Cognitive training interventions have become increasingly popular as a potential means to cost-efficiently stabilize or enhance cognitive functioning across the lifespan. Large training improvements have been consistently reported on the group level, with, however, large differences on the individual level. Identifying the factors contributing to these individual differences could allow for developing individually tailored interventions to boost training gains. In this study, we therefore examined a range of individual differences variables that had been discussed in the literature to potentially predict training performance. To estimate and predict individual differences in the training trajectories, we applied Latent Growth Curve models to existing data from three working memory training interventions with younger and older adults. However, we found that individual differences in demographic variables, real-world cognition, motivation, cognitionrelated beliefs, personality, leisure activities, and computer literacy and training experience were largely unrelated to change in training performance. Solely baseline cognitive performance was substantially related to change in training performance and particularly so in young adults, with individuals with higher baseline performance showing the largest gains. Thus, our results conform to magnification accounts of cognitive change.Keywords Working memory training . Individual differences . Latent growth curve modeling Over the past decade, there has been an exploding interest in computer-based commercial Bbrain training^programs and in scientific evidence relating to the effectiveness of such interventions, triggered by promising results of working memory (WM) training gains generalizing to previously untrained cognitive abilities such as intelligence in both younger (e.g., Jaeggi et al. 2008) and older adults (e.g., Borella et al. 2010). Although the idea of improving general cognitive functioning within a few weeks is enticing, there is also accumulating evidence against a generalized effect of WM training (e.g., Clark et al. 2017;De Simoni and von Bastian 2017;Guye and von Bastian 2017;Sprenger et al. 2013). Even on the meta-analytic level, evidence is mixed regarding the effectiveness of cognitive training in both younger and older adults (e.g., Au et al. 2015;Dougherty et al. 2016;Karbach and Verhaeghen 2014;Kelly et al. 2014;Lampit et al. 2014;Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013;Melby-Lervåg et al. 2016;Schwaighofer et al. 2015;Soveri et al. 2017). Aside from design and methodological choices potentially explaining the diverging findings (e.g., Noack et al. 2009;Shipstead et al. 2012), many authors increasingly articulated the potentially important influence of individual differences on cognitive training trajectories and outcomes (e.g., Buitenweg et al. 2012;Guye et al. 2016;Könen and Karbach 2015;Shah et al. 2012;von Bastian and Oberauer 2014 Individual differences in cognitive functioning (e.g., Ackerman and Lohman 2006) and learning potential (e.g., Stern ...