Improving judgement with prepaid expert advice

Sniezek, Janet A.; Schrah, Gunnar E.; Dalal, Reeshad S.

doi:10.1002/bdm.468

Cited by 165 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Individuals commonly weigh advice received from experienced and knowledgeable advisors more heavily than advice received from advisors with less experience or expertise (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997;Feng & MacGeorge, 2006;Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004;Yaniv, 2004;Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000;Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007). Although this research has focused on advice taking in dyadic interactions, related studies have examined the influence of knowledgeable and expert team members and have found similar effects on decision quality in team settings (see Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, Colquitt, & Hedlund, J., 1998;Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Sego, Hedlund, Major, & Phillips, 1995;Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2002).…”

Section: The Role Of Advisor Experience and Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Second, characteristics of the advisor can have an important influence on the extent of advice use. For example, research indicates that advice is weighted more heavily when advisors are relatively more experienced or knowledgeable than the decision makers (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997;Feng & MacGeorge, 2006;Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004;Yaniv, 2004;Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000;Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007) and when the advisors express greater confidence in the quality of their advice (Lawrence & Warren, 2003;Phillips, 1999;Sniezek & Buckley, 1995;Sniezek & Van Swol, 2001;Van Swol & Sniezek, 2005;Yaniv & Foster, 1997). Finally, aspects of the decision maker's internal states can impact the extent of advice-taking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen

Tost

Gino

Larrick

2012

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

216

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments test the prediction that feelings of power lead individuals to discount advice received from both experts and novices. Experiment 1 documents a negative relationship between subjective feelings of power and use of advice. Experiments 2 and 3 further show that individuals experiencing neutral and low levels of power weigh advice from experts and experienced advisors more heavily than advice from novices, but individuals experiencing high levels of power discount both novice and expert advice. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrate that this tendency of individuals experiencing high levels of power to discount advice from experts and novices equally is mediated by feelings of competitiveness (Experiment 3) and confidence (Experiments 3 and 4). Finally, Experiment 4 shows that inducing high power individuals to feel cooperative with their advisors can mitigate this tendency, leading them to weigh expert advice more heavily than advice from novices. Theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of Advisor Experience and Expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen

Tost

Gino

Larrick

2012

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

216

199

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004;Yaniv, 2004a). One reason for this is that that the mere act of combining multiple recommendations increases accuracy because it decreases the random error associated with each separate opinion (Yaniv, 2004a, b).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments

Önkal

Goodwin

Thomson

et al. 2009

Behavioral Decision Making

235

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision makers and forecasters often receive advice from different sources including human experts and statistical methods. This research examines, in the context of stock price forecasting, how the apparent source of the advice affects the attention that is paid to it when the mode of delivery of the advice is identical for both sources. In Study 1, two groups of participants were given the same advised point and interval forecasts. One group was told that these were the advice of a human expert and the other that they were generated by a statistical forecasting method. The participants were then asked to adjust forecasts they had previously made in light of this advice. While in both cases the advice led to improved point forecast accuracy and better calibration of the prediction intervals, the advice which apparently emanated from a statistical method was discounted much more severely. In Study 2, participants were provided with advice from two sources. When the participants were told that both sources were either human experts or both were statistical methods, the apparent statistical-based advice had the same influence on the adjusted estimates as the advice that appeared to come from a human expert. However when the apparent sources of advice were different, much greater attention was paid to the advice that apparently came from a human expert. Theories of advice utilization are used to identify why the advice of a human expert is likely to be preferred to advice from a statistical method.

show abstract

“…Individuals weight advice more heavily when advisors are more experienced or more knowledgeable than the decision makers themselves (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997;Feng & MacGeorge, 2006;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).…”

Section: Advicementioning

confidence: 99%