Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality

Harvey, Nigel; Harries, Clare; Fischer, Ilan

doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2874

Cited by 95 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Respect represents how much the agent values a particular position of an agent (including themselves) due to either agent expertise or agent effort within the group, as supported by our observations and the literature (Harvey et al 2000, Yaniv and Kleinberger 2000, Regan et al 2006). In our model, respect is independent of psychological issues like selfconfidence, self-worth, or trust in oneself or others.…”

Section: Agentssupporting

confidence: 76%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Ecological restoration, particularly in urban contexts, is a complex collective decision-making process that involves a diversity of stakeholders and experts, each with their own perceptions and preferences about what landscapes should and can look like, how to get them to the desired state, and on what timeline. We investigate how structural and behavioral factors may influence collective decision making in the context of ecological restoration, with the purpose of establishing general relationships between management styles (defined by structural and behavioral factors of the organization) and decision outcomes. Informed by existing literature on collective decision making and by empirical data from the Chicago Wilderness region, we present a stylized agent-based model that maps out and simulates the processes by which individuals within restoration organizations communicate, discuss, and ultimately make a decision. Our study examines how structural and behavioral characteristicsincluding: (a) the number of actors and groups involved in decision making, (b) the frequency and type of interactions among actors, (c) the initial setup of positions and respect, (d) outside information, and (e) entrenchment and cost of dissent-lead to or prohibit group convergence in terms of collective position, variation in position across actors, and final decision strategies. We found that formal meetings and group leaders are important facilitators of convergence, especially when multiple groups are present, new information is introduced in the process, and participants are polarized around an issue. Also, intergroup interactions are particularly important for overall convergence. Position entrenchment slows the convergence process and increases the need for decision strategies involving outside intervention. Cost of dissent can reinforce these effects. Our study formalizes collective decision-making processes within the context of ecological restoration, establishes generalizable relationships between these processes and decision outcomes, and provides a foundation for further empirical and modeling research.

show abstract

Section: Agentssupporting

confidence: 76%

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Watkins¹,

Massey²,

Brooks³

et al. 2013

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yaniv and Kleinberger argued that decision makers discount an advisor's opinion because they are privy to the reasons supporting their own estimate, but not to the reasons supporting the advisor's estimates. Further evidence for the tendency to discount advice has also been reported (see Harvey & Fischer, 1997;Harvey, Harries, & Fischer, 2000;Lim & O'Connor, 1995).…”

Section: Effects Of Advicementioning

confidence: 79%

Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and Performance in Negotiations

Steinel

Abele

Dreu

2007

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment (N = 68 dyads) tested the influence of experience and advice on behavior and joint outcomes in integrative two-party negotiations. Dyads in an advice condition received short tactical advice to question fixed-pie assumptions and to exchange information. Afterward, they negotiated once. Dyads in an experience condition negotiated twice in successive rounds. Finally, dyads in an experience-and-advice condition negotiated twice and received advice prior to the second negotiation. Dependent measures were negotiation behavior, negotiation duration, joint outcome, and judgmental accuracy. Results showed that the combination of advice and experience led dyads to apply more problem solving and fewer contentious strategies, which mediated the higher joint outcomes that these dyads reached in shorter times. Experience or advice alone was not sufficient to make negotiators use different strategies or to exploit the integrative potential of the negotiations better than they did before they received advice and/or gained experience

show abstract

“…This happens, for example, whenever a physician, attorney, or other expert makes a likelihood judgment that enters into the decision process of a client. Referring to the former as judgment producers and the latter as judgment consumers, Yates et al (1996) have argued that it is as important to understand how judgment consumers perceive, evaluate, and use likelihood judgments as it is to understand how judgment producers make them (see also Harvey, Harries, & Fischer, 2000;Keren, 1997;Keren & Teigen, 2001;Sniezek & Buckley, 1995;Sniezek & Von Swol, 2001;Yaniv & Foster, 1995;Zarnoth & Sniezek, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: evidence for a confidence heuristic

Price

Stone

2003

Behavioral Decision Making

211

166

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research tests the hypothesis of Yates et al. (1996) that people prefer judgment producers who make extreme confidence judgments. In each of three experiments, col-lege students evaluated two fictional financial advisors who judged the likelihood that each of several stocks would increase in value. One of the advisors (the moderate advi-sor) was reasonably well calibrated and the other (the extreme advisor) was overconfi-dent. In all three experiments, participants tended to prefer the extreme advisor. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the advisors' confidence influenced participants' per-ception of their knowledge, and Experiment 3 showed that it influenced their perception of the number of categorically correct judgments they made. Both of these variables were, in turn, related to participants' preferences. Experiment 3 also suggested that need for cognition and right-wing authoritarianism are positively related to preference for the extreme advisor. A quantitative model is presented, which captures the basic pattern of results. This model includes the assumption that people use a confidence heuristic; they assume that a more confident advisor makes more categorically correct judgments and is more knowledgeable.

show abstract

Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality

Cited by 95 publications

References 24 publications

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Understanding the Mechanisms of Collective Decision Making in Ecological Restoration: An Agent-Based Model of Actors and Organizations

Effects of Experience and Advice on Process and Performance in Negotiations

Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: evidence for a confidence heuristic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About