Reyna Valerie F, Lloyd Farrell J
Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Sep;12(3):179-95. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179.
Despite training, professionals sometimes make serious errors in risky decision making. The authors investigated judgments and decisions for 9 hypothetical patients at 3 levels of cardiac risk, comparing student and physician groups varying in domain-specific knowledge. Decisions were examined regarding whether they deviated from guidelines, how risk perceptions and risk tolerances determined decisions, and how the latter differed for knowledge groups. More knowledgeable professionals were better at discriminating levels of risk according to external correspondence criteria but committed similar errors in disjunctive probability judgments, violating internal coherence criteria. Also, higher knowledge groups relied on fewer dimensions of information than did lower knowledge groups. Consistent with fuzzy-trace theory, experts achieved better discrimination by processing less information and made sharper all-or-none distinctions among decision categories.
尽管接受过培训，但专业人员在进行风险决策时有时仍会犯严重错误。作者研究了针对9名处于3种心脏风险水平的假设患者的判断和决策，比较了在特定领域知识方面存在差异的学生和医生群体。研究考察了这些决策是否偏离指南、风险认知和风险承受能力如何决定决策，以及后者在不同知识群体中是如何不同的。知识更丰富的专业人员在根据外部对应标准区分风险水平方面表现更好，但在析取概率判断中犯了类似的错误，违反了内部一致性标准。此外，知识水平较高的群体比知识水平较低的群体依赖的信息维度更少。与模糊痕迹理论一致，专家通过处理更少的信息实现了更好的区分，并在决策类别之间做出了更清晰的非此即彼的区分。
