2019 Study Challenges 10,000-Hour Rule with Double-Blind Violinist Test
In 2019, researchers Brooke Macnamara and Megha Maitra published findings in Royal Society Open Science that question Malcolm Gladwell's '10,000-hour rule' from his 2008 book, Outliers. This rule, which stems from K. Anders Ericsson's 1993 research, posits that 10,000 hours of practice equates to elite performance; however, the original study did not assert this as a definitive benchmark. Their study, involving 39 violinists, revealed that the 'good' group averaged 9,844 hours while the 'best' group averaged 8,224 hours, with no significant difference (p = 0.364). The research suggests that while deliberate practice accounts for some skill differences, it does not consistently identify top performers. Limitations include a narrow sample size and concentration on a single instrument.
Key facts
- The 2019 study was published in Royal Society Open Science.
- The study was conducted by Brooke Macnamara and Megha Maitra.
- 39 violinists were recruited and split into three groups of 13 based on teacher and expert assessments.
- The study used a double-blind design where raters did not know practice hours.
- The 'good' group averaged 9,844 hours of practice; the 'best' group averaged 8,224 hours.
- The difference between groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.364).
- The original 1993 study by K. Anders Ericsson reported averages of 7,410, 5,301, and 3,420 hours for expert, good, and less accomplished violinists.
- The 10,000-hour rule was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell's 2008 book Outliers.
Entities
Institutions
- Case Western Reserve University
- Royal Society Open Science