A meta-analysis of the weight of advice in decision-making

Phoebe E. Bailey · Tarren Leon · Natalie C. Ebner · Gabrielle Weidemann

78 citations0/0 files storedCurrent Psychology

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 Social and Intergroup Psychology Psychology of Social Influence

Abstract

Abstract The degree to which people take advice, and the factors that influence advice-taking, are of broad interest to laypersons, professionals, and policy-makers. This meta-analysis on 346 effect sizes from 129 independent datasets ( N = 17, 296) assessed the weight of advice in the judge-advisor system paradigm, as well as the influence of sample and task characteristics. Information about the advisor(s) that is suggestive of advice quality was the only unique predictor of the overall pooled weight of advice. Individuals adjusted estimates by 32%, 37%, and 48% in response to advisors described in ways that suggest low, neutral, or high quality advice, respectively. This indicates that the benefits of compromise and averaging may be lost if accurate advice is perceived to be low quality, or too much weight is given to inaccurate advice that is perceived to be high quality. When examining the three levels of perceived quality separately, advice-taking was greater for subjective and uncertain estimates, relative to objective estimates, when information about the advisor was neutral in terms of advice quality. Sample characteristics had no effect on advice-taking, thus providing no evidence that age, gender, or individualism influence the weight of advice. The findings contribute to current theoretical debates and provide direction for future research.

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 — 78 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2010Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 2019The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis 1994Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.2013Meta-analysis of prevalence

Cited by

2023What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness 2023GPT has become financially literate: Insights from financial literacy tests of GPT and a preliminary test of how people use it as a source of advice 2024Mixed‐effects regression weights for advice taking and related phenomena of information sampling and utilization 2024Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence

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.