ArticlePDF Available
Accounting for expert performance: The devil is in the details
David Z. Hambrick
a,
, Erik M. Altmann
a
, Frederick L. Oswald
b
, Elizabeth J. Meinz
c
,
Fernand Gobet
d
, Guillermo Campitelli
e
a
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, United States
b
Department of Psychology, Rice University, United States
c
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, United States
d
Institute of Psychology, Health, and Society, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
e
School of Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Australia
article info abstract
Article history:
Received 30 December 2013
Received in revised form 24 January 2014
Accepted 27 January 2014
Available online 24 February 2014
The deliberate practice view has generated a great deal of scientific and popular interest in
expert performance. At the same time, empirical evidence now indicates that deliberate
practice,while certainlyimportant, is not as important as Ericsson and colleagues have argued it is.
In particular, we (Hambrick, Oswald, Altmann, Meinz, Gobet, & Campitelli, 2014-this issue)found
that individual differences in accumulated amount of deliberate practice accounted for about
one-third of the reliable variance in performance in chess and music, leaving the majority of the
reliable variance unexplained and potentially explainable by other factors. Ericsson's (2014-this
issue) defense of the deliberate practice view, though vigorous, is undercut by contradictions,
oversights, and errors in his arguments and criticisms, several of which we describe here. We
reiterate that the task now is to develop and rigorously test falsifiable theories of expert
performance that take into account as many potentially relevant constructs as possible.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Expert performance
Deliberate practice
Talent
Ability
Intelligence
We credit Anders Ericsson for generating interest in expert
performance. Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer's (1993)
study of musicians has been cited over 4000 times (Google
Scholar), and, as Ericsson (2013a) noted, was the stimulusfor
what Malcolm Gladwell (2008) dubbed the 10,000 hour rule.
Ericsson has made an important contribution to psychology.
The goal of our study (this issue) was to test Ericsson
et al.'s (1993) claim that individual differences in ultimate
performance can largely be accounted for by differential amounts
of past and current levels of practice(p. 392, emphasis added).
The claim was not supported: amount of deliberate practice
accounted for about a third of the reliable variance in perfor-
mance in music and chess, leaving the majority unexplained.
Ericsson (2014-this issue) claims we reject his view on a
common sense basis(p.18),butinfact,werejectitonthis
empirical basis.
Ericsson's (2014-this issue) defense of his view is, in our
view, unsuccessful for several reasons. First, he rejects evidence
that challenges his view even though he has used the same
type of evidence to support his view. Specifically, he criticizes
our analysis for ignoring the effects of forgetting, injuries, and
accidents, along with the differential effects of different types
of practice at different ages and levels of expert performance
(p. 4), but has never included all of these factors in his own
published analyses. Most notably, Ericsson et al. (1993) based
their conclusion about the great importance of deliberate
practice on the relationship between skill level in music and
a single variable: self-reported amount of practice alone. Our
reanalysis included studies that used Ericsson et al. as the
model for measuring and operationally defining deliberate
practiceindeed, our reanalysis included studies that Ericsson
has praised for rigor and cited as support for his view (e.g.,
Charness, Tuffiash, Krampe, Reingold, & Vasyukova, 2005). We
did no more than follow Ericsson's standards for evidence in
selecting studies for our reanalysis.
Second, Ericsson (2014-this issue) contradicts claims he
has made in the past. Most notably, Ericsson downplays the
Intelligence 45 (2014) 112114
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Michigan State Univer-
sity, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States.
E-mail address: hambric3@msu.edu (D.Z. Hambrick).
0160-2896/$ see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.007
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Intelligence
emphasis he has put on deliberate practice, now suggesting it
is just one of any number of factors other than innate talent
that could affect performance directly. That is, he states that
although we criticize him for attributing too much emphasis
to the effects due to deliberate practice(p. 3), he and his
colleagues were explicit that there might be other types of
individual differences than those linked to innate talent(p. 3).
However, in the past, Ericsson has argued that such non-talent
factors (e.g., motivation) affect performance indirectly through
deliberate practice. For example, he wrote, The theoretical
framework of expert performance explains individual differ-
ences in attained performance by the factors that influence the
engagement in sustained extended deliberate practice, such
as motivation(Ericsson, 2007, p. 4;seeDuckworth, Kirby,
Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2011). Hypothesizing that
certain factors affect individual differences in deliberate practice
is not the same as hypothesizing that these factors affect
individual differences in performance directly.
