37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Conscious thought beats deliberation without attention in diagnostic decision-making: at least when you are an expert

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Contrary to what common sense makes us believe, deliberation without attention has recently been suggested to produce better decisions in complex situations than deliberation with attention. Based on differences between cognitive processes of experts and novices, we hypothesized that experts make in fact better decisions after consciously thinking about complex problems whereas novices may benefit from deliberation-without-attention. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study among doctors and medical students. They diagnosed complex and routine problems under three conditions, an immediate-decision condition and two delayed conditions: conscious thought and deliberation-without-attention. Doctors did better with conscious deliberation when problems were complex, whereas reasoning mode did not matter in simple problems. In contrast, deliberation-without-attention improved novices’ decisions, but only in simple problems. Experts benefit from consciously thinking about complex problems; for novices thinking does not help in those cases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices*

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis.

            Several theoretical views of automaticity are discussed. Most of these suggest that automaticity should be diagnosed by looking at the presence of features such as unintentional, uncontrolled/uncontrollable, goal independent, autonomous, purely stimulus driven, unconscious, efficient, and fast. Contemporary views further suggest that these features should be investigated separately. The authors examine whether features of automaticity can be disentangled on a conceptual level, because only then is the separate investigation of them worth the effort. They conclude that the conceptual analysis of features is to a large extent feasible. Not all researchers agree with this position, however. The authors show that assumptions of overlap among features are determined by the other researchers' views of automaticity and by the models they endorse for information processing in general.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends.

              Research in clinical reasoning has been conducted for over 30 years. Throughout this time there have been a number of identifiable trends in methodology and theory. This paper identifies three broad research traditions, ordered chronologically, are: (a) attempts to understand reasoning as a general skill--the "clinical reasoning" process; (b) research based on probes of memory--reasoning related to the amount of knowledge and memory; and (c) research related to different kinds of mental representations--semantic qualifiers, scripts, schemas and exemplars. Several broad themes emerge from this review. First, there is little evidence that reasoning can be characterised in terms of general process variables. Secondly, it is evident that expertise is associated, not with a single basic representation but with multiple coordinated representations in memory, from causal mechanisms to prior examples. Different representations may be utilised in different circumstances, but little is known about the characteristics of a particular situation that led to a change in strategy. It becomes evident that expertise lies in the availability of multiple representations of knowledge. Perhaps the most critical aspect of learning is not the acquisition of a particular strategy or skill, nor is it the availability of a particular kind of knowledge. Rather, the critical element may be deliberate practice with multiple examples which, on the hand, facilitates the availability of concepts and conceptual knowledge (i.e. transfer) and, on the other hand, adds to a storehouse of already solved problems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +31-10-4089648 , +31-10-4089009 , mamede@fsw.eur.nl
                Journal
                Psychol Res
                Psychological Research
                Springer-Verlag (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0340-0727
                1430-2772
                31 March 2010
                31 March 2010
                November 2010
                : 74
                : 6
                : 586-592
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychology T13-33, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Center for Research and Development of Education, University Medical Center at Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015 GE Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                281
                10.1007/s00426-010-0281-8
                2938445
                20354726
                d7732c85-01cc-4dc1-ba89-8f31015d727d
                © The Author(s) 2010
                History
                : 25 November 2009
                : 13 March 2010
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag 2010

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry

                Comments

                Comment on this article