ArticlePloS one2026
Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite a long history of human efforts to enhance cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and intelligence, the proliferation of (new) technological and medical methods-including brain stimulation, pharmaceutical interventions, and gamified brain training-has renewed scientific and public interest in cognitive enhancement, even as evidence for their effectiveness in improving broader cognitive abilities remains inconsistent. Understanding who would be willing to enhance their cognitive abilities and why is crucial as these cognitive enhancement methods become more popular and accessible in society. Thus, in two preregistered lab studies, we investigated individuals' acceptance (i.e., hypothetical willingness to make use) of various cognitive enhancement methods, tested predictors thereof, and explored individuals' motives to utilize cognitive enhancement methods or be reluctant to do so. In Study 1 (N = 203), we found considerably higher acceptance for more active (i.e., more involved) than passive cognitive enhancement methods. Lower age, greater interest in science fiction, and stronger investigative interests (partially) predicted participants' acceptance of cognitive enhancement methods, while personality traits, self-assessed and measured intelligence did not. In Study 2 (N = 197), we aimed to (conceptually) replicate key findings from Study 1, and in addition qualitatively assess the motives for the acceptance and rejection of cognitive enhancement methods. Our findings confirmed the higher acceptance of active than passive cognitive enhancement methods. Additionally, we found that greater interest in science fiction consistently predicted participants' acceptance of cognitive enhancement, while personality traits and (self-assessed) intelligence did not show consistent associations. Critically, these quantitative effects were rather small. Qualitative analyses additionally provided exploratory insights into the motives for accepting or rejecting active and passive cognitive enhancement methods. Across these two studies, acceptance of cognitive enhancement seems to be more closely linked to specific interests than to personality traits or (self-assessed) abilities. We emphasize the importance of studying situational factors, such as person-environment fit, to better understand the willingness to make use of cognitive enhancement.
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.