Third, Ericsson (2014-this issue) does not mention findings
that contradict his view. For example, he notes Horn and
Masunaga (2006) found no significant correlations between Go
ranking and scores on intelligence tests, but fails to note that
measures of Go-related performance did correlate significantly
with scores on intelligence tests (pb.01 for 50 of 56 rs;
see Masunaga & Horn, 2001). Similarly, he fails to note the
central result of Meinz and Hambrick's (2010) study of
sight-reading the finding that there was no interaction
between deliberate practice and working memory capacity,
indicating that working memory capacity positively predicted
performance even at high levels of deliberate practice. This
finding is inconsistent with Ericssons hypothesis that mecha-
nisms acquired through deliberate practice enable circumven-
tion of basic cognitive capacities. Describing the results of
another study of sight-reading, Ericsson (2013b) claimed,
Kopiez and Lee (2006) found that for musicians with lower
sight-reading skill there was a correlation with their working
memory. For musicians with a higher level of sight-reading skill
there was no significant relation between their performance
and their working memory(p. 236). In this case, Ericsson's
error is one of commission: Kopiez and Lee reported no such
finding.
Finally, Ericsson (2014-this issue) criticizes others' research
based on what turn out to be material errors in his descriptions
of that research. For example, he writes, It is surprising that
Hambrick et al. (2014-this issue) did not cite Howard's (2012)
data for evidence of an elite chess player, who had never studied
chess(p. 14). If Howard had claimed he found evidence for an
elite chess player who had never studied chess, one might
wonder whether we did not report this finding because it seems
implausible and would cast doubt on the validity of Howard's
study, which we included in our re-analysis. However, Howard
(2012) made no such claim. Moreover, ratings of individual
players in Howard's sample cannot be determined from
Howard's published report. As another example, Ericsson
makes two errors in describing a study of chess by two of us.
First, he writes, Data was collected from 104 respondents, but
Campitelli and Gobet's (2008) [sic] only analyzed 90 partici-
pants and did not describe the objective reasons for discarding
14 of the collected questionnaires(p.14).Ifthisclaimwere
true, one would be well advised to dismiss the results of that
study. However, this claim is not true. Campitelli and Gobet did
not discard collected questionnaires; rather, as they clearly
explained in their article, there were missing data: Not all
players answered all questions, with the result that the number
of data points varies across our measures(p. 448). Second,
Ericsson writes, ItwouldbenicetohaveGobet and Campitelli
(2007) conduct a re-analysis that would identify the amount of
practice required prior to first attaining the rating of master(p.
14). If Gobet and Campitelli had not performed this analysis,
then they would have had no basis for their conclusion that,
contrary to Ericsson's view, there is a large amount of variability
in the amount of deliberate practice players need to achieve a
given level of skill in chess. However, as they report in a major
section of their article (pp. 165166), Gobet and Campitelli
performed exactly this analysis and found that amount of
deliberate practice required to first attain the rating of master
ranged from 728 to 16,120 h. Thus, one player reached the
master level twenty-two times faster than another player.
Ericsson also calls attention to our reporting of Gobet and
Campitelli's (2007) results. He writes, Surprisingly, Hambrick
et al. (2014-this issue) reports the lowest value for a chess
master as 832 h instead of the 728 h as reported by Gobet and
Campitelli (2007, p. 166) without providing an explanation
for the difference(p. 14), and Surprisingly, Hambrick et al.
(2014-this issue) reports the highest value for a chess master
as 24,284 h instead of the 16,120 h reported by Gobet and
Campitelli (2007, p. 166) without providing an explanation for
the difference(p. 14). The explanation is that the different
numbers reflect different measures. The range of 832 to
24,284 h reported in Hambrick et al. (2014-this issue) is for
accumulated amount of deliberate practice, the focus of our
study. The range of 728 to 16,120 h reported in Gobet and
Campitelli (2007) is for hours to master status. So, in several
cases, what Ericsson characterizes as problems with studies
that contradict his view are not problems.
The deliberate practice view has had a major impact on
the trajectory of research on expert performance. But now
we have empirical evidence that deliberate practice, while
important, is not as important as Ericsson has argued it is
evidence that it does not largely account for individual
differences in performance. The question now is what else
matters.
References
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal
study. Learning and Individual Differences,18, 446458. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.006.
