Checking the “Academic Selection” argument. Chess players outperform non-chess players in cognitive skills related to intelligence: A meta-analysis

Giovanni Sala, Alexander P. Burgoyne, Brooke N. Macnamara, David Z. Hambrick, Guillermo Campitelli, Fernand Gobet

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

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 (d− = 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)130-139
Number of pages10
JournalIntelligence
Volume61
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-03-2017
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Checking the “Academic Selection” argument. Chess players outperform non-chess players in cognitive skills related to intelligence: A meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this