CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup Psychology

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

Open access
Bailey, Phoebe E., Leon, Tarren, Ebner, Natalie C., Moustafa, Ahmed A., Weidemann, Gabrielle·2023·Current Psychology
DOI 10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2PMC PMC11661855
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When some information is missing, decision-makers must rely on estimates, and humans tend to err in these estimates, often overestimating their chance of being correct, leading to ego bias.

    “Unfortunately, humans tend to err in these estimates, often overestimating their chance of being correct, leading to an implicit, unwarranted preference for their own opinions, an ego bias [52][53][54][55][56][57] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Abstract and Discussion report egocentric discounting: people give their own estimates more weight than others’ advice, even when combining estimates would improve accuracy. The paper does not establish that people overestimate their chance of being correct or that such overconfidence causes the preference for their own opinions. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Ego bias can be reduced by providing additional information on competence and expertise of the collaborator.

    “The ego bias can be reduced by providing additional information on the competence and expertise of the collaborator (i.e., the advisor), which can signal an increased probability of high-quality advice [52] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [52]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Bailey PE, Ebner NC, & Stine-Morrow EAL (2021b). Introduction to the special issue on prosociality in adult development and aging: Advancing theory within a multilevel framework. Psychology and Aging, 36(1), 1– 9. 10.1037/pag0000598 33705181 · DOI
  2. * Bailey PE, Ebner NC, Moustafa AA, Phillips JR, Leon T, & Weidemann G (2021a). The weight of advice in older age. Decision, 8(2), 123– 132. 10.1037/dec0000138 · DOI
  3. Barendregt JJ, Doi SA, Lee YY, Norman RE, & Vos T (2013). Meta-Analysis of Prevalence. Theory and Methods, 67, 974– 978. 10.1136/jech-2013-203104 23963506 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JT, & Rothstein HR (2009). Introductionto Meta-Analysis. John Wiley and Sons. 10.1016/B978-0-240-81203-8.00002-7 · DOI
  5. Buchan NR, Croson RTA, & Solnick S (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behaviour and beliefs in the Investment Game. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 68(3–4), 466– 476. 10.1016/j.jebo.2007.10.006 · DOI
  6. Burda BU, O’Connor EA, Webber EM, Redmond N, & Perdue LA (2017). Estimating data from figures with a web-based program: Considerations for a systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(3), 258– 262. 10.1002/jrsm.1232 28268241 · DOI
  7. * Carbonell G, Meshi D, & Brand M (2019). The use of recommendations on physician rating websites: The number of raters makes the difference when adjusting decisions. Health Communication, 34(13), 1653– 1662. 10.1080/10410236.2018.1517636 30222006 · DOI
  8. Cooper H, Hedges LV, & Valentine JC (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
  9. Dalal RS, & Bonaccio S (2010). What types of advice do decision-makers prefer? Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 11– 23. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.007 · DOI
  10. * De Hooge IE, Verlegh PWJ, & Tzioti SC (2014). Emotions in advice taking: The roles of agency and valence. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 27(3), 246– 258. 10.1002/bdm.1801 · DOI
  11. * De Wit FRC, Scheepers D, Ellemers N, Sassenberg K, & Scholl A (2017). Whether power holders construe their power as responsibility or opportunity influences their tendency to take advice from others. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 38(7), 923– 949. 10.1002/job.2171 · DOI
  12. Duan J, Xu Y, & Van Swol LM (2021). Influence of self-concept calrity on advice seeking and utilisation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 435– 444. 10.1111/ajsp.12435 · DOI
  13. Duval S, & Tweedie R (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455– 463. 10877304
  14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, & Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Graphical Test is Itself Biased. BMJ, 315, 629– 634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563 PMC2127453 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429– 456. 10.1037//0033-2909.116.3.429 7809307 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Feng B, & MacGeorge EL (2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 553– 575. 10.1177/0093650210368258 · DOI
  17. * Fiedler K, Hütter M, Schott M, & Kutzner F (2019). Metacognitive myopia and the overutilization of misleading advice. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 32(3), 317– 333. 10.1002/bdm.2109 · DOI
  18. Gheorghiu MA, Vignoles VL, & Smith PB (2009). Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi’s emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), 365– 383. 10.1177/019027250907200408 · DOI
  19. * Gino F, & Moore DA (2007). Effects of task difficulty on use of advice. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 20(1), 21– 35. 10.1002/bdm.539 · DOI
  20. * Gino F, & Schweitzer ME, (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1165– 1173. 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1165 18808234 · DOI
  21. * Gino F, Shang J, & Croson R (2009). The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 287– 302. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.002 · DOI
  22. * Gino F, Brooks AW, & Schweitzer ME, (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 497– 512. 10.1037/a0026413 22121890 · DOI
  23. * Gino F., (2008). Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 234– 245. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.03.001 · DOI
  24. * Haran U, & Shalvi S, (2020). The implicit honesty premium: Why honest advice is more persuasive than highly informed advice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(4), 757– 773. 10.1037/xge0000677 31464509 · DOI
  25. Harvey N, & Fischer I (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117– 133. 10.1006/obhd.1997.2697 · DOI
  26. * Häusser JA, Leder J, Ketturat C, Dresler M, & Faber NS (2016). Sleep Deprivation and Advice Taking. Scientific Reports, 6, 1– 8. 10.1038/srep24386 27109507 PMC4843001 · DOI
