30 Understanding Rational Decision Making
be accounted for in linear models.^276 Most importantly, expert audiences are less likely than linear
models to make big mistakes.^277
AUDIENCE DECISION-MAKING EXPERTISE:
IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNICATORS
- The main takeaway for communicators in Chapter 1 is that expert audiences already
know what information they want from professionals—the values that will populate their
decision schemata. Audiences are not empty cups waiting to be filled with whatever
information professionals want to give them. - Use the information presented in the chapter to guide the selection of content for your
documents, presentations, meetings, and interviews. The alternative is to select content
based on subjective opinion or convention. - Why use the information? To make your communications more persuasive, especially
with expert audiences. To enable all types of audiences—experts, novices, groups, and
individuals—to make more informed decisions. - See Chapter 2 for a classification scheme that makes it easier to anticipate the audience’s
information requirements for any specific decision.
Notes
1 Baum, L. (2009). Judges and their audiences: A perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
2 Shattuck, L. G. (1995). Communication of intent in distributed supervisory control systems (Doctoral
dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (09B), 5209.
3 Mikulecky, L. (1981). Job literacy: The relationship between school preparation and workplace actuality. Bloom-
ington, IN: Indiana University.
Sticht, T. G. (1977). Comprehending reading at work. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in comprehension (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sticht, T. G., Fox, L. C., Hauke, R. N., & Welty-Sapf, D. (1977). The role of reading in the navy , NPRDC-
TR-77-40. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, September 1977. NTIS
No. AD A044 228.
4 Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology , 44 , 585–612.
Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Team decision making in complex environments. In G. A. Klein, J.
Orasanu, R. Calderwood & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 327–345).
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
5 Schriver, K. A. (1997, pp. 6–8). Dynamics in document design: Creating text for readers. New York: Wiley.
6 Tsai, W., Yang, C., Leu, J., Lee, Y., & Yang, C. (2013). An integrated group decision making support model
for corporate financing decisions. Group Decision and Negotiation , 22 (6), 1103–1127.
7 Druckman, J. N., & Holmes, J. W. (2004). Does presidential rhetoric matter? Priming and presidential
approval. Presidential Studies Quarterly , 34 (4), 755–778.
Malhotra, N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). Retrospective and prospective performance assessments dur-
ing the 2004 election campaign: Tests of mediation and news media priming. Political Behavior , 29 (2),
249–278.
Newman, B. (2003). Integrity and presidential approval, 1980–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67 (3),
335–367.
8 Goldstein, W. M., & Weber, E. U. (1995). Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain
specificity in preferential decision making. In J. Busemeyer, D. Medin & R. Hastie (Eds.), Decision-making
from a cognitive perspective (the psychology of learning and motivation ) (Vol. 32, pp. 83–136). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.