proposed their account as ‘‘simply a rough first approximation’’ (p. 252), and it
would therefore make sense to seek a fuller account, both looking for the con-
ditions limiting those principles and supplying other principles that can ac-
count for the complete range of performance capacities. Next we looked at
some of those additional mechanisms. It would seem that one of the strengths
of a generalized study of superior performances lies in a careful consideration
of learning mechanisms and associated acquired characteristics uncovered
across different domains.
We believe that both the excellent prospects and the clear-cut limitations of
the expertise approach lie in its exacting methodological criteria, particularly
the criterion that superior performance should be demonstrated as well as
captured by a collection of laboratory tasks. To the extent that we are studying
mechanisms and phenomena that have emerged as a result of intensive prepa-
ration during years or decades, we can be certain that tens or hundreds of
hours of laboratory testing are not likely to alter their structure seriously. This
affords excellent opportunities to examine and to describe carefully the mecha-
nisms mediating the observed superior performance. In this regard, the supe-
rior expert performance is a phenomenon that is particularly well suited for
laboratory study and experimental analysis.
A major limitation of the approach is the fact that many types of expertise
have not yet been adequately captured. In some cases, the lack of success in
capturing the essence of an expertise is so well documented that there may not
be a legitimate phenomenon to study. Perhaps the most important limitation
concerns the difficulty of studying the development of superior performance in
real-life expertise. To understand the many factors underlying why some indi-
viduals attain the highest levels of performance whereas others do not, we need
to broaden our approach. Indeed, in many cases we may well be forced to rely
on correlational methods. As our ability to describe the structures of different
types of expert performance improves, we shall be able to focus on the essential
aspects, which can be monitored in longitudinal studies.
On the most general level, the study of expert performance provides us with
a range of capacities and associated characteristics that can be acquired. A
careful systematization of those should allow us to map out the potential for
human performance that can be acquired through experience.
Acknowledgments
The thoughtful suggestions and comments on earlier drafts of this chapter by Ralf Krampe, Natalie
Sachs-Ericsson, Herbert Simon, and Clemens Tesch-Ro ̈mer are gratefully acknowledged.
References
Adelson, B. (1984). When novices surpass experts: The difficulty of the task may increase with ex-
pertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 , 483–495.
Albert,R.S.(1983).Familypositionsandtheattainmentofeminence.InR.S.Albert(Ed.),Genius
and eminence(pp. 141–154). Oxford: Pergamon Press. (Original work published 1980.)
Allard,F.&Burnett,N.(1985).Skillinsport.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 39 , 294–312.
Allard, F., & Starkes, J. L. (1991). Motor-skill experts in sports, dance, and other domains. In K. A.
Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.),Toward a General Theory of Expertise(pp. 126–152). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
546 K. Anders Ericsson and Jacqui Smith