  27. Higgins JPT & Green S (2006) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 1– 181.
  28. * Hofheinz C, Germar M, Schultze T, Michalak J, & Mojzisch A (2017). Are depressed people more or less susceptible to informational social influence? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 41(5), 699– 711. 10.1007/s10608-017-9848-7 · DOI
  29. * Hütter M, & Ache F, (2016). Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 401– 415.
  30. * Hütter M, & Fiedler K (2019). Advice taking under uncertainty: The impact of genuine advice versus arbitrary anchors on judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85(March), 103829. 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103829 · DOI
  31. * Kadous K, Leiby J, & Peecher ME (2013). How do auditors weight informal contrary advice? The joint influence of advisor social bond and advice justifiability. Accounting Review, 88(6), 2061– 2087. 10.2308/accr-50529 · DOI
  32. * Kaliuzhna M, Chambon V, Franck N, Testud B, & van der Henst JB (2012). Belief revision and delusions: How do patients with schizophrenia take advice? PLoS ONE, 7(4), 7– 9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0034771 PMC3335042 22536329 · DOI
  33. * Kausel EE, Culbertson SS, Leiva PI, Slaughter JE, & Jackson AT, (2015). Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 131, 33– 50. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.006 · DOI
  34. * Kim HY, Lee YS, & Jun DB (2020). Individual and group advice taking in judgmental forecasting: Is group forecasting superior to individual forecasting? Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 33(3), 287– 303. 10.1002/bdm.2158 · DOI
  35. Knutson B, Fong GW, Adams CM, Varner JL, & Hommer D (2001). Dissociation of reward anticipation and outcome with event-related fMRI. NeuroReport, 12, 3683– 3687. 10.1097/00001756-200112040-00016 11726774 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Larrick RP, & Soll JB (2006). Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science, 52(1), 111– 127. 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0459 · DOI · Paper page
  37. * Larson JR, Tindale RS, & Yoon YJ (2020). Advice taking by groups: The effects of consensus seeking and member opinion differences. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 23(7), 921– 942. 10.1177/1368430219871349 · DOI
  38. Laughlin PR, & Ellis AL (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177– 189. 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90022-3 · DOI
  39. MacGeorge EL, Guntzviller LM, Hanasono LK, & Feng B (2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research, 43(2), 211– 231. 10.1177/0093650213510938 · DOI
  40. MacGeorge EL, & Van Swol LM (2018a). Advice across disciplines and contexts. In MacGeorge EL & Van Swol LM (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Advice. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.001.0001 · DOI
  41. MacGeorge EL, & Van Swol LM (2018b). Advice: Communication with consequence. In MacGeorge EL & Van Swol LM (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Advice. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.001.0001 · DOI
  42. Mahmoodi A, Bang D, Olsen K, Zhao YA, Shi Z, Broberg K, Safavi S, Han S, Ahmadabadi MN, Frith CD, Roepstorff A, Rees G, & Bahrami B (2015). Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. PNAS, 112(12), 3835– 3840. 10.1073/pnas.1421692112 25775532 PMC4378431 · DOI
  43. * Minson JA, & Mueller JS (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23(3), 219– 224. 10.1177/0956797611429132 22344447 · DOI
  44. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, & Group TP (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6, 1– 6. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMC3090117 21603045 · DOI · Paper page
  45. * Molleman L, Tump AN, Gradassi A, Herzog S, Jayles B, Kurvers RHJM, & van den Bos W (2020). Strategies for integrating disparate social information: Integrating disparate social information. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1939). 10.1098/rspb.2020.2413rspb PMC7739494 33234085 · DOI
  46. * Molleman L, Ciranka S, & van den Bos W, (2021). Social influence in adolescence as a double-edged sword. PsyArXiv. 10.31234/osf.io/gcbdf PMC9240690 35765838 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Morin O, Jacquet PO, Vaesen K, & Acerbi A (2021). Social information use and social information waste. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 376(1828), 20200052. 10.1098/rstb.2020.0052 PMC8126467 33993762 · DOI · Paper page
  48. * Önkal D, Goodwin P, Thomson M, Gönül S, & Pollock A (2009). The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 22(4), 390– 409. 10.1002/bdm.637 · DOI
  49. * Önkal D, Sinan Gönül M, Goodwin P Thomson M& Öz E (2017). Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility. International Journal of Forecasting, 33(1), 280– 297. 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.12.009 · DOI
  50. Peters E, Hess TM, Västfjäll D, & Auman C (2007). Adult age differences in dual information processes: Implications for the role of affective and deliberate processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(1), 1– 23. 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00025.x 26151915 · DOI