Charness, N., Tuffiash, M., Krampe, R., Reingold, E., & Vasyukova, E. (2005). The
role of deliberate practice in chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology,19,
151165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1106.
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).
Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the
National Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science,2, 174181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610385872.
Ericsson, K. A. (2007). Deliberate practice and the modifiability of body and mind:
Toward science of the structure and acquisition of expert and elite
performance. International Journal of Sports Psychology,38,434.
Ericsson, K. A. (2013a). Psychotherapy and the science of human excellence.
Keynote presentation at the 2013. Washington, DC: Psychotherapy Net-
worker Symposium.
Ericsson, K. A. (2013b). My exploration of Gagné's evidencefor innate
talent: It is Gagne who is omitting troublesome information so as to
present more convincing accusations. In S. B. Kaufman (Ed.), The
complexity of greatness: Beyond talent or practice (pp. 223254). New
York: Oxford University Press.
113D.Z. Hambrick et al. / Intelligence 45 (2014) 112114
Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be
extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population:
Aresponsetocriticisms.Intelligence,45,81103 (this issue).
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review,100,
363406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.100.3.363.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and
Company.
Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2007). The role of domain-specific practice,
handedness, and starting age in chess. Developmental Psychology,43,
159172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00121649.43.1.159.
Hambrick,D.Z.,Oswald,F.L.,Altmann,E.M.,Meinz,E.J.,Gobet,F.,&Campitelli,G.
(2014). Deliberate practice: Is that all it takes to become an expert?
Intelligence,45,3445 (this issue).
Horn, J., & Masunaga, H. (2006). A merging theory of expertise and intelligence. In
K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge
handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 587611). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Howard, R. W. (2012). Longitudinal effects of different types of practice on
the development of chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology,26,
359369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1834.
Kopiez, R., & Lee, J. I. (2006). Towards a dynamic model of skills involved
in sight reading music. Music Education Research,8,97120. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/14613800600570785.
Masunaga, H., & Horn, J. (2001). Expertise and age-related changes in components
of intelligence. Psychology and Aging,16, 293311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0882-7974.16.2.293.
Meinz,E.J.,&Hambrick,D.Z.(2010).Deliberatepracticeisnecessarybutnot
sufficient to explain individual differences in piano sight-reading skill:
The role of working memory capacity. Psychological Science,21,914919.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610373933.
114 D.Z. Hambrick et al. / Intelligence 45 (2014) 112114
... As the skills progressed, the musicians learned to practice more effectively. Hambrick et al (2014) reported that the average correlation of deliberate practice with musical performance achievement was r=.52 and concluded that prospective studies should consider the effects of other variables that may explain individual differences in music on musical performance achievement (Hambrick et al., 2014). In this study, the preparation factor is the fourth most important factor affecting the musical performance of prospective music teachers, where the preparation of musical experience and the preparation of musical technical were studied, highlight the equal importance of experience preparation and technical preparation in musical performance. ...
... As the skills progressed, the musicians learned to practice more effectively. Hambrick et al (2014) reported that the average correlation of deliberate practice with musical performance achievement was r=.52 and concluded that prospective studies should consider the effects of other variables that may explain individual differences in music on musical performance achievement (Hambrick et al., 2014). In this study, the preparation factor is the fourth most important factor affecting the musical performance of prospective music teachers, where the preparation of musical experience and the preparation of musical technical were studied, highlight the equal importance of experience preparation and technical preparation in musical performance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Musical performance is the key content in the process of music education. Therefore, it is important for us to explore the current situation and factors affecting musical performance and further develop relevant skills for prospective music teachers. This study surveying 586 prospective music teachers using a questionnaire, the results indicate that physiological factors are the most important factors affecting musical performance, followed by psychological factors.
... However, there is also evidence that individual differences in many domains are not just a product of deliberate practice but also depend on cognitive abilities (Hambrick & Meinz, 2011;Hambrick et al., 2014aHambrick et al., , 2014bMacnamara et al., 2014Macnamara et al., , 2016. Hambrick et al. (2016) emphasized that WMC, or the capacity to control and coordinate processes and storage during the performance of complex cognitive tasks (Miyake & Shah, 1999), is a significant piece of the expertise puzzle because it regulates and maintains relevant information in an active state in the service of complex cognition. ...
