Content area
Full text
Common Sense and other Decision Influences
Edited by Erwin Rausch
Introduction
"It seems likely," [23] Honderich (2005) ironically observes in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy , "[...] that common sense defies definition; certainly no one has succeeded in giving a satisfactory definition, and very few have tried." We will, as well, resist the temptation to offer a formal definition of the term. Rather, as implied in the tract by Thomas [40] Payne (1776), we intend by the term that which is collectively perceived to be "self-evident." In particular, we are concerned in this manuscript with those who might by self assessment, professional title, or experience be referred to as experts, whose judgments and opinions might be justified as "common sense", at least to themselves, and, as such, potentially averred with correspondingly high self assurance. More specifically, we will focus on the accuracy of expert judgments and examine whether this accuracy exhibits characteristics suggesting experts possess common sense concerning their judgments. Consistent with [44] Shanteau (1992), we acknowledge that the definition of expertise is largely discipline specific. Novices or laypersons by contrast are those without education or experience in a discipline. Yet, since [44] Shanteau's, 1992 paper, additional insights about characteristics common to experts have emerged.
Experts are often characterized by having at least 10 to 20 years of experience in an area, or over 10,000 hours of deliberate practice, although experience is not a guarantee of expertise ([12] Ericsson and Charness, 1994; [44] Shanteau, 1992). Expertise is also characterized by performance that exhibits high discrimination ability and consistency ([45] Shanteau et al. , 2002). Because of their extensive experience in an area, as well as the effort they have made to organize their knowledge, experts can, under certain circumstances, quickly examine a situation, identify the most relevant cues, and develop a strategy for action. Even experienced non-experts cannot attain this level of performance.
While expert judgment has been examined within a number of fields, we have not in our review of the literature found any recent source, which integrates findings across disciplines. As such, our primary purpose is to synthesize empirical results and theory arising across multiple disciplines. While the arenas in which experts render judgments are myriad and diverse, what emerges across these diverse...