A recent review concluded that the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire is the most widely used instrument to assess cognitive failures. Our aims were to place cognitive failures self-reported with the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire into their nomological network by conceptually replicating known relations to the Big Five and by extending this knowledge through testing their relations with latent cognitive abilities (Study 1, N = 158, age 20-86 years) and theoretically relevant Big Five subfacets (Study 2, N = 176, age 19-39 years). Cognitive failures were unrelated to objective cognitive performance (processing speed, memory, and inhibition), but reliably related to the personality domains conscientiousness, neuroticism, and almost all their subfacets. Thus, self-reported cognitive failures do not qualify as a proxy for objective cognitive performance tasks. They are rather useful as illustration of behavioral manifestations related to personality domains.
ArrindellW. A.MeeuwesenL.HuyseF. J. (1991). The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 117-123. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90094-R
2.
BaylissD.JarroldC.BaddeleyA.GunnD.LeighE. (2005). Mapping the developmental constraints on working memory span performance. Developmental Psychology, 41, 579-597.
3.
BeauducelA.WittmannW. W. (2005). Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41-75. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3
4.
BenjaminD. J.BergerJ. O.JohannessonM.NosekB. A.WagenmakersE.-J.BerkR.. . . JohnsonV. E. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 6-10. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z
5.
BerthH.GoldschmidtS. (2004). NEO-PI-R: Test information (Scale information). Diagnostica, 52, 95-103. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.52.2.95
6.
BeyK.MontagC.ReuterM.WeberB.MarkettS. (2015). Susceptibility to everyday cognitive failure is reflected in functional network interactions in the resting brain. NeuroImage, 121, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.07.041
7.
BoomsmaD. I. (1998). Genetic analysis of cognitive failures (CFQ): A study of Dutch adolescent twins and their parents. European Journal of Personality, 12, 321-330. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(1998090)12:5<321::AID-PER334>3.0.CO;2-5
8.
BridgerR. S.JohnsenS.BrasherK. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics, 56, 1515-1524. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.821172
9.
BroadbentD. E.CooperP. J.FitzGeraldP. F.ParkesK. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x
10.
BuchananT. (2016). Self-report measures of executive function problems correlate with personality, not performance-based executive function measures, in nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 28, 372-385. doi:10.1037/pas0000192
11.
BuchananT. (2017). Self-assessments of memory correlate with neuroticism and conscientiousness, not memory span performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 19-23. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.031
12.
CarriganN.BarkusE. (2016). A systematic review of cognitive failures in daily life: Healthy populations. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 29-42. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.01.010
13.
CarriganN.BarkusE. (2017). Schizotypy and cognitive failures: A mediating role for affect. Psychopathology, 50, 195-202. doi:10.1159/000464106
14.
Chamorro-PrezumicT.AhmetogluG.FurnhamA. (2008). Little more than personality: Dispositional determinants of test anxiety (the Big Five, core self-evaluations, and self-assessed intelligence). Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 258-263. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.09.002
15.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Neo Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO-PI-R) and Neo Five-Factor–Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
16.
DayA. J.BrasherK.BridgerR. S. (2012). Accident proneness revisited: The role of job strain. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 12, 532-535.
17.
DebusscherJ.HofmansJ.De FruytF. (2016). Do personality states predict momentary task performance? The moderating role of personality variability. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89, 330-351. doi:10.1111/joop.12126
18.
DerryberryD.ReedM. A. (2002). Anxiety-related attentional biases and their regulation by attentional control. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 225-236. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.225
19.
DeYoungC. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1165-1180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x
20.
DeYoungC. G.HirshJ. B.ShaneM. S.PapademetrisX.RajeevanN.GrayJ. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21, 820-828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159
21.
DonnellanM. B.LucasR. E. (2008). Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23, 558-566. doi:10.1037/a0012897
22.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149. doi:10.3758/BF03203267
23.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-219. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
24.
FleesonW.GallagherP. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097-1114. doi:10.1037/a0016786
25.
GerlitzJ.-Y.SchuppJ. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeits-merkmale im SOEP [Big Five Inventory SOEP]. Berlin, Germany: DIW Berlin.
26.
GlaesmerH.GrandeG.BraehlerE.RothM. (2011). The German version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale–Psychometric properties and population based norms. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 127-132. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000058
27.
HahnE.GottschlingJ.SpinathF. M. (2012). Short measurements of personality—Validity and reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 355-359. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008
28.
JacksonJ. J.WoodD.BoggT.WaltonK. E.HarmsP. D.RobertsB. W. (2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501-511. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005
29.
KesselsR. P. C.van den BergE.RuisC.BrandsA. M. A. (2008). The backward span of the Corsi block-tapping task and its association with the WAIS-III digit span. Assessment, 15, 426-434. doi:10.1177/1073191108315611
30.
KesselsR. P. C.van ZandvoortM. J. E.PostmaA.KappelleL. J.De HaanE. H. F. (2000). The Corsi Block-Tapping Task: Standardization and normative data. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 252-258. doi:10.1207/S15324826AN0704_8
31.
KlumbP. L. (1995). Cognitive failures and performance differences: Validation studies of a German version of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Ergonomics, 38, 1456-1467. doi:10.1080/00140139508925202
32.
KnightR. G.McMahonJ.GreenT. J.SkeaffC. M. (2004). Some normative and psychometric data for the Geriatric Depression Scale and the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire from a sample of healthy elderly. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 163-170.