... Furthermore, Meinz et al. (2012) found WMC to be an equally important predictor of performance on crucial poker skills at low and high knowledge levels of Texas Hold'Em poker. These findings challenged the circumvention-of-limits hypothesis and became the subject matter of the intense scientific debate on the relative contributions of deliberate practice and WMC on expert performance (Ericsson, 2014(Ericsson, , 2016Hambrick et al., 2014aHambrick et al., , 2014b. ...
Article
Full-text available
Athletic skills acquired through deliberate practice are essential for expert sports performance. Some authors even suggest that practice circumvents the limits of working memory capacity (WMC) in skill acquisition. However, this circumvention hypothesis has been challenged recently by the evidence that WMC plays an important role in expert performance in complex domains such as arts and sports. Here, we have used two dynamic soccer tactical tasks to explore the effect of WMC on tactical performance at different levels of expertise. As expected, professional soccer players exhibited better tactical performance than amateur and recreational players. Furthermore, WMC predicted faster and more accurate tactical decisions in the task under auditory distraction and faster tactical decisions in the task without distraction. Importantly, lack of expertise × WMC interaction suggests that the WMC effect exists at all levels of expertise. Our results speak against the circumvention hypothesis and support a model of independent contributions of WMC and deliberate practice on expert performance in sports. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41235-023-00473-2.
... Many authors have disputed the finding, but none dispute the idea that serious practice is associated with increased ability. Hambrick et al. (2014) summarize many of the issues with expert research and find that practice is important but may not be the only driver of performance. Hambrick, Macnamara, & Oswald (2020) revisit the argument in more detail. ...
... Although the debate over the importance of practice hours and the acquisition of elite ability continues (cf. Hambrick et al., 2014), scholars do agree the number of hours dedicated to training plays a role in developing an elite skill-set (e.g. Côté & Hay, 2002). ...
Article
The authors explore the challenges and opportunities for a youth sport system in an entrepreneurial marketplace by identifying areas of (mis)alignment between parents and coaches, a key partnership in youth sport development. The context of tennis was used to recruit a sample of 130 parents and 113 coaches based in the United States. Choice-based conjoint analysis was used to compare the relative importance parents and coaches place on key youth sport program attributes and their preference for specific attribute levels. Information sources were also examined. Significant differences were found between parents’ and coaches’ preferences for specific program implementations, and the importance they placed on each attribute. Univariate analyses revealed significant differences for parents’ and coaches’ preferences for levels within each attribute, although the order of preference for each level was the same. Parents and coaches also differed in the importance placed on information sources. Overall findings indicate misalignment, which may affect parent/coach collaboration and ultimately inhibit effective athlete development. However, the findings do suggest the potential for collaboration, as parents and coaches value shared responsibility. Recommendations for facilitating collaboration for more effective athlete development include reducing consumer confusion via shared language and interpretation, and stimulating co-creation via structural change. © 2022 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand.
Book
Full-text available
This much-needed book introduces readers to the related fields of expertise, creativity, and performance, exploring our understanding of the factors contributing to greatness in creative domains. Bringing together research from the fields of creativity and expertise, it provides fresh insights for newcomers and seasoned scholars alike with its approachable guide to the multidimensional complexities of expertise development. It transcends traditionally studied fields such as chess, sports, and music, instead exploring the intersection of expertise with creativity and the performing arts. Dedicated applied chapters cover eight fields, including mind-games, music, dance, creative writing, acting, art, and STEM. The book also examines the facilitators of creative performance, including aesthetic sensitivity, creativity, and mental imagery as well as the obstacles to performance such as burnout, procrastination, and gender-related challenges. The book concludes by engaging with pressing issues facing expertise, including the impact of AI. Student-friendly pedagogy is featured throughout, including 'Spotlight on...', 'Check it out...', and 'Consider this...' boxes to position material within context and engage students' learning. Whether revealing how an actor brings their part to life, how writers conjure up their storylines and vibrant characters, or what lies behind scientific invention, The Psychology of Creative Performance and Expertise offers a fascinating insight into the multifaceted journey towards achieving creative excellence. This is a valuable resource for final-year undergraduates, postgraduate students, and scholars across a range of disciplines, including expertise or skill acquisition, the psychology of performance, and creativity.
