OSCR

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

Overview

Authors: Sandra Grinschgl1,2, Larissa Kohlmeier1, Aljoscha C. Neubauer1
ORCID iDs: Sandra Grinschgl, Larissa Kohlmeier
  1. Institute of Psychology, University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  2. Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Institutions: University of Bern (Switzerland); University of Graz (Austria)
Journal: PloS one, volume 21, issue 7, article e0353234
Dates: received 27 November 2025; accepted 19 June 2026; published online 10 July 2026
Type: Research article · Language: English
License: CC BY
Identifiers: DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0353234 · PMID 42430448 · PMCID PMC13354088 · OpenAlex W7167893276
Open access: gold, a free copy (OpenAlex)
Status: empty repository
Categories: human (organism), cognitive (subfield)
Methods: Statistics, Preprocessing
MeSH: Cognition*, Cognitive Enhancement*, Individuality*, Motivation*, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Young Adult (* major topic)
Journal subjects: Biology and Life Sciences, Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Cognitive Psychology, Intelligence, Psychology, Social Sciences, Psychometrics, Personality, Personality Traits, Intelligence Tests, Emotions, Anxiety, Cognitive Neuroscience, Working Memory, Cognition, Memory, Learning and Memory, Research and Analysis Methods, Research Design, Survey Research, Questionnaires, Medicine and Health Sciences, Epidemiology, Medical Risk Factors
Topic: Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations (Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuroscience), according to OpenAlex
Funding: Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Citations: not cited yet (Europe PMC); 105 references in the paper

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 to personality traits or (self-assessed) abilities. We emphasize the importance of studying situational factors, such as person-environment fit, to better understand the willingness to make use of cognitive enhancement.

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Code

No file of the authors' code could be read here: it is described below, and read at its source.

OSF 76drs

License: none: the authors keep all their rights
State: the link answers, verified on 27 September 2026
Evidence: files inventoried
Size: 1 file, 0 scripts
Software Heritage: not checked
Found in: the references
Not found: README, license file, CITATION.cff, environment file, tests, continuous integration, documentation
Availability: 1 check, the latest on 27 September 2026: the link answers (HTTP 200)
  • 27 September 2026: the link answers (HTTP 200)
At the source:

The paper's code and data availability statement is in the Data section.

Tracing map

Proposed by the machine: these links were found in the paper and verified at the source, without human review. The map will receive a Zenodo DOI once one of the paper's authors has validated it with their ORCID.

What the map holds:

  • 1 repository of the authors' code, each at its verified commit, with its license and how the link was found in the paper;
  • 0 scripts, each with its path and the digest of its content;
  • no match between paragraphs and code yet;
  • neither the text of the paper nor the code itself.

Its JSON (tracing-map.json) is deposited on Zenodo with its DOI once the map is validated.

Data

Datasets cited

Data Availability

All data and code supporting this paper are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF). The materials for Study 1 can be accessed at https://osf.io/qbfsc (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QBFSC), and the materials for Study 2 are available at https://osf.io/zyxh9 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZYXH9).

Reproduced under the paper's license (CC BY), from the paper cited above.

Versions

The history of this record: each version stored by the harvester or made by a correction of its authors or of the maintainers of its code, and what changed in its facts. The texts of the paper (its abstract, its availability statements) are not part of it; versions that changed only those are not listed.

Version 1, 27 September 2026: the first record

Recorded: type, language, journal, volume, issue, pages, dates, 3 authors, 11 MeSH terms, 1 funder, 67 references.

Cite

This paper

Grinschgl, S., Kohlmeier, L., & Neubauer, A. C. (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.pone.0353234

BibTeX

@article{grinschgl2026individual,
author = {Grinschgl, Sandra and Kohlmeier, Larissa and Neubauer, Aljoscha C.},
title = {{Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2026},
month = jul,
volume = {21},
number = {7},
pages = {e0353234},
publisher = {PLOS},
issn = {1932-6203},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0353234},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353234},
pmid = {42430448},
pmcid = {PMC13354088}
}

