Journal article
Checking the “Academic Selection” argument. Chess players outperform non-chess players in cognitive skills related to intelligence: A meta-analysis
Intelligence, Vol.61, pp.130-139
2017
Abstract
Substantial research in the psychology of expertise has shown that experts in several fields (e.g., science, mathematics) perform better than non-experts on standardized tests of intelligence. This evidence suggests that intelligence plays an important role in the acquisition of expertise. However, a counter argument is that the difference between experts and non-experts is not due to individuals' traits but to academic selection processes. For instance, in science, high scores on standardized tests (e.g., SAT and then GRE) are needed to be admitted to a university program for training. Thus, the “academic selection process” hypothesis is that expert vs. non-expert differences in cognitive ability reflect ability-related differences in access to training opportunities. To test this hypothesis, we focused on a domain in which there are no selection processes based on test scores: chess. This meta-analysis revealed that chess players outperformed non-chess players in intelligence-related skills ( = 0.49). Therefore, this outcome does not corroborate the academic selection process argument, and consequently, supports the idea that access to training alone cannot explain expert performance.
Details
- Title
- Checking the “Academic Selection” argument. Chess players outperform non-chess players in cognitive skills related to intelligence: A meta-analysis
- Authors/Creators
- G. Sala (Author/Creator) - University of LiverpoolA.P. Burgoyne (Author/Creator) - Michigan State UniversityB.N. Macnamara (Author/Creator) - Case Western Reserve UniversityD.Z. Hambrick (Author/Creator) - Michigan State UniversityG. Campitelli (Author/Creator) - Edith Cowan UniversityF. Gobet (Author/Creator) - University of Liverpool
- Publication Details
- Intelligence, Vol.61, pp.130-139
- Publisher
- Elsevier
- Identifiers
- 991005544050507891
- Copyright
- © 2017 The Authors.
- Murdoch Affiliation
- Murdoch University
- Language
- English
- Resource Type
- Journal article
Metrics
38 File views/ downloads
82 Record Views
InCites Highlights
These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- International collaboration
- Citation topics
- 1 Clinical & Life Sciences
- 1.7 Neuroscanning
- 1.7.1026 Intelligence
- Web Of Science research areas
- Psychology, Multidisciplinary
- ESI research areas
- Psychiatry/Psychology