Book
Full-text available
Time is money and a reduction in time should be the first goal of any training program or any employee development initiative. The skills and knowledge acquired today become irrelevant or obsolete quickly. In that kind of dynamics, the organizations have shifted focus on how to shorten time to proficiency of employees and bring them up to speed to the required performance in a shorter time. This book intends to establish scholarly know-how on this construct of Accelerated Proficiency and provide practitioners and researchers with a condensed and coherent knowledge-base on this burning business concept. The book explores concepts, themes, nature, and challenges associated with the process of accelerating proficiency. This book discusses the business metrics of time to proficiency and speed to proficiency. This book is organized around reviews of studies on performance and proficiency from several different disciplines spanning over five decades. In particular, this book will enable you with the answers to some crucial questions - What is the nature of the proficiency in the organization? What is the meaning and goal of accelerating proficiency? Whether or not proficiency and performance of employees can be accelerated? What kind of methods has been researched and proven to accelerate proficiency?
Chapter
In this chapter we discuss the link between intelligence and problem-solving. To preview, we argue that the ability to solve problems is not just an aspect or feature of intelligence – it is the essence of intelligence. We briefly review evidence from psychometric research concerning the nature of individual differences in intelligence, and then review evidence for how intelligence relates to complex problem-solving. We also consider the question of what mechanisms might underlie both problem-solving and intelligence, focusing on fluid intelligence and some of our own research on placekeeping ability. We then discuss the predictive validity of intelligence as it relates to job performance, mortality, expertise, and academic achievement. We also discuss practical uses of intelligence tests. Finally, we consider the question of whether intelligence as problem-solving ability can be improved through training. We close with directions for future research.
Article
Eye tracking has been utilized for decades to study perceptual processes in a range of fields, and it has proven particularly useful for studying how the viewing behaviours of experts and novices within a field differ from one another. This article reports on a study that uses eye tracking to examine patterns in the ways that visual communication experts and non-experts read journalistic photographs that they might encounter in their daily lives. Expert participants (29) were practitioners with a minimum of 4–5 years of experience in a visual communication field; non-expert participants (29) had no training in visual communication and had 0–1 year of experience. Participants viewed 10 images and answered a series of four questions about each image. Participant eye movements were tracked utilizing a TobiiPro x2-60 eye tracker connected to a 17-inch high-end gaming laptop. The literature suggests that there should be observable differences between the eye movements of experts and non-experts, with expert viewing behaviour being more efficient and effective. However, the differences between experts and non-expert participants in the study were inconsistent and far less extensive than expected. The article discusses possible explanations for these results and suggests directions for future studies.
Article
Full-text available
The article explores some of the ways in which work placement that accompanies or follows academic instruction may contribute to stimulating trainee translators' professional development. Inspired by general and profession-specific concepts and components of expertise proposed by researchers in the field of cognitive sciences and translation studies as well as her own experience as a translator, translation trainer, and work placement mentor, the author presents some of her observations and preliminary highlights of her ongoing research to emphasise how individualised support for trainees' conscious effort in the course of work placement in a translation company may help novice translators hone their skills and at the same time assume responsibility for their own development, thus empowering them and setting them on track to become experts. In her considerations, the author refers to the minimal concept of translation expertise propounded by Muñoz Martín (2014) and to the notion of deliberate practice as posited by Ericsson et al. (1993) to propose how deliberate practice may be implemented as one of the significant elements of translation work placement in a student-centred course of learning, where various aspects of the actual workplace setting contribute to increased readiness for conscious effort in trainees. This paper may prove of use to translator trainers as well as work placement mentors/coordinators, both on the part of the academic institution, and within the organisation accepting trainees, when they shape or revise their curricula or work placement agendas.
Article
Full-text available
The theoretical framework presented in this article explains expert performance as the end result of individuals' prolonged efforts to improve performance while negotiating motivational and external constraints. In most domains of expertise, individuals begin in their childhood a regimen of effortful activities (deliberate practice) designed to optimize improvement. Individual differences, even among elite performers, are closely related to assessed amounts of deliberate practice. Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 years. Analysis of expert performance provides unique evidence on the potential and limits of extreme environmental adaptation and learning.
Article
Full-text available
The expert performance framework distinguishes between deliberate practice and less effective practice activities. The current longitudinal study is the first to use this framework to understand how children improve in an academic skill. Specifically, the authors examined the effectiveness and subjective experience of three preparation activities widely recommended to improve spelling skill. Deliberate practice, operationally defined as studying and memorizing words while alone, better predicted performance in the National Spelling Bee than being quizzed by others or reading for pleasure. Rated as the most effortful and least enjoyable type of preparation activity, deliberate practice was increasingly favored over being quizzed as spellers accumulated competition experience. Deliberate practice mediated the prediction of final performance by the personality trait of grit, suggesting that perseverance and passion for long-term goals enable spellers to persist with practice activities that are less intrinsically rewarding—but more effective—than other types of preparation.
