THE ORIGIN
A study of violinists
In a 1993 study, the best student violinists had practised more than 10,000 hours by age 20, against about 7,800 for good ones and 4,600 for the least accomplished.
See the numbersWHAT THE RESEARCH SAYS
Practice matters.
Just not that much.
Nobody becomes an expert without practice.
Check a skill
≈ 12%of the difference
- Practice always helps
- Field changes the payoff
- Spread it, test it
- Hours are only part of the story
But the famous 10,000-hour rule promises more than the evidence shows. Here is what the original study found, what later research added, and the practice habits that hold up.
Updated
THE SHORT ANSWER
Hours help,
but they are not the whole story.
The 10,000-hour idea came from a 1993 study of violinists.
Later research found practice explains less than claimed.
THE FIELD
It depends what you do
A meta-analysis of 88 studies found practice explained about 26% of the differences in games but less than 1% in professions.
Check a skill
THE HABITS
Spread it and test it
A major review rated practice tests and spreading study out over time as high-utility techniques, and rereading and underlining as low.
How to practiseHOW MUCH DOES PRACTICE EXPLAIN?
Pick a field,
see the share.
Choose a kind of skill to see how much of the difference between people the 2014 meta-analysis put down to accumulated practice. The bar shows how large that share was.
Figures are averages across studies, not a prediction for any one person. Practice was linked with better performance in nearly every study.
TWO NUMBERS WORTH KNOWING
The famous figure,
and the pooled one.
One number from the 1993 violin study,
one from the 2014 meta-analysis that tested the idea.
10,000+ hours
Average practice of the best students by age 20
Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer found the best violinists averaged more than 10,000 hours, against about 7,800 for good and 4,600 for the least accomplished. This became the 10,000-hour rule.
VIOLINISTS · 1993 STUDY
≈ 12%
Share of differences in performance explained by practice
Pooling 88 studies, Macnamara and colleagues found practice accounted for only about 12% of individual differences in performance across fields.
ALL FIELDS · 2014 META-ANALYSIS
A 2019 double-blind repeat of the violin study did not replicate its core finding: the best violinists had not practised alone more by age 18 than the good ones.
PRACTICE THAT HOLDS UP
Fewer hours,
better used.
The research does not say practice is pointless. It says the clock is a poor measure on its own. These habits come from reviews of what helps people learn.
Aim at what you cannot do yet
Deliberate practice was defined as structured activity created specifically to improve performance, not simply repeating what you already do well.
Spread sessions out
Distributed practice, spreading study over time rather than cramming, was rated high utility across many ages and subjects.
Test yourself
Practice tests were also rated high utility. Rereading, underlining and mnemonic devices were rated low.
Make time to practise alone
The expert violinists in both the 1993 study and its 2019 repeat rated practice alone as the most important activity for improving.
WHAT ELSE MATTERS?
If not hours,
then what?
The 2014 authors called deliberate practice unquestionably important, but less important than argued. They found its link with performance was weaker when practice and performance were measured more precisely, with practice logs and standardised tests.
They suggested the age at which someone starts, and abilities such as working memory, may also play a part. The 2019 violin study found practice designed by a teacher explained no more of the difference than practice alone.
Questions
Questions people ask
Is the 10,000-hour rule true?
Not as a rule. It came from a 1993 study in which the best student violinists averaged more than 10,000 hours of practice by age 20. Later research found practice explains some, but far from all, of the differences between people.
Does practice still matter?
Yes. In the 2014 meta-analysis, nearly all studies showed that people who reported more practice performed better. The finding is that practice explains less of the gap between people than had been claimed.
Why does practice explain more in games than in jobs?
The 2014 study found practice explained about 26% of differences in games but under 1% in professions. The authors did not settle why, and suggested other factors such as starting age and working memory need study.
What is deliberate practice?
Researchers defined it as engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain. It is meant to be different from simply playing, performing or doing the job.
What is the best way to practise for a test?
A review of ten common learning techniques rated practice tests and spreading study out over time as high utility. Rereading, underlining and mnemonic devices were rated low utility.
Where the facts come from
- Association for Psychological Science: Becoming an expert takes more than practice
- Macnamara, Hambrick and Oswald (2014): Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions, a meta-analysis (PDF)
- Macnamara and Maitra (2019): The role of deliberate practice in expert performance, revisiting Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Römer (1993)
- Association for Psychological Science: Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques