Fluid intelligence predicts paired-associate word learning, but crystallized intelligence does not once associative thinking is controlled¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the intelligence-only model, Gf significantly predicted learning (β = 0.405, p = 0.004) while Gc did not (β = 0.224, p = 0.146). → Luchini 2025 q2 i? When associative thinking was added, Gf remained significant (β = 0.399, p = 0.002) but Gc stayed non-significant (β = 0.130, p = 0.367). → Luchini 2025

Evidence¶

Luchini 2025¶

Luchini, S. A., Kaufman, J. C., Goecke, B., Wilhelm, O., Kenett, Y. N., Lei, D., Benedek, M., van Hell, J. G., & Beaty, R. E. (2025). Creativity supports learning through associative thinking. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00334-1

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Structural equation model in Study 1 regressed a combined day 1/day 2 learning factor on latent Gf and Gc; the model found "a significant effect ofGf (β = 0.405,p = 0.004) but notGc (β = 0.224,p = 0.146)". Intelligence facet factor scores correlated r = 0.774.

"finding a significant effect ofGf (β = 0.405,p = 0.004) but notGc (β = 0.224,p = 0.146)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Associative thinking (semantic distance of generated word associations) predicts paired-associate foreign-language vocabulary learning beyond general cognitive ability in undergraduates — related
• Fluid abilities (Gf) significantly predicted the rate of learning, whereas crystallized abilities (Gc) significantly predicted final learning performance in a one-week instructional process — related