RIS

TY - JOUR
AU - Grinschgl, Sandra
AU - Kohlmeier, Larissa
AU - Neubauer, Aljoscha C.
TI - Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation
T2 - PloS one
J2 - PLoS One
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/07/10
VL - 21
IS - 7
SP - e0353234
SN - 1932-6203
PB - PLOS
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0353234
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353234
LA - en
ER -

CSL-JSON

{
"id": "10.1371/journal.pone.0353234",
"type": "article-journal",
"title": "Individual differences and motives for the acceptance of cognitive enhancement: A mixed-methods investigation",
"container-title": "PloS one",
"author": [
{
"family": "Grinschgl",
"given": "Sandra"
},
{
"family": "Kohlmeier",
"given": "Larissa"
},
{
"family": "Neubauer",
"given": "Aljoscha C."
}
],
"container-title-short": "PLoS One",
"volume": "21",
"issue": "7",
"page": "e0353234",
"DOI": "10.1371/journal.pone.0353234",
"PMID": "42430448",
"PMCID": "PMC13354088",
"ISSN": "1932-6203",
"publisher": "PLOS",
"URL": "https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0353234",
"language": "en",
"issued": {
"date-parts": [
[
2026,
7,
10
]
]
}
}

The tracing map gets a citation of its own once an author has validated it and it has a DOI.

Similar papers

The papers with a page that share the most with this one: the tools found in their code, their categories, datasets, cited references and authors, the rarest counting most.

[1] doi:10.1113/jp290164 [code]
Improved subjective sleep quality in older adults by enhancing the GABAergic system in the sensorimotor cortex.
Journal: The Journal of physiology
In common: 2 references
[2] doi:10.1038/s41467-026-75588-3 [code]
Frequency-dependent effects of motor thalamus deep brain stimulation on speech and swallowing.
Journal: Nature communications
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[3] doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04414-6 [code]
Long-term independent use of an intracortical brain-computer interface for speech and cursor control.
Journal: Nature medicine
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[4] doi:10.3758/s13428-026-03150-6 [code]
Tetrix: A novel Tetris-based paradigm for neuroimaging research and clinical applications.
Journal: Behavior research methods
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[5] doi:10.1002/brb3.71679
Limonene Modulates Event-Related Potentials in a 2-Back Working Memory Task.
Journal: Brain and behavior
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[6] doi:10.3758/s13414-026-03289-6 [code]
Saccade length consistency during reading and shape-scanning.
Journal: Attention, perception & psychophysics
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[7] doi:10.1186/s12984-026-02029-z
Structured modulations in high-density EMG patterns from a single muscle enable simultaneous control of natural and extra degrees of freedom.
Journal: Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
In common: 1 reference
[8] doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.117159
Ultraslow brain dynamics as neurophysiological markers of information sampling during learning.
Journal: iScience
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[9] doi:10.1186/s10194-026-02445-5
Migraine is associated with altered approach-avoidance decision processing: a case control study.
Journal: The journal of headache and pain
In common: cognitive, 1 reference
[10] doi:10.3390/brainsci16070678
CP5-Centered Parietal HD-tACS Is Associated with Improved Performance in a Smartphone-Based Shopping Task in Older Adults: A Behavioral and EEG Investigation.
Journal: Brain sciences
In common: cognitive, 1 reference

Contribute

The authors of this paper can claim it, correct its record and validate its tracing map, and the maintainers of its code (its owner, or a public member of its organization) correct what it says of their repository; anyone signed in can ask for its removal. Every request goes to OSCR's own machine, which answers it; your account page follows them.

Sign in with ORCID to claim this paper as one of its authors, correct its record or validate its tracing map: when the paper's metadata lists your ORCID iD, you are recognized at once. Maintainers of its code: sign in with GitHub, then claim the repository on your account page.

Request its removal

To ask OSCR to remove this record, the copies of its authors' scripts or its tracing map, use the removal request page: signed in, you say who you are, what to remove and why, then review and confirm the request. Published rules decide every request (how).

Discussion, reproductions, activity

Discussion: questions and error reports about this paper and its code, from signed-in readers and its authors. It opens with sign-in.

Reproductions: reports from readers who ran the authors' code: what they reproduced, with which environment, commit and data. It opens with sign-in.

Activity: what happens around this paper: new versions of its record, its map's validation, discussions and reproductions. It opens with sign-in.