Elsevier

Acta Psychologica

Volume 81, Issue 1, October 1992, Pages 75-86
Acta Psychologica

How much information does an expert use? Is it relevant?

https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90012-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Many observers of expert decision makers have assumed an Information-Use Hypothesis: The amount of information used, as measured by number of significant cues, should be greater for experts than non-experts. Since prior studies consistently have shown that both expert and naive judgment can be described using few cues, the conclusion has been drawn that experts are limited decision makers. This paper takes a new look at this conclusion by reviewing recent literature on information use of experts and by presenting some new evidence. The results from five studies show that experts often have the same (or fewer) number of significant cues as novices, but that the information used is more relevant. Therefore, the amount of information used does not reflect degree of expertise; however, the type of information used does. This finding has implications for measurement of expertise, analysis of expert tasks, and generalizability of conclusions about experts.

References (40)

  • N.H. Anderson et al.

    Weak inference with linear models

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1977)
  • E.M. Bamber et al.

    Characteristics of audit experience in belief revisions

    (1991)
  • R.M. Dawes

    Rational choice in an uncertain world

    (1988)
  • R.M. Dawes et al.

    Linear models in decision making

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1974)
  • M.E. Doherty et al.

    The influence of feedback and diagnostic data on pseudodiagnosticity

    Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

    (1981)
  • E. Ebbesen et al.

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

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1975)
  • H. Einhorn

    Expert judgement: Some necessary conditions and an example

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1974)
  • R. Ettenson et al.

    Expert judgement: Is more information better?

    Psychological Reports

    (1987)
  • G.J. Gaeth et al.

    A bibliography of research on the effects of irrelevance in psychology

  • L.R. Goldberg

    Simple models or simple processes? Some research on clinical judgements

    American Psychologist

    (1968)
  • Cited by (0)

    The research described in this paper was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Army Research Institute, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Bureau of General Research at Kansas State University. I wish to thank Geri Dino, Richard Ettenson, Gary Gaeth, and Ruth Phelps for their crucial contributions and insightful observations on the research described here.

    Requests for copies of the author's cited research can be obtained from: J. Shanteau, Dept. of Psychology, Bluemont Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.

    View full text