Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37367511›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2023

Who Wants to Enhance Their Cognitive Abilities? Potential Predictors of the Acceptance of Cognitive Enhancement.

Sandra Grinschgl, Anna-Lena Berdnik, Elisabeth Stehling, Gabriela Hofer, Aljoscha C Neubauer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sandra GrinschglInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8020 Graz, AustriaORCID 0000-0001-6666-9426
Anna-Lena BerdnikInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8020 Graz, Austria
Elisabeth StehlingInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8020 Graz, Austria
Gabriela HoferInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8020 Graz, AustriaORCID 0000-0003-4407-1487
Aljoscha C NeubauerInstitute of Psychology, University of Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8020 Graz, Austria

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With advances in new technologies, the topic of cognitive enhancement has been at the center of public debate in recent years. Various enhancement methods (e.g., brain stimulation, smart drugs, or working memory training) promise improvements in one's cognitive abilities such as intelligence and memory. Although these methods have been rather ineffective so far, they are largely available to the general public and can be applied individually. As applying enhancement might be accompanied by certain risks, it is important to understand which individuals seek to enhance themselves. For instance, individuals' intelligence, personality, and interests might predict their willingness to get enhanced. Thus, in a preregistered study, we asked 257 participants about their acceptance of various enhancement methods and tested predictors thereof, such as participants' psychometrically measured and self-estimated intelligence. While both measured and self-estimated intelligence as well as participants' implicit beliefs about intelligence, did not predict participants' acceptance of enhancement; a younger age, higher interest in science-fiction, and (partially) higher openness as well as lower conscientiousness did. Thus, certain interests and personality traits might contribute to the willingness to enhance one's cognition. Finally, we discuss the need for replication and argue for testing other potential predictors of the acceptance of cognitive enhancement.

Indexed as

cognitive enhancementDark Triadintelligencepersonalityscience-fictionself-estimates

Identifiers

PMID37367511
PMCPMC10299699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.