Two to Tango

Abstract

Four studies examined dyadic collaboration on quantitative estimation tasks. In accord with the tenets of "naïve realism," dyad members failed to give due weight to a partner's estimates, especially those greatly divergent from their own. The requirement to reach joint estimates through discussion increased accuracy more than reaching agreement through a mere exchange of numerical "bids." However, even the latter procedure increased accuracy, relative to that of individual estimates (Study 1). Accuracy feedback neither increased weight given to partner's subsequent estimates nor produced improved accuracy (Study 2). Long-term dance partners, who shared a positive estimation bias, failed to improve accuracy when estimating their performance scores (Study 3). Having dyad members ask questions about the bases of partner's estimates produced greater yielding and accuracy increases than having them explain their own estimates (Study 4). The latter two studies provided additional direct and indirect evidence for the role of naïve realism.

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

“…For example, previous research finds that signals of an advisor's expertise increase people's willingness to rely on her advice, but that in general people give less weight to advice than they should (e.g., Liberman, Minson, Bryan, & Ross, 2012;Minson, Liberman, & Ross, 2011). We suggest that in addition to assessing the accuracy of advice, people consider whether the advisor has the right to offer an opinion -and they respond with anger and derogation if she lacks this right (Study 2).…”

“…As Study 1's results showed, the same experience that provides a person with expertise can also make her disentitled to offer advice. Thus, people may fail to follow good advice not only because they underestimate the advisor's knowledge relative to their own (Liberman et al, 2012;Minson et al, 2011), but also because they perceive her as disentitled to advise.…”

Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy

“…Moreover, participants tend to mix two aggregation strategies-choosing and averaging. They alternate between ignoring advice, occasionally averaging, and more rarely fully adopting it (Minson et al, 2011;Soll & Larrick, 2009). Although this pattern of mixing averaging and ignoring advice yields a mean WOA of around 30%, it is worse for accuracy than consistently shifting 30% of the way toward advice (Soll & Larrick, 2009). 3.3 | Moderators of advice taking 3.3.1 | Accuracy, confidence, and trust…”

Pushing away from representative advice: Advice taking, anchoring, and adjustment

“…People tend to discount the opinions of others, with average weights of 70% on their own estimate and 30% on the advice (Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000). Notably, this average weight arises from a multi-modal distribution of weights in which people often ignore advice entirely, occasionally average, and more rarely fully accept advice (Minson, Liberman, & Ross, 2011;Soll & Larrick, 2009;Soll & Mannes, 2011). A number of moderators of advice taking have also been identified.…”