Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement - A mixed-methods investigation

Sep 25, 2026

Upload by OmBimo

Despite decades of interest in improving attention, memory, and intelligence, evidence for cognitive enhancement methods remains mixed, even as technological and medical approaches—including brain stimulation, pharmaceuticals, and gamified training—gain public traction. Two preregistered lab studies assessed hypothetical acceptance of active versus passive methods, tested predictors, and explored motives. Study 1 (N=203) showed higher acceptance for active approaches, with younger age, stronger science-fiction interest, and investigative interests predicting acceptance, while personality and intelligence did not. Study 2 (N=197) conceptually replicated, found consistent science-fiction effects, small quantitative impacts, and qualitative insight into motives for acceptance versus rejection.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages39

Reading Time1 h 38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Cognitive enhancement background

Study rationale and approach

Methods

Study 1

Study 2

Results

Acceptance patterns

Predictors and associations

Qualitative motives

Discussion

Person-environment fit and implications

OPEN ACCESS Citation: Grinschgl S, Kohlmeier L, Neubauer AC (2026) Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation. PLoS One 21(7): e0353234. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal). pone.0353234 Editor: Peter Karl Jonason, University of Padova, ITALY Received: November 27, 2025 Accepted: June 19, 2026 Published: July 10, 2026 Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal). pone.0353234 Copyright: © 2026 Grinschgl et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, RESEARCH ARTICLE Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation Sandra Grinschgl1,2‡*, Larissa Kohlmeier1‡*, Aljoscha C. Neubauer1 1 Institute of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria, 2 Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work and, thus, share the first authorship. Their names are ordered alphabetically. * sandra.grinschgl@unibe.ch (SG); [larissa.kohlmeier@uni-graz.at](larissa.kohlmeier@uni-graz.at) (LK) Abstract Despite a long history of human efforts to enhance cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and intelligence, the proliferation of (new) technological and medical methods—including brain stimulation, pharmaceutical interventions, and gamified brain training—has renewed scientific and public interest in cognitive enhancement, even as evidence for their effectiveness in improving broader cognitive abilities remains inconsistent. Understanding who would be willing to enhance their cognitive abilities and why is crucial as these cognitive enhancement methods become more popular and accessible in society. Thus, in two preregistered lab studies, we investigated individuals’ acceptance (i.e. , hypothetical willingness to make use) of various cognitive enhancement methods, tested predictors thereof, and explored individuals’ motives to utilize cognitive enhancement methods or be reluctant to do so. In Study 1 (N = 203), we found considerably higher acceptance for more active (i.e. , more involved) than passive cognitive enhancement methods. Lower age, greater interest in science fiction, and stronger investigative interests (partially) predicted participants’ acceptance of cognitive enhancement methods, while personality traits, self-assessed and measured intelligence did not. In Study 2 (N = 197), we aimed to (conceptually) replicate key findings from Study 1, and in addition qualitatively assess the motives for the acceptance and rejection of cognitive enhancement methods. Our findings confirmed the higher acceptance of active than passive cognitive enhancement methods. Additionally, we found that greater interest in science fiction consistently predicted participants’ acceptance of cognitive enhancement, while personality traits and (self-assessed) intelligence did not show consistent associations. Critically, these quantitative effects were rather small. Qualitative analyses additionally provided exploratory insights into the motives for accepting or rejecting active and passive cognitive enhancement methods. Across these two studies, acceptance of cognitive enhancement seems to be more closely linked to specific interests than PLOS One | [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353234](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353234) July 10, 2026 1 / 39 and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data availability statement: All data and code supportin

FAQs

What was the core goal of the two preregistered lab studies?

To examine who would be willing to use cognitive enhancement methods and why, by measuring acceptance, testing predictors, and exploring motives for acceptance or reluctance.

Did participants show different acceptance for active versus passive cognitive enhancement methods?

Yes. Acceptance was considerably higher for more active (more involved) methods than for passive methods in both studies.

Which predictors were associated with acceptance, and which were not?

Lower age, greater interest in science fiction, and stronger investigative interests (partially) predicted acceptance, while personality traits and self-assessed or measured intelligence did not show consistent associations. The effects were also rather small.

Sep 25, 2026

Upload by OmBimo