Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice

Abstract

This paper expands research on the judge advisor system (JAS) by examining advice utilization and trust. Experiment 1 examined five factors that could increase utilization of expert advice: judge's trust in the advisor, advisor confidence, advisor accuracy, judge's prior relationship with the advisor, and judge's power to set payment to the advisor. While judge's trust and advisor confidence correlated with the judge matching the advisor's advice, a stepwise regression found that of the five variables, advisor confidence was the only significant predictor of the judge matching the advisor. Experiment 2 examined trust without the role assignment to judge or advisor. While trust expressed in partner was not higher for the judge than the advisor in Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 trust in partner expressed by the low-expertise dyad member was higher than trust expressed by the high-expertise dyad member. Results from the two experiments are discussed in the context of Sniezek and Van Swol (2001).

Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice.

“…Individuals weight advice more heavily when advisors are more experienced or more knowledgeable than the decision makers themselves (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006;Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997;Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004;Yaniv, 2004;Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000;Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007). People are similarly more likely to weight advice when advisors express confidence in the quality of their advice (Sniezek & Buckley, 1995;Sniezek & Van Swol, 2001;Tost, Gino, & Larrick, in press;Van Swol & Sniezek, 2005;Yaniv, 1997).…”

Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it

“…These factors include characteristics of the advisor, such as expertise, experience, age, and confidence (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006;Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Phillips, 1999;Price & Stone, 2004;Sniezek & Buckley, 1995;Van Swol & Sniezek, 2005); features of the advice, such as its costliness (Gino, 2008;Patt, Bowles, & Cash, 2006), its quality (Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000;Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007), and its deviation from the advisee's initial opinion (Yaniv, 2004); features of the decision context, such as its difficulty or importance (Gino & Moore, 2007;Harvey & Fischer, 1997); and psychological experiences of the advisee, such as incidental emotion (Gino, Brooks, & Schweitzer, 2012;Gino & Schweitzer, 2008) and power (See, Morrison, Rothman, & Soll, 2011;Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2012).…”

Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice

“…For example, advice is more likely to be used when it (a) comes from experienced people (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006), (b) comes from confident individuals (Swol & Sniezek, 2005), and (c) is expensive (Gino, 2008). In addition, some characteristics of decision makers, such as their task self-efficacy or their task experience (Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Poston, Akbulut, & Looney, 2009), affect their willingness to take advice.…”