Cited by 434Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsCognitive Functions and Memory

The role of individual differences in cognitive training and transfer

Jaeggi, Susanne M., Buschkuehl, Martin, Shah, Priti, Jonides, John·2014·Memory & Cognition

Abstract

Working memory (WM) training has recently become a topic of intense interest and controversy. Although several recent studies have reported near- and far-transfer effects as a result of training WM-related skills, others have failed to show far transfer, suggesting that generalization effects are elusive. Also, many of the earlier intervention attempts have been criticized on methodological grounds. The present study resolves some of the methodological limitations of previous studies and also considers individual differences as potential explanations for the differing transfer effects across studies. We recruited intrinsically motivated participants and assessed their need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42:116-131, 1982) and their implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999) prior to training. We assessed the efficacy of two WM interventions by comparing participants' improvements on a battery of fluid intelligence tests against those of an active control group. We observed that transfer to a composite measure of fluid reasoning resulted from both WM interventions. In addition, we uncovered factors that contributed to training success, including motivation, need for cognition, preexisting ability, and implicit theories about intelligence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13421-013-0364-z

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Jaeggi, Susanne M.
Venue
Memory & Cognition
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
42
Issue
3
Pages
464-480
ISSN
  • 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5946
OpenAlex
W2077429714
Cited by
432
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
49.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory training, cognitive training, transfer of training, individual differences, need for cognition, implicit theories of intelligence, fluid intelligence, fluid reasoning, motivation, training effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Individuality, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Thinking, Transfer, Psychology, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review