Experts and Decision Making: First Steps towards a Unifying Theory of Decision Making in Novices, Intermediates and Experts

Herbig, Britta; Glöckner, Andreas

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337449

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 103 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with theoretical considerations (e.g. Herbig & Glöckner, 2009) and findings from expertise research (e.g. Sonnentag, 2000), our results show that legal training can lead to different mental representations, differences in the accompanying integral emotions (Feigenson & Park, 2006), and also differences in judgment confidence.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Marchant, Robinson, Anderson, & Schadewald, 1991Blasi, 1995;Marchant & Robinson, 1999;Nievelstein, van Gog, Boshuizen, & Prins, 2010;Spellman, 2010;Glöckner & Ebert, in press). One of the core mechanisms is that with intense training people develop complex knowledge structures that help them process large amounts of information (Chase & Simon, 1973; see also Herbig & Glöckner, 2009). Differences between trained versus untrained legal decision makers rest largely on these distinctive knowledge structures that can be acquired through formal legal training.…”

Section: Information Processing Of Trained Versus Untrained Legal Decmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The More the Better? Effects of Training, Experience and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

Dickert

Herbig

Glöckner

et al. 2011

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an experimental study involving German lay judges, law students and controls, effects of legal training and experience as well as information amount on legal judgments was investigated. In a three (legal knowledge: legal training versus legal experience versus controls) x two (information amount: high versus low) between-subjects design, 137 participants judged the premeditation of a perpetrator in eight real-world cases decided by the German Federal Court of Justice. Judgment congruency with the Court's ruling increased with legal training, but official lay judges showed lower congruency compared with student controls. Additionally, legal training and experience corresponded with higher confidence. Emotional reactions to the legal cases were stronger when more information was given for individuals without legal training but decreased for individuals with training. An information-processing perspective to explain the observed differences in legal judgments is advanced, and the issue of using untrained individuals in the legal decision making process is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Information Processing Of Trained Versus Untrained Legal Decmentioning

confidence: 99%

The More the Better? Effects of Training, Experience and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

Dickert

Herbig

Glöckner

et al. 2011

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with theoretical considerations (e.g., Herbig & Glöckner, 2009) and findings from expertise research (for an overview see Ericsson, Charness, Hoffman, & Feltovich, 2006) our results show that legal training can lead to different mental representations, differences in the accompanying integral emotions (Feigenson & Park, 2006), and also differences in judgment confidence. Moreover, for people in advanced professional training these representations should be better adapted to the complex reality of the domain (i.e., by containing more specific legal terms) and therefore lead to better judgments as shown in our results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

The More the Better? Effects of Training and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

Dickert

Herbig²,

Glöckner

et al. 2010

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an experimental study we investigated effects of information amount and legal training on the judgment accuracy in legal cases. In a two (legal training: yes vs. no) x two (information amount: high vs. low) between-subjects design, 90 participants judged the premeditation of a perpetrator in eight real-world cases decided by the German Federal Court of Justice. Judgment accuracy was assessed in comparison with the Court's ruling. Legal training increased judgment accuracy, but did not depend on the amount of information given. Furthermore, legal training corresponded with higher confidence. Interestingly, emotional reactions to the legal cases were stronger when more information was given for individuals without legal training but decreased for individuals with training. This interaction seems to be caused by fundamental differences in the way people construct their mental representations of the cases. We advance an information processing perspective to explain the observed differences in legal judgments and conclude with a discussion on the merits and problems of offering more information to lay people participating in legal decision making.

show abstract

“…The findings show that students seem to be able to grasp 64-77% of explicit and 39-49% of implicit information presented to them while engaged in problem-solving activities. This finding aligns with the novice-expert research findings that suggest experts spend more time on understanding the task and engaging in monitoring and evaluation, in the attempt to develop more complete representation of the problems before finding the appropriate strategies to solve them (Abelson, 1981;Glaser, 1992;Herbig & Glöckner, 2009;Hoffman, 1998;Lesgold et al, 1988).…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Task Affect and Task Understanding in Engineering Problem Solving

Lawanto¹,

Minichiello²,

Uziak³

et al. 2019

JTE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the self-regulated learning literature, motivation is considered to be an essential feature of students' self-regulatory processes. Additionally, task affect (i.e., personal objectives and task value) is thought to influence students' self-regulatory processes; insufficient task affect may lead to failures to selfregulate effectively. In a school setting, task affect is a form of motivation for completing the course tasks in order to attain course-level goals that are inherently valued. In this study, motivation is operationalized as students' personal objectives and task values, and self-regulation refers to students' understanding of tasks (also called task interpretation skill) involved in a course. This study investigates changes in students' task interpretation skill, personal objectives for learning, and task values, if any, while engaged in engineering problem-solving activities in a 2nd-year introductory thermodynamics course. This study also seeks to explore whether patterns exist between students' task understanding, personal objectives for learning, and task value while engaged in problem-solving activities throughout the course. The findings suggest that, as the semester progressed, both students' task value for the course and their focus on mastering the course material were continuously developed. Similarly, students' explicit and implicit task interpretation skills also improved as they engaged in problem-solving activities. However, it was found that implicit task interpretation skill was not developed as fully as explicit task interpretation when solving a complex problem; students seemed to understand 64-77% of the explicit and 39-49% of the implicit information presented to them.

show abstract

Experts and Decision Making: First Steps towards a Unifying Theory of Decision Making in Novices, Intermediates and Experts

Cited by 28 publications

References 103 publications

The More the Better? Effects of Training, Experience and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

The More the Better? Effects of Training, Experience and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

The More the Better? Effects of Training and Information Amount in Legal Judgments

Task Affect and Task Understanding in Engineering Problem Solving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About