Relationships * * * * * * *
stage 1 - the way expert decision makers size up the situation to recognize which course of action makes sense * *
see a situation (even a nonroutine one), as an example of a prototype, so they knew the typical course of action right away. Their experience let them identify a reasonable reaction as the first one they considered, so they did not bother thinking of others *
it's Pattern/Satisficing: selecting the first option that works. Pattern/Satisficing is different from optimizing, which means trying to come up with the best strategy. optimizing is hard, and it takes a long time. Satisficing is more efficient. The singular evaluation strategy is based on Pattern/Satisficing. *
IF the information may not clearly match a typical case or may map onto more than one typical case, THEN the decision maker may have to devote more attention to diagnosing the situation, i.e. may need to gather more information in order to make a diagnosis. *
results in recognizing (recalling): *
Pattern/Recognition-Primed Decision-Making/Plausible Goal what types of goals make sense (so the priorities are set), (Location 679)
Pattern/Recognition-Primed Decision-Making/Relevant Cues which cues are important (so there is not an overload of information), (Location 679)
Pattern/Recognition-Primed Decision-Making/Expectancies what to expect next (so they can prepare themselves and notice surprises), (Location 680)
Pattern/Recognition-Primed Decision-Making/Course Of Action the typical ways of responding in a given situation. By recognizing a situation as typical, they also recognize a course of action likely to succeed. (Location 681)
stage 2 - the way expert decision makers evaluate the course of action (they chose in stage 1 by imagining it. * * *
evaluate single options by imagining how the course of action will play out.
IF a decision maker anticipates difficulties, THEN they may need to adjust the course of action, or maybe reject it and look for another option. *
IF some expectancies have been violated because the decision maker may have misinterpreted the situation THEN the decision maker will respond to the anomaly or ambiguity by checking which interpretation best matches the features of the situation. They may try to build a story to account for some of the inconsistencies. *
symptoms of expert vs novice decision making
experts generate a single course of action, while novices needed to compare different approaches. *
which is the opposite to what many think that "novices impulsively jumped at the first option they could think of, whereas experts carefully deliberated about the merits of different courses of action."
is this analogous - or somehow related to - the appearance off effort by an expert vs novice athlete (e.g. tennis player)? Where the expert makes it look effortless and the novice appears to be working hard
further, how might this be related to the ??? effect (on Hidden Brain podcast, etc.) where novices watch experts (making it look easy), and the results include the novice having the internal response as if they've completed the work?