Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality.

Harvey1, Harries, Fischer

  • 1University College London, London, United Kingdom

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
|March 9, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Centromeric satellite expansion drives genome evolution in the snowy owl.

Genome biology·2026
Same author

Aspects of nasal, oropharyngeal and anal carriage of in normal dogs and dogs with pyoderma.

Veterinary dermatology·2021
Same author

[M.K.R. II on dried blood by the Meinicke-Fischer technic].

Il Dermosifilografo·2014
Same author

Anaphylaxis of organs and transplants.

Praxis·2010
Same author

Hip reports.

Praxis·2010
Same author

Poliomyelitis, bulbar, encephalitic.

Archives of pediatrics·2010
Same journal

Using Fresh Starts to Nudge Increased Retirement Savings.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2021
Same journal

Active choice, implicit defaults, and the incentive to choose.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2021
Same journal

Behavior Change.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2021
Same journal

Nudging: Progress to date and future directions.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2021
Same journal

Face threat sensitivity in distributive negotiations: Effects on negotiator self-esteem and demands.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2020
Same journal

<i>OBHDP</i> Editorial: Where we are, how we got here, and where we're going.

Organizational behavior and human decision processes·2020
See all related articles

People can better assess advice quality than use it for judgments. Combining advice based on assessments improves outcomes, especially when advisors display unusual biases, reducing cognitive load.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Science
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Individuals often rely on advice from multiple sources to make judgments.
  • Assessing the quality of advice is a crucial but challenging cognitive task.
  • Understanding the interplay between advice assessment and utilization is key to improving decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether people are better at assessing advice quality or using advice for judgments.
  • To explore factors influencing the effectiveness of advice assessment and use.
  • To determine how advisor characteristics impact the decision-making process.

Main Methods:

  • Participants received advice from four sources and made judgments.
  • Advice quality was assessed by estimating the probability of correctness.

Related Experiment Videos

  • The study manipulated the order of assessment and use, advisor characteristics, and assessment methods.

    • Main Results:

    • Advice combinations based on quality assessments outperformed direct judgments.
    • Advice use, but not assessment, improved when advisors exhibited unusual biases.
    • Factors like assessment order and superficial advisor differences had no significant impact.

    Conclusions:

    • Assessing advice quality imposes a lower cognitive load than using advice.
    • Unusual advisor behavior can enhance advice utilization by increasing salience.
    • Leveraging accurate advice assessments and salient advisors can improve decision-making outcomes.