The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance

In two technical-task studies, experts underestimated novice completion times and resisted the debiasing techniques tested.

Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(2), 205–221.

Type

Journal article

Find it

doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.2.205

Checked

Against the abstract, 16 September 2026

Why it is on the list

Experts, intermediate users and novices predicted how long a complex task would take a novice; in the second study, expertise was manipulated rather than measured. In both studies, more expertise went with worse prediction, in the direction of underestimating completion time. The participants were resistant to debiasing techniques aimed at that underestimation. The checked abstract does not identify those techniques. It suggests that people with an intermediate level of expertise may be more accurate predictors.

For week 2, the distinction is between doing a task and estimating what it takes another person to do it. The studies concern technical-task timings. They do not measure the cost of learning a conversational convention.

For week 2, try asking someone who still remembers learning the convention. This is a teaching suggestion: Hinds timed a technical task, not a conversation. A fluent speaker’s “it’s obvious” need not be a reliable estimate of what learning it will cost you.