Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-9cwrl Total loading time: 0.655 Render date: 2022-11-27T00:27:56.751Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

2 - Two Approaches to the Study of Experts' Characteristics

from PART I - INTRODUCTION AND PERSPECTIVE

Michelene T. H. Chi
Affiliation:
Learning Research and Development Center, University of Pittsburgh
K. Anders Ericsson
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Neil Charness
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Paul J. Feltovich
Affiliation:
University of West Florida
Robert R. Hoffman
Affiliation:
University of West Florida
Get access

Summary

This chapter differentiates two approaches to the study of expertise, which I call the “absolute approach” and the “relative approach,” and what each approach implies for how expertise is assessed. It then summarizes the characteristic ways in which experts excel and the ways that they sometimes seem to fall short of common expectations.

Two Approaches to the Study of Expertise

The nature of expertise has been studied in two general ways. One way is to study truly exceptional people with the goal of understanding how they perform in their domain of expertise. I use the term domain loosely to refer to both informal domains, such as sewing and cooking, and formal domains, such as biology and chess. One could choose exceptional people on the basis of their well-established discoveries. For example, one could study how Maxwell constructed a quantitative field concept (Nersessian, 1992). Or one could choose contemporary scientists whose breakthroughs may still be debated, such as pathologist Warren and gastroenterologist Marshall's proposal that bacteria cause peptic ulcers (Chi & Hausmann, 2003; Thagard, 1998; also see the chapters by Wilding & Valentine, Chapter 31, Simonton, Chapter 18, and Weisberg, Chapter 42).