Article
Full-text available
Twenty years ago, Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer (1993) proposed that expert performance reflects a long period of deliberate practice rather than innate ability, or “talent”. Ericsson et al. found that elite musicians had accumulated thousands of hours more deliberate practice than less accomplished musicians, and concluded that their theoretical framework could provide “a sufficient account of themajor facts about the nature and scarcity of exceptional performance” (p. 392). The deliberate practice viewhas since gained popularity as a theoretical account of expert performance, but here we show that deliberate practice is not sufficient to explain individual differences in performance in the two most widely studied domains in expertise research—chess and music. For researchers interested in advancing the science of expert performance, the task now is to develop and rigorously test theories that take into account as many potentially relevant explanatory constructs as possible.
Article
A view holds that expertise level depends on practice alone and that certain types of practice are important or unimportant. Supporting evidence largely comes from studies using a correlational retrospective recall paradigm, usually with small samples. Initially, these studies were partially replicated with 533 international chess players. Log number of games played was the strongest predictor of latest performance rating. Then, effects of study hours, having had coaching and the number of games played were examined longitudinally to control for key variables confounded in the retrospective recall paradigm. Groups with a nearly 5–1 median difference in weekly study hours, roughly equated on time in the domain and the number of games played, were observed over 7 years. More study hours had negligible impact. Coaching had some effect over time, and the number of games had a strong effect even when participants were equated on time in the domain. Previous studies show that a factor other than the number of games is important in developing chess expertise. Study is a weak factor at best and could not be that important factor. Chess expertise apparently does not depend on practice (study and the number of games) alone. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Article
Many misunderstandings about the expert-performance approach can be attributed to its unique methodology and theoretical concepts. This approach was established with case studies of the acquisition of expert memory with detailed experimental analysis of the mediating mechanisms. In contrast the traditional individual difference approach starts with the assumption of underlying general latent factors of cognitive ability and personality that correlate with performance across levels of acquired skill. My review rejects the assumption that data on large samples of beginners can be extrapolated to samples of elite and expert performers. Once we can agree on the criteria for reproducible objective expert performance and acceptable methodologies for collecting valid data. I believe that scientists will recognize the need for expert-performance approach to the study of expert performance, especially at the very highest levels of achievement.
Article
Some researchers in sports attribute elite performance to genetic talent. However, they do not offer complete genetic accounts that specify the causal processes involved in the activation and expression of the dormant genes in DNA during practice in the athletes' development that lead to the emergence of the distinctive physiological and anatomical attributes (innate talent). This article argues that it is possible to account for the development of elite performance among healthy children without recourse to unique talent (genetic endowment)-excepting the innate determinants of body size. This account based on the expert-performance approach shows that the distinctive characteristics of elite performers are adaptations to extended and intense practice activities that selectively activate dormant genes that all healthy children's DNA contain. The expert-performance approach has provided accounts for elite performance in several domains of expertise, such as music, ballet, chess, and medicine. This article shows how the superior performance of athletes can be captured and reproduced under laboratory conditions to discover the mechanisms mediating superior performance. The discovered mechanisms have, so far, been shown to reflect predominantly complex skills and physiological adaptations acquired over years and decades as a result of high daily levels of activities, which were specially designed to improve performance (deliberate practice). The second part of this article describes the development of expert performance in sports as an extended series of stable states of adaptation with associated physiological mechanisms that mediate performance. One section describes how frequent intense engagement in certain types of practice activities is shown to induce physiological strain which cause biochemical changes that stimulate growth and transformation of cells, which in turn leads to associated improved adaptations of physiological systems and the brain. A careful review of the published evidence on the heritability of acquisition of elite sports achievement failed to reveal reproducible evidence for any genetic constraints for attaining elite levels by healthy individuals (excluding, of course, the evidence on body size). The theoretical framework of expert performance explains individual differences in attained performance by the factors that influence the engagement in sustained extended deliberate practice, such as motivation, parental support, and access to the best training environments and teachers. Consequently, the development of expert performance will be primarily constrained by individuals' engagement in deliberate practice and the quality of the available training resources. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)