Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Psychologists defend the importance of general abilities

Date:
October 24, 2011
Source:
Association for Psychological Science
Summary:
What makes a great violinist, physicist, or crossword puzzle solver? Are experts born or made? The question has intrigued psychologists since psychology was born -- and the rest of us, too, who may secretly fantasize playing duets with Yo Yo Ma or winning a Nobel Prize in science.

What makes a great violinist, physicist, or crossword puzzle solver? Are experts born or made? The question has intrigued psychologists since psychology was born -- and the rest of us, too, who may secretly fantasize playing duets with Yo Yo Ma or winning a Nobel Prize in science. It's no wonder Malcolm Gladwell stayed atop the bestseller lists by popularizing the "10,000-hour rule" of Florida State University psychologist K. Anders Ericsson. Using Ericsson's pioneering work -- but omitting equally prominent, contradictory, research -- Gladwell's book Outliers argued that given a certain level of intelligence and a bit of luck, virtually anybody can get to Carnegie Hall -- provided they practice, practice, practice.

Related Articles


In a new paper in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, psychologists David Z. Hambrick of Michigan State University and Elizabeth J. Meinz of Southern Illinois University Edwardsville disagree strongly. "We don't deny the importance of the knowledge and skill that accrue through practice," says Hambrick. " But, we think that for certain types of tasks, basic abilities and capacities -- ones that are general, stable across time, and substantially heritable -- play an important role in skilled performance. " Such basic capacities are a component of talent, Hambrick and Meinz believe.

The authors' work involves a particular basic measure of cognitive ability: working memory capacity, the ability to store and process information at the same time, which correlates with success in many cognitive tasks, from abstract reasoning to language learning. In one experiment Hambrick and Meinz tested 57 pianists with a wide range of deliberate practice under their belts, from 260 to more than 31,000 hours, to see how well they did on sight-reading -- playing a piece from a score they'd never seen before. Those who had practiced more did better. In fact, practice -- even specific sight-reading practice -- predicted nearly half of the differences in performance across the subjects. But working memory capacity still had a statistically significant impact on performance. In other words, regardless of amount of deliberate practice, working memory capacity still mattered for success in the task. The psychologists surmised that the capacity influences how many notes a player can look ahead as she plays, an important factor in sight-reading.

Challenging another "experts-are-made" contention -- that beyond a certain threshold, intelligence makes less and less of a difference in accomplishment -- the authors cite a study by Vanderbilt University researchers that looked at the math SAT scores of people with PhDs in science, technology, engineering, or math. Those who scored in the 99.9th percentile at age 13 were 18 times more likely to go on to earn a PhD than those who scored better than only 99.1 percent of their teenage peers. "Even at the highest end, the higher the intellectual ability -- and by extension, the higher the working memory capacity -- the better," says Hambrick.

"Some would consider this bad news. We'd all like to think that basic capacities and abilities are irrelevant -- it's the egalitarian view of expertise," Hambrick says. "We're not saying that limitations can't be overcome." Still, no matter how hard you work, it may be what you're born with or develop very early in life that "distinguishes the best from the rest."


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Association for Psychological Science. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. D. Z. Hambrick, E. J. Meinz. Limits on the Predictive Power of Domain-Specific Experience and Knowledge in Skilled Performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2011; 20 (5): 275 DOI: 10.1177/0963721411422061

Cite This Page:

Association for Psychological Science. "Psychologists defend the importance of general abilities." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 24 October 2011. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021162249.htm>.
Association for Psychological Science. (2011, October 24). Psychologists defend the importance of general abilities. ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 3, 2015 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021162249.htm
Association for Psychological Science. "Psychologists defend the importance of general abilities." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021162249.htm (accessed March 3, 2015).

Share This


More From ScienceDaily



More Mind & Brain News

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

This Nasal Treatment Could Help Ease Migraine Pain

This Nasal Treatment Could Help Ease Migraine Pain

Newsy (Mar. 2, 2015) Researchers gave lidocaine to 112 patients, and about 88 percent of the subjects said they needed less migraine-relief medicine the next day. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
How Facebook Use Can Lead To Depression

How Facebook Use Can Lead To Depression

Newsy (Mar. 1, 2015) Margaret Duffy of the University of Missouri talks about her study on the social network and the envy and depression that Facebook use can cause. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
The Best Foods to Battle Stress

The Best Foods to Battle Stress

Buzz60 (Feb. 26, 2015) If you&apos;re dealing with anxiety, there are a few foods that can help. Krystin Goodwin (@krystingoodwin) has the best foods to tame stress. Video provided by Buzz60
Powered by NewsLook.com
Sleeping Too Much Or Too Little Might Increase Stroke Risk

Sleeping Too Much Or Too Little Might Increase Stroke Risk

Newsy (Feb. 26, 2015) People who sleep more than eight hours per night are 45 percent more likely to have a stroke, according to a University of Cambridge study. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:

Strange & Offbeat Stories


Health & Medicine

Mind & Brain

Living & Well

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins