Sorry, you do not have access to this eBook
A subscription is required to access the full text content of this book.
Research has shown that expert decision makers often make decisions in their area of expertise that are superior to those of laypeople – for example, expert physicians are better at discriminating levels of cardiac risk (Reyna & Lloyd, 2006), chess masters can identify the most promising moves during a game of chess (Chase & Simon, 1973; De Groot, 1978), and judges (but not jurors) are able to distinguish between qualitatively different types of harm in a legal case (Eisenberg, Rachlinski, & Wells, 2002). However, research has also shown experts are fallible and susceptible to many of the cognitive biases that affect lay people (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). For example, expert physicians make different choices based on whether the same information is presented in positive or negative terms (known as a framing effect) and fail to adjust sufficiently for population base rates when judging a conditional probability (e.g., the chances that a 40-year-old woman has breast cancer conditional on a positive diagnostic test) (e.g., Croskerry, in press; McNeil, Pauker, Sox, & Tversky, 1982; Reyna, 2005; Reyna & Lloyd, 2006; Shanteau & Stewart, 1992). In fact, research has shown that under certain circumstances experts can be more biased than novices in their area of expertise (Reyna, Chick, Corbin, & Hsia, 2014). In this chapter, we discuss decision making of experts including physicians, judges, and intelligence officers. Using the lens of fuzzy-trace theory (FTT), we provide a framework to explain why experts often make superior decisions, and when they are likely to be as susceptible or more susceptible to bias (systematic departures from applicable normative rational theory; Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002) than laypeople.
A subscription is required to access the full text content of this book.
Other ways to access this content: