How numeric advice precision affects advice taking

Thomas Schultze · David D. Loschelder

23 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Behavioral Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies Psychology of Social Influence

Abstract

Abstract Advice is a powerful means to improve peoples' judgments and decisions. Because advice quality is rarely apparent, decision‐makers must infer it from the characteristics of the advisor or the advice itself. Here, we focus on a largely neglected advice characteristic that should signal quality: advice precision. In a preregistered, high‐powered study (N = 195), we tested the effects of advice precision on advice taking. Drawing from past research and theorizing on anchor precision, we derived and tested two competing hypotheses for the relation of advice precision and advice taking—one predicting a monotone increase in advice taking when advice precision increases and the other predicting a backfiring effect of overly precise advice resulting in an inverted U‐shape. Our results support the notion of a monotone, albeit not a strong monotone, relationship. Higher perceived advice quality correlated with individuals' advice taking. Consistent with the idea that advice precision serves as a cue for advice quality, the effect of advice precision on advice taking was statistically mediated by perceived advice quality. Although the mediation analysis does not allow for causal interpretation because we did not manipulate the mediating variable, it shows that the effect of advice precision on advice taking is not merely a demand effect. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences 2011Too Much of a Good Thing 2000Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation 1997Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility 2009Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions.2004The Benefit of Additional Opinions 2008Precision of the Anchor Influences the Amount of Adjustment 2000Is 7300 m Equal to 7.3 km? Same Semantics but Different Anchoring Effects

Cited by

2022“My Goal Is to Lose 2.923 kg!”—Efficacy of Precise Versus Round Goals for Body Weight Reduction 2021The Power and Peril of Precise vs. Round Health Message Interventions to Increase Stair Use 2024The impact of (social) anchors on Prospect Theory’s value function 2023Falsifying the Insufficient Adjustment Model: No Evidence for Unidirectional Adjustment From Anchors 2025The impact of advisors’ interpersonal motivations on their advice-giving behavior

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.