Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:18:04.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Relational complexity metric is effective when assessments are based on actual cognitive processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1998

Graeme S. Halford
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia gsh@psy.uq.edu.au www.psy.uq.edu.au/people/department/gsh
William H. Wilson
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052 Australia billw@cse.unsw.edu.au www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~billw
Steven Phillips
Affiliation:
Cognitive Science Section, Electrotechnical Laboratory, Tsukuba, 305, Japan stevep@etl.go.jp www.etl.go.jp/etl/ninchi/stevep@etl.go.jp/welcome.html
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

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.

Information

Type
Author's Response
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press