Social - Expertise 2

Are experts more persuasive than non-experts cont.?
1. We may not be persuaded by experts if we see experts disagreeing with each other.
2. Shanteau - experts should converge hypothesis
  1. 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.
  2. problematic: X truth may be fiction
  3. X different levels of decisions by experts - prognosis, diagnosis, treatment, so experts can agree + disagree
  4. X experts rarely asked to make single outcome decisions
  5. X expert domains dynamic + changing - truth may differ
3. currently unclear how people respond to debates between expertise.
  1. does uncertainty caused by disagreeing experts make people process argument via central route? do they engage?
    1. Tiedens + Linton
      1. 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
  2. does uncertainty... via peripheral route?
    1. Tversky + Kahneman
      1. judgement under uncertainty. when feel uncertain, resort to shortcuts that have little to do with accuracy. petty + cacioppo diagram - low motivation -> temporary change
    2. Price + Stone - confidence heuristic
      1. 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
1. tendency for experts to be more persuasive than non-experts. but lots of exceptions to case
2. our society often puts experts in positions of power - advise government policy, invited on the news
  1. is it right experts should have such influence in society?
3. Goldberg
  1. expert clinicians, mid-level clinicians, naïve group. real patient data. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory. Diagnose psychiatric cases
    1. No relship between experience + diagnosis accuracy but confidence did increase with experience
      1. 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
4. experts help combat availability heuristic
  1. people most likely to believe something that easily + fluently comes to mind. eg newspaper headline 'shark deadlier + bigger than great white'
    1. but, 40 x more likely to be killed by cow. more likely to be killed by being left-handed.
      1. 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
    2. 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
5. Chi - pros + cons of experts
  1. strengths
    1. best answer; detection + recognition; better self-monitoring; better strategies; more opportunistic; minimal cog effort
  2. weaknesses
    1. 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
6. role that experts have in society should be constant balance between using their knowledge + experience to inform social policy, but not lead social policy.

Next up

Social - Expertise 2

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by lady_pisces over 9 years ago