What predicts expertise in Baduk? Intelligence, practice, and a natural test of the range restriction hypothesis.

IF 3.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2026-09-28 DOI:10.1037/xge0001983

Daniel A Southwick, Chayce Baldwin, Kyle W Harwell, Ellie Agler, Jong Sung Yoon

{"title":"What predicts expertise in Baduk? Intelligence, practice, and a natural test of the range restriction hypothesis.","authors":"Daniel A Southwick, Chayce Baldwin, Kyle W Harwell, Ellie Agler, Jong Sung Yoon","doi":"10.1037/xge0001983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The range restriction hypothesis suggests that intelligence-performance correlations may be underestimated in domains like chess, where most players have above-average cognitive ability. We test this hypothesis using Baduk (Go), a game of even greater complexity but, apparently, without the range restrictions in intelligence typically observed in chess. In Study 1A, experts reported significantly more serious practice alone than amateurs (d = 1.42), but scored lower in fluid intelligence (d = -1.78). In Study 1B, we invited participants back to complete a revised matrix reasoning task. We preregistered that we would observe the same finding with the new measure and, again, experts scored worse in fluid intelligence than amateurs (d = -1.79). However, this effect was no longer significant when controlling for education-suggesting that the observed intelligence gap may reflect developmental trade-offs rather than a true cognitive disadvantage among experts. Rather than fluid intelligence driving expertise, time investments in schooling versus practice appear to shape both cognitive scores and Baduk skill. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001983","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The range restriction hypothesis suggests that intelligence-performance correlations may be underestimated in domains like chess, where most players have above-average cognitive ability. We test this hypothesis using Baduk (Go), a game of even greater complexity but, apparently, without the range restrictions in intelligence typically observed in chess. In Study 1A, experts reported significantly more serious practice alone than amateurs (d = 1.42), but scored lower in fluid intelligence (d = -1.78). In Study 1B, we invited participants back to complete a revised matrix reasoning task. We preregistered that we would observe the same finding with the new measure and, again, experts scored worse in fluid intelligence than amateurs (d = -1.79). However, this effect was no longer significant when controlling for education-suggesting that the observed intelligence gap may reflect developmental trade-offs rather than a true cognitive disadvantage among experts. Rather than fluid intelligence driving expertise, time investments in schooling versus practice appear to shape both cognitive scores and Baduk skill. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

如何预测棋艺？智力，练习，和范围限制假设的自然测试。

范围限制假说表明，在像国际象棋这样的领域，智力与表现的相关性可能被低估了，因为大多数棋手的认知能力都高于平均水平。我们用围棋测试了这一假设，这是一种更复杂的游戏，但显然没有国际象棋中典型的智力范围限制。在研究1A中，专家比业余爱好者更认真地练习（d = 1.42），但在流体智力方面得分较低（d = -1.78）。在研究1B中，我们邀请参与者重新完成修改后的矩阵推理任务。我们预先登记过，我们将在新的测量中观察到同样的发现，专家在流体智力方面的得分再次低于业余爱好者（d = -1.79）。然而，当控制教育时，这种影响不再显著——这表明观察到的智力差距可能反映了专家之间的发展权衡，而不是真正的认知劣势。不是液态智力驱动专业技能，而是在学校和练习上的时间投资似乎同时塑造了认知分数和围棋技能。（PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA，版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

4.90%

发文量

300

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.