ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
Planning, Cognitive Reflection, Inter-Temporal Choice, and Risky Choice in Chess Players: An Expertise Approach.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigates the cognitive processes underlying chess expertise by examining planning, cognitive reflection, inter-temporal choice, and risky choice in chess players. The study involves 25 chess players and 25 non-chess players, comparing their performance on the Tower of London (TOL) task, Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), inter-temporal choice (ITC), and risky choice tasks. Results indicate that chess players outperform non-chess players in TOL and CRT, showing superior planning and cognitive reflection abilities. Chess players also prefer future rewards over immediate ones in ITC, suggesting a higher propensity for future more rewarding options. In risky choice tasks, chess players made more decisions based on expected value than non-chess players, but the evidence in favour of differences between groups is very weak. Despite this study not being able to establish causality, the findings highlight the cognitive advantages associated with chess expertise and suggest potential areas for further research on the transfer of cognitive skills from chess to other domains and differences in general abilities between experts and novices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.