Several methods can be used to identify someone who is truly an exceptional expert. One method is retrospective. That is, by looking at how well an outcome or product is received, one can determine who is or is not an expert.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of a task may increase with expertise. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 483–495.Google Scholar
Alexander, P. A. (2003). Can we get there from here? Educational Researcher, 32, 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedard, J., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Expertise. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (1978). Knowledge structure and memory development. In Siegler, R. (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 73–96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.) (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H., & Hausmann, R. G. M. (2003). Do radical discoveries require ontological shifts? In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), International handbook on innovation (pp. 430–444). New York: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Cho, K. (2004). When experts give worse advice than novices: The type and impact of feedback given by students and an instructor on student writing. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Christensen, C., Heckerling, P. S., Mackesy, M. E., Berstein, L. M., & Elstein, A. S. (1991). Framing bias among expert and novice physicians. Academic Medicine, 66 (suppl): S76–S78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawes, R. M. (1971). A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making. American Psychologist, 26, 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Elo, A. E. (1965). Age changes in master chess performance. Journal of Gerontology, 20, 289–299.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.)The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: evidence on maximal adaptations on task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., Patel, V. L., & Kinstch, W. (2000). How experts' adaptations to representative task demands account for the expertise effect in memory recall: Comment on Vincente and Wang (1998). Psychological Review, 107, 578–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (1991). Prospects and limits of empirical study of expertise: An introduction. In Ericsson, K. A. & Smith, J. (Eds.). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits (pp. 1–38).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feltovich, P. J., & Barrows, H. S. (1984). Issues of generality in medical problem solving. In Schmidt, H. G. & Volder, M. L. (Eds.), Tutorials in problem-based learning (pp. 128–142). Maaastricht, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Feltovich, P. J., Ford, K. M., & Hoffman, R. R. (Eds.) (1997). Expertise in context. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ford, K. M., & Adams-Webber, J. R. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and constuctivist epistemology. In Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.), The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI (pp. 121–136). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J., McGeorge, P., Hunter, J., Rawles, J. M., Kirby, I. K., Green, C., & Wynn, V. (1997). Biomedical knowledge in diagnostic thinking: the case of electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1987). Inexpert calibration of comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 15, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Recall of rapidly presented random chess positions is a function of skill. Psychonomic Bulletin and Reviews, 3, 159–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hashem, A., Chi, M. T. H., & Friedman, C. P. (2003). Medical errors as a result of specialization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In Stevenson, H., Azmuma, H., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York, NY: W. Y. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Hecht, H., & Proffitt, D. R. (1995). The price of expertise: Effects of experience on the water-level task. Psychological Science, 6, 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205–221.Google Scholar
Hobus, P. P. M., Schmidt, H. G., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Patel, V. L. (1987). Context factors in the activation of first diagnostic hypotheses: Expert-novice differences. Medical Education, 21, 471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.) (1992). The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R. (1998). How can expertise be defined?: Implications of research from cognitive psychology. In Williams, R., Faulkner, W., & Fleck, J. (Eds.), Exploring expertise (pp. 81–100). New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, R. R., Trafton, G., & Roebber, P. (2005). Minding the weather: How expert forecasters think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J.(Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 209–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Klein, G. A. (1993). A recognition primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (Eds.), Decision-making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Kozbelt, A. (2004). Creativity over the lifespan in classical composers: Reexamining the equal-odds rule. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaire, P., & Siegler, R. S. (1995). Four aspects of strategic change: Contributions to children's learning of multiplication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 83–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesgold, A., Rubinson, H., Feltovich, P., Glaser, R., Klopfer, D., & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing X-ray pictures. In Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R.,   Farr, M. J. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311–342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewandowsky, S., Dunn, J. C., Kirsner, K., & Randell, M. (1997). Expertise in the management of bushfires: Training and decision support. Australian Psychologist, 32(3), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchant, G., Robinson, J., Anderson, U., & Schadewald, M. (1991). Analogical transfer and expertise in legal reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 48, 272–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masunaga, H., & Horn, J. (2000), Expertise and age-related changes in components of intelligence. Psychology & Aging, Special Issue: Vol. 16(2), 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1974). Artificial intelligence. Condon Lectures, Oregon /State System of Higher Education, Eugene, Oregon.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In Giere, R. N. (Ed.), Cognitive models of science: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. XV (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 261–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the decision rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta Psychologica, 32, 301–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, V. L., & Kaufman, D. R. (1995). Clinical reasoning and biomedical knowledge: implications for teaching. In Higgs, J. & Jones, M. (Eds.), Clinical reasoning in the health professions (pp. 117–128). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.Google Scholar
Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Proportional reasoning in and out of school. In Light, P. & Butterworth, G. (Eds.), Context and cognition: Ways of learning and knowing (pp. 47–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. G., & Boshuizen, P. A. (1993). On acquiring expertise in medicine. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, W. (1985). Training high performance skills: Fallacies and guidelines. Human Factors, 27(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanteau, J. (1984). Some unasked questions about the psychology of expert decision makers. In Hawaray, M. El (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1984 IEEE conference on systems, man, and cybernetics. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Google Scholar
Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1978). Individual differences in solving physics problems. In Siegler, R. (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 325–348). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 347–354). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1992). On being an expert; A cost-benefit analysis. In Hoffman, R. R. (Ed.), The psychology of expertise: Cognitive research and empirical AI (pp. 191–203). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (1998). Ulcers and bacteria I: Discovery and acceptance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, K. J. (1992). Memory recall in a process control system: A measure of expertise and display effectiveness. Memory and Cognition, 20, 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vicente, K. J., & Wang, J. H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voss, J. F., Greene, T. R., Post, T., & Penner, B. C. (1983). Problem solving skill in the social sciences. In Bower, G. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. (pp. 165–213). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Voss, J. F., Vesonder, G., & Spilich, H. (1980). Text generation and recall by high-knowledge and low-knowledge individuals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walther, E., Fiedler, K., & Nickel, S. (2003). The influence of prior knowledge on constructive biases. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 62(4), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and know-ledge: A challenge to theories. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. (1998). Expertise as mental set: The effects of domain knowledge in creative problem solving. Memory and Cognition, 26, 716–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
230
Cited by

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×