Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Social - Expertise 2
- Are experts more persuasive than non-experts cont.?
- We may not be persuaded by experts if we
see experts disagreeing with each other.
- Shanteau - experts should converge hypothesis
- assume hard-to-find truth exists. experts should have access to
this truth. since only 1 truth, experts should agree. since disagree,
can't all be experts. for safety, must distrust all experts.
- problematic: X truth may be fiction
- X different levels of decisions by experts - prognosis, diagnosis, treatment, so experts can agree + disagree
- X experts rarely asked to make single outcome decisions
- X expert domains dynamic + changing - truth may differ
- currently unclear how people respond to debates between expertise.
- does uncertainty caused by disagreeing experts make people process argument via central route? do they engage?
- Tiedens + Linton
- Judgement under emotional certainty + uncertainty. ppts recalled autobiographical emotional event.
- anger - negative certain. worry - negative uncertain. content - positive certain. surprise - positive uncertain
- ppts inferred from their uncertainty that they needed to engage with argument, so didn't rely on heuristics.
- uncertainty - exert source didn't have effect. certainty - expert = higher persuasion than non-expert
- petty + cacioppo diagram - high motivation -> lasting change
- does uncertainty... via peripheral route?
- Tversky + Kahneman
- judgement under uncertainty. when feel uncertain, resort to
shortcuts that have little to do with accuracy. petty + cacioppo
diagram - low motivation -> temporary change
- Price + Stone - confidence heuristic
- overconfident experts deemed more knowledgeable - ppts also exaggerated how accurate their judgements had been.
ppts more likely to hire overconfident expert. ppts considered overconfidence as sign of knowledge mmost
researchers make case that certainty = increases persuasive power because it increases cred
- BUT Karmarkar + Tormala
- confident vs unconfident rating of restaurant - both say 4/5 stars
- non experts = more persuasive with high certainty opinions. experts = more persuasive with uncertain
- several studies found experts gained influence by expressing doubts about their own opinion.
- depends on context. courtroom/stock market - objective truth/correct answer - people
may rely on certainty as indicator of cred. more subjective domains eg consumer,
certainty has dynamic effect - gives message more/less impact depending on who
expert is. eg restaurant - subjective.
- The role of experts in society
- tendency for experts to be more persuasive than non-experts. but lots of exceptions to case
- our society often puts experts in positions of power - advise government policy, invited on the news
- is it right experts should have such influence in society?
- Goldberg
- expert clinicians, mid-level clinicians, naïve group. real patient data. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory. Diagnose psychiatric cases
- No relship between experience + diagnosis accuracy but confidence did increase with experience
- over 17 week sof training, naïve group 52%-58%, experts + midlevel stayed same ~65%. results of indivs = indicator of expertise.
- we usually believe something when no. of indivs support it.
- experts better, but non-experts can improve
- experts help combat availability heuristic
- people most likely to believe something that easily
+ fluently comes to mind. eg newspaper headline
'shark deadlier + bigger than great white'
- but, 40 x more likely to be killed by cow. more likely to be killed by being left-handed.
- Slovic, Fischhoff + Lichtenstein - perceptions of risk.
- which more likely: dying from stroke or accident? dying from asthma or tornado?
- generally, rare causes of death overestimated, common causes underestimated.
- availability heuristic shows role of experience in determing risk perception. if own experiences biased, perceptions likely to be inaccurate
- newspaper coverage: violent + catastrophic events reported more
frequently than less dramatic causes of death. biases in newspaper
coverage closely matched biases in people's perceptions
- Chi - pros + cons of experts
- strengths
- best answer; detection + recognition; better self-monitoring; better strategies; more opportunistic; minimal cog effort
- weaknesses
- limited domain; overly confident; tend to gloss over; inflexible; poor at taking perspective
of novices; not super-human - prone to making same mistakes as non-experts
- role that experts have in society should be constant balance between using their knowledge + experience to inform social policy, but not lead social policy.