. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):109 – 134.
Juan Pascual-Leone (1998). To Appraise Developmental Difficulty or Mental Demand, Relational Complexity is Not Enough. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):843-844.
Donna Coch & Kurt W. Fischer (1998). Discontinuity and Variability in Relational Complexity: Cognitive and Brain Development. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):834-835.
Douglas Frye & Philip David Zelazo (1998). Complexity: From Formal Analysis to Final Action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):836-837.
Usha Goswami (1998). Is Relational Complexity a Useful Metric for Cognitive Development? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):838-839.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #166,247 of 1,911,814 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,984 of 1,911,814 )
How can I increase my downloads?