How Malleable Are Cognitive Abilities? A Critical Perspective on Popular Brief Interventions

Abstract

A number of popular research areas suggest that cognitive performance can be manipulated via relatively brief interventions. These findings have generated a lot of traction, given their inherent appeal to individuals and society. However, recent evidence indicates that cognitive abilities might not be as malleable as preliminary findings implied, and that other, more stable factors play an important role. Here, I provide a critical outlook on these trends of research, combining findings that have mainly remained segregated despite shared characteristics. Specifically, I suggest that the purported cognitive improvements elicited by many interventions are not reliable, and that their ecological validity remains limited. I conclude with a call for constructive skepticism when evaluating claims of generalized cognitive improvements following brief interventions.

Let’s go beyond “the effect of”: Reappraising the impact of ordinary activities on cognition

“…Even when musical training or physical activities have no evident adverse consequences, the way in which many programs are advertised, emphasizing the huge malleability of cognitive abilities, could often create false expectations about the outcomes and lead to psychological costs of failure (Moreau, 2021). The rhetoric of the power of training to change cognition could be especially dangerous in combination with the rhetoric of individualism in Western societies, in which the person is responsible for achieving their own goals through effort and perseverance.…”

“…Implications beyond the purported effect). To sum up, we urge authors to explicitly nuance the observed effect with more pieces of information than just a significant p value and to contextualize it somewhere between genetic determinism and extreme malleability (Moreau, 2021).…”