The Curse of Expertise¶
Hinds, P. J. (1999). The Curse of Expertise: The Effects of Expertise and Debiasing Methods on Predictions of Novice Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 205-221.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Curse Of Knowledge
- Expert testimony and forecasting — experts underestimate how long tasks take for novices and overestimate how persuasive their arguments will be.
This sourceShows experts underestimate how long tasks take novices, and that debiasing is only partially effective.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Hinds's abstract backs the timing half of the anchor - experts under-predict how long novices need - but says nothing about overestimating persuasiveness.
“those with more expertise were worse predictors of novice performance times and were resistant to debiasing techniques intended to reduce underestimation”
- Expert testimony and forecasting — experts underestimate how long tasks take for novices and overestimate how persuasive their arguments will be.
Mechanisms¶
- Expert Debrief
- The curse of knowledge bites hard
This sourceFinds that experts systematically underestimate the difficulty novices face when predicting novice performance.
- The curse of knowledge bites hard
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:39a3d19cc6f7 · see in the full table