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

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, which has implications for measurement of expertise, analysis of expert tasks, and generalizability of conclusions about experts.

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.