Competence in experts: The role of task characteristics,☆☆

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90064-EGet rights and content

Abstract

The previous literature on experts presents two contrasting views. Judgment and decision research has shown that experts make flawed decisions due, in part, to the biasing effects of judgmental heuristics. Cognitive science research, in contrast, views experts as competent and different from novices in nearly every aspect of cognitive functioning. An alternative view developed here, the Theory of Expert Competence, suggests that both analyses are correct, but incomplete. In particular, the theory assumes competence depends on five components: (1) a sufficient knowledge of the domain, (2) the psychological traits associated with experts, (3) the cognitive skills necessary to make tough decisions, (4) the ability to use appropriate decision strategies, and (5) a task with suitable characteristics. The latter is the focus of this paper. Insufficient attention has been paid to task and domain characteristics in prior research. Decision researchers have looked primarily at experts in behavioral domains (e.g., clinical psychology), whereas cognitive investigators have concentrated on experts in static domains (e.g., physics). Thus, the discrepancy in the conclusions drawn from the two literatures appears to be a function of the different domains studied. Although similar to approaches such as Cognitive Continuum Theory, the proposed theory contains several new components. In addition, the theory has implications both for the analysis of experts and for the design and use of expert systems.

References (76)

  • L.R Beach
  • P Benner
  • E Brunswik
  • J.S Carroll et al.

    The psychology of parole decision processes: A joint application of attribution theory and information-processing psychology

  • G Cebrzynski

    Expert systems are seen as replacements for humans

    Marketing News

    (1987, February 27)
  • S Chan

    Expert judgments made under uncertainty: Some evidence and suggestions

    Social Science Quarterly

    (1982)
  • M.T.H Chi et al.
  • J.J.J Christensen-Szalanski et al.

    The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision making literature

    American Psychologist

    (1984)
  • J.J.J Christensen-Szalanski et al.

    Physician's use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1981)
  • J.J.J Christensen-Szalanski et al.

    Two studies of good clinical judgment

    Medical Decision Making

    (1982)
  • M.J Coombs
  • Dawes, R. M. (1987, November). Personal...
  • R.M Dawes et al.

    Linear models in decision making

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1974)
  • A.D deGroot
  • A.A DeSmet et al.

    A second look at the utility of radiographic skull examination for trauma

    American Journal of Radiology

    (1978)
  • H.L Dreyfus et al.
  • E Ebbesen et al.

    Decision making and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1975)
  • W Edwards et al.

    On cognitive illusions and their implications

    Southern California Law Review

    (1986)
  • H Einhorn

    Expert judgment: Some necessary conditions and an example

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1974)
  • K Ericsson et al.

    Verbal reports as data

    Psychological Review

    (1980)
  • B Fischhoff

    Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

    (1975)
  • P.M Fitts et al.
  • J.E Foss et al.

    Testing the accuracy of field textures

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1989, May). Personal...
  • E Goffman
  • L.R Goldberg

    Man vs. model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence, for a method of improving clinical inferences

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1970)
  • S.R Graubard
  • M.R Grier

    Decision making about patient care

    Nursing Research

    (1976)
  • Cited by (586)

    • Are experts overconfident?: An interdisciplinary review

      2023, Research in Organizational Behavior
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The research described in this paper was supported in part by grants from the Army Research Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Bureau of General Research at Kansas State University.

    ☆☆

    The first draft of this paper was prepared while the author was serving as Program Director of the Decision, Risk, and Management Science program of the National Science Foundation.

    View full text