THEORY AND CONFIGURALITY IN EXPERT AND LAYPERSON JUDGMENT

The author examined configurality in expert and layperson multiattribute judgments in the domain of child abuse. Important differences were found in the configural rules used by the two groups. Laypersons were disjunctive in both assessing risk of abuse and recommending intervention, but their disjunctivity in recommending intervention may have been entirely mediated by prior risk judgments. Experts were less disjunctive in assessing risk and were conjunctive in recommending intervention. These differences are explained in terms of dissimilarities in the underlying theories that experts and laypersons hold about the relationships between attributes and appropriate judgment.