Judgment Effects of Familiarity with an Analyst's Name

Chen, Wei; Tan, Hun‐Tong

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2211849

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Source credibility is an area of active research in many disciplines, including psychology, business, marketing, finance, risk communication, and information and health sciences (e.g., Berry & Shields, 2014;Chen & Tan, 2013;Sah et al, 2013;Willemsen, Neijens, &Bronner, 2012 andXie, Miao, Kuo, &Lee, 2011). Expertise is argued to constitute a critical dimension of source credibility (e.g., Kelman & Hovland, 1953).…”

Section: Relevant Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility

Önkal

Gönül

Goodwin

et al. 2017

International Journal of Forecasting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) for forecasting, the perceived credibility of an expert is likely to affect the weighting attached to their advice. Four experiments have investigated the extent to which the implicit weighting depends on the advisor's experienced (reflecting the accuracy of their past forecasts), or presumed (based on their status) credibility. Compared to a control group, advice from a source with a high experienced credibility received a greater weighting, but having a low level of experienced credibility did not reduce the weighting. In contrast, a high presumed credibility did not increase the weighting relative to a control group, while a low presumed credibility decreased it. When there were opportunities for the two types of credibility to interact, a high experienced credibility tended to eclipse the presumed credibility if the advisees were non-experts. However, when the advisees were professionals, both the presumed and experienced credibility of the advisor were influential in determining the weight attached to the advice.

show abstract