Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts' Performance on Representative Tasks
Published on Jun 1, 2006
· DOI :10.1017/CBO9780511816796.013
K. Anders Ericsson82
Estimated H-index: 82
The superior skills of experts, such as accomplished musicians and chess masters, can be amazing to most spectators. For example, club-level chess players are often puzzled by the chess moves of grandmasters and world champions. Similarly, many recreational athletes find it inconceivable that most other adults – regardless of the amount or type of training – have the potential ever to reach the performance levels of international competitors. Especially puzzling to philosophers and scientists has been the question of the extent to which expertise requires innate gifts versus specialized acquired skills and abilities. One of the most widely used and simplest methods of gathering data on exceptional performance is to interview the experts themselves. But are experts always capable of describing their thoughts, their behaviors, and their strategies in a manner that would allow less-skilled individuals to understand how the experts do what they do, and perhaps also understand how they might reach expert level through appropriate training? To date, there has been considerable controversy over the extent to which experts are capable of explaining the nature and structure of their exceptional performance. Some pioneering scientists, such as Binet (1893 / 1966), questioned the validity of the experts’ descriptions when they found that some experts gave reports inconsistent with those of other experts. To make matters worse, in those rare cases that allowed verification of the strategy by observing the performance, discrepancies were found between the reported strategies and the observations (Watson, 1913). Some of these discrepancies were explained, in part, by the hypothesis that some processes were not normally mediated by awareness/attention and that the mere act of engaging in self-observation (introspection) during performance changed the content of ongoing thought processes. These problems led most psychologists in first half of the 20th century to reject all types of introspective verbal reports as valid scientific evidence, and they focused almost exclusively on observable behavior (Boring, 1950). In response to the problems with the careful introspective analysis of images and perceptions, investigators such as John B.