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

P. E. Bailey; T. Leon; N. C. Ebner; A. A. Moustafa; Gabrielle Weidemann

doi:10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2

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

P. E. Bailey, T. Leon, N. C. Ebner, A. A. Moustafa, Gabrielle Weidemann

Western Sydney University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

26 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	24516-24541
Number of pages	26
Journal	Current Psychology
Volume	42
Issue number	28
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2
Publication status	Published - Oct 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

Open Access - Access Right Statement

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Access to Document

10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2

Cite this

@article{84f9c08df4534fee82fe94ce71bfb81f,

title = "A meta-analysis of the weight of advice in decision-making",

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.",

author = "Bailey, {P. E.} and T. Leon and Ebner, {N. C.} and Moustafa, {A. A.} and Gabrielle Weidemann",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2023",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2",

language = "English",

volume = "42",

pages = "24516--24541",

journal = "Current Psychology",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "28",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A meta-analysis of the weight of advice in decision-making

AU - Bailey, P. E.

AU - Leon, T.

AU - Ebner, N. C.

AU - Moustafa, A. A.

AU - Weidemann, Gabrielle

PY - 2023/10

Y1 - 2023/10

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:73483

U2 - 10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2

DO - 10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 24516

EP - 24541

JO - Current Psychology

JF - Current Psychology

IS - 28

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Open Access - Access Right Statement

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this