Repeated Practice May Not Make You an Expert
With apologies to Malcolm Gladwell, new research finds that deliberate practice may not have nearly as much influence in building expertise as once thought.
The question of whether experts are “born” or “made” has been debated for ages. In his 2008 book Outliers, Gladwell presented the argument that 10,000 hours of practice can lead to expertise.
In the new study, psychological scientist Brooke Macnamara, Ph.D., of Princeton University, and colleagues offer a dissenting view, suggesting that the amount of practice accumulated over time does not seem to play a huge role in accounting for individual differences in skill or performance.
The research is published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
Macnamara, with colleagues Drs. David Z. Hambrick of Michigan State University and Frederick Oswald of Rice University, performed a literature review for studies examining practice and performance in fields as diverse as music, games, sports, professions, and education.
Of the many studies they found, 88 met specific criteria, including a measure of accumulated practice and a measure of performance, and an estimate of the magnitude of the observed effect.
The researchers took the 88 studies and performed a meta-analysis, pooling all of the data from the studies to examine whether specific patterns emerged.
Nearly all of the studies showed a positive relationship between practice and performance: The more people reported having practice, the higher their level of performance in their specific domain.
Overall, practice accounted for only about 12 percent of individual differences observed in performance across the various domains.
However, the domain itself seemed to make a difference. Practice accounted for about 26 percent of individual differences in performance for games, about 21 percent of individual differences in music, and about 18 percent of individual differences in sports.
But it only accounted for about four percent of individual differences in education and less than one percent of individual differences in performance in professions.
Furthermore, the findings showed that the effect of practice on performance was weaker when practice and performance were measured in more precise ways, such as using practice time logs and standardized measures of performance.
“There is no doubt that deliberate practice is important, from both a statistical and a theoretical perspective. It is just less important than has been argued,” said Macnamara. “For scientists, the important question now is, what else matters?”
Macnamara and colleagues speculate that the age at which a person becomes involved in an activity may matter, and that certain cognitive abilities such as working memory may also play an influential role.
The researchers are planning another meta-analysis focused specifically on practice and sports in order to better understand the role of these and other factors.
Nauert PhD, R. (2018). Repeated Practice May Not Make You an Expert. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 26, 2020, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/07/03/repeated-practice-may-not-make-you-an-expert/72030.html