33.
KönenT.DirkJ.SchmiedekF. (2015). Cognitive benefits of last night’s sleep: Daily variations in children’s sleep behavior are related to working memory fluctuations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 171-182. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12296
34.
LangeS.SüßH.-M. (2014). Measuring slips and lapses when they occur: Ambulatory assessment in application to cognitive failures. Consciousness and Cognition, 24, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.12.008
35.
LarsonG. E.MerrittC. R. (1991). Can accidents be predicted? An empirical test of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40, 37-45. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1991.tb01356.x
36.
LarsonM. J.GoodD. A.FairJ. E. (2010). The relationship between performance monitoring, satisfaction with life, and positive personality traits. Biological Psychology, 83, 222-228. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.01.003
37.
LindenbergerU.MayrU.KlieglR. (1993). Speed and intelligence in old age. Psychology and Aging, 8, 207-220. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.207
38.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 139-153). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39.
MerckelbachH.MurisP.NijmanH.de JongP. J. (1996). Self-reported cognitive failures and neurotic symptomatology. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 715-724. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(96)00024-4
40.
MichalczykK.MalstädtN.WorgtM.KönenT.HasselhornM. (2013). Age differences and measurement invariance of working memory in 5- to 12-year-old children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 220-229. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000149
41.
OrmelJ.BastiaansenA.RieseH.BosE. H.ServaasM.EllenbogenM.. . . AlemanA. (2013). The biological and psychological basis of neuroticism: Current status and future directions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 59-72. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.09.004
42.
Pytlik ZilligL. M.HemenoverS. H.DienstbierR. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 847-858. doi:10.1177/0146167202289013
43.
RabbittP.AbsonV. (1990). Lost and found: Some logical and methodological limitations of self-report questionnaires as tools to study cognitive ageing. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 1-16. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02342.x
44.
RabbittP.MaylorE.McInnesL.BentN.MooreB. (1995). What goods can self-assessment questionnaires deliver for cognitive gerontology?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, S127-S152. doi:10.1002/acp.2350090709
45.
RastP.ZimprichD.Van BoxtelM.JollesJ. (2009). Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire across the adult life span. Assessment, 16, 145-158. doi:10.1177/1073191108324440
46.
SchusterR. M.MermelsteinR. J.HedekerD. (2015). Acceptability and feasibility of a visual working memory task in an ecological momentary assessment paradigm. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1463-1470. doi:10.1037/pas0000138
47.
ServaasM. N.van der VeldeJ.CostafredaS. G.HortonP.OrmelJ.RieseH.AlemanA. (2013). Neuroticism and the brain: A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies investigating emotion processing. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1518-1529. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.005
48.
SimonJ. R.WolfJ. D. (1963). Choice reaction times as a function of angular stimulus-response correspondence and age. Ergonomics, 6, 99-105. doi:10.1080/00140136308930679
49.
SmithG.Della SalaS.LogieR. H.MaylorE. A. (2000). Prospective and retrospective memory in normal ageing and dementia: A questionnaire study. Memory, 8, 311-321. doi:10.1080/09658210050117735
50.
SulsJ.MartinR. (2005). The daily life of the garden-variety neurotic: Reactivity, stressor exposure, mood spillover, and maladaptive coping. Journal of Personality, 73, 1-25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00356.x
51.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 131-143. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12001
52.
von der EmbseN. P.JesterD.RoyD.PostJ. (2018). Test anxiety predictors, correlates, and effects: A 28-year meta-analytic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 227, 483-493. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.048
53.
WallaceJ. C. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire: Evidence for dimensionality and construct validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 307-324. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.005
54.
WallaceJ. C.KassS. J.StannyC. J. (2002). The cognitive failures questionnaire revisited: Dimensions and correlates. Journal of General Psychology, 129, 238-256. doi:10.1080/00221300209602098
55.
WallaceJ. C.VodanovichS. J. (2003). Workplace safety performance: Conscientiousness, cognitive failure and their interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 316-327. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.316
56.
WechslerD. (1982). Handanweisung zum Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene (HAWIE) [Manual for the Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligence Test for Adults]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
WilhelmO.WitthöftM.SchipolowskiS. (2010). Self-reported cognitive failures: Competing measurement models and self-report correlates. Journal of Individual Differences, 31, 1-14. doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000001
59.
WilliamsP. G.RauH. K.SuchyY.ThorgusenS. R.SmithT. W. (2017). On the validity of self-report assessment of cognitive abilities: Attentional Control Scale associations with cognitive performance, emotional adjustment, and personality. Psychological Assessment, 29, 519-530. doi:10.1037/pas0000361
60.
WöstmannN. M.AichertD. S.CostaA.RubiaK.MöllerH.-J.EttingerU. (2013). Reliability and plasticity of response inhibition and interference control. Brain and Cognition, 81, 82-94. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.010
61.
WrightD. B.OsborneJ. E. (2005). Dissociation, cognitive failures, and working memory. American Journal of Psychology, 118, 103-113.
62.
ZlatarZ.MooreR. C.PalmerB. W.ThompsonW. K.JesteD. V. (2014). Cognitive complaints correlate with depression rather than concurrent objective cognitive impairment in the successful aging evaluation baseline sample. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 27, 181-187. doi:10.1177/0891988714524628
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