  51. Rader CA, Larrick RP, & Soll JB (2017). Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), e12329. 10.1111/spc3.12329 · DOI
  52. * Rakoczy H, Ehrling C, Harris PL, & Schultze T (2015). Young children heed advice selectively. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 138, 71– 87. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.04.007 26037403 · DOI
  53. * Rees L, Rothman NB, Lehavy R, & Sanchez-Burks J (2013). The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 360– 367. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.017 · DOI
  54. * Reyt JN, Wiesenfeld BM, & Trope Y (2016). Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 135, 22– 31. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.004 · DOI
  55. * Ribeiro VF, Hilal AVG, de, & Avila MG (2020). Advisor gender and advice justification in advice taking. RAUSP Management Journal, 55(1), 4– 21. 10.1108/RAUSP-08-2018-0068 · DOI
  56. * Sah S, Moore DA, & MacCoun RJ (2013). Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 246– 255. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.02.001 · DOI
  57. * Scheunemann J, Gawęda Ł, Reininger KM, Jelinek L, Hildebrandt H, & Moritz S (2020). Advice weighting as a novel measure for belief flexibility in people with psychotic-like experiences. Schizophrenia Research, 216, 129– 137. 10.1016/j.schres.2019.12.016 31924370 · DOI
  58. * Scheunemann J, Fischer R, & Moritz S, (2021). Probing the hypersalience hypothesis – an adapted judge-advisor system tested in individuals with psychotic-like experiences. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 158. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.612810 PMC7969715 33746792 · DOI
  59. Schilbach L, Eickhoff SB, Schultze T, Mojzisch A, & Vogeley K (2013). To you I am listening: Perceived competence of advisors influences judgment and decision-making via recruitment of the amygdala. Social Neuroscience, 8(3), 189– 202. 10.1080/17470919.2013.775967 23485131 PMC7993551 · DOI
  60. * Schul Y, & Peri N (2015). Influences of distrust (and trust) on decision making. Social Cognition, 33(5), 414– 435. 10.1521/soco.2015.33.5.414 · DOI
  61. * Schultze T, & Loschelder DD (2021). How numeric advice precision affects advice taking. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 34(3), 303– 310. 10.1002/bdm.2211 · DOI
  62. * Schultze T, Rakotoarisoa AF, & Schulz-Hardt S, (2015). Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(2), 144– 171.
  63. * Schultze T, Mojzisch A, & Schulz-Hardt S, (2017). On the inability to ignore useless advice a case for anchoring in the judge-advisor-system. Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 170– 183. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000361 28633625 · DOI
  64. * Schultze T, Gerlach TM, & Rittich JC, (2018). Some people heed advice less than others: Agency (but not communion) predicts advice taking. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 31(3), 430– 445. 10.1002/bdm.2065 · DOI
  65. * Schultze T, Mojzisch A, & Schulz-Hardt S (2019). Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(3), 349– 363.
  66. Sciandra MR (2019). For one or many? Tie strength and the impact of broadcasted vs. narrowcasted advice. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(5), 494– 510. 10.1080/13527266.2017.1360930 · DOI
  67. Scopelliti I, Morewedge CK, McCormick E, Min HL, Lebrecht S, & Kassam KS (2015). Bias blind spot: Structure, measurement, and consequences. Management Science, 61(10), 2468– 2486. 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2096 · DOI · Paper page
  68. * See KE, Morrison EW, Rothman NB, & Soll JB (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272– 285. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.006 · DOI
  69. Sharpe D. (1997). Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: Why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(8), 881– 901. 10.1016/s0272-7358(97)00056-1 9439872 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Sniezek JA, Schrah GE, & Dalal RS (2004). Improving judgement with prepaid expert advice. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 17(3), 173– 190. 10.1002/bdm.468 · DOI
  71. Soil JB, & Larrick RP (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 35, 780– 805. 19379049
  72. * Tinghu K, Li W, Peiling X, & Qian P (2018). Taking advice for vocational decisions: Regulatory fit effects. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12. 10.1017/prp.2017.12 · DOI
  73. * Trouche E, Johansson P, Hall L, & Mercier H, (2018). Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1– 17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188825 PMC5762162 29320515 · DOI
  74. * Tzini K, & Jain K, (2018). The role of anticipated regret in advice taking. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 31(1), 74– 86. 10.1002/bdm.2048 · DOI
  75. Tzioti SC, Wierenga B, & van Osselaer SMJ (2014). The effect of intuitive advice justification on advice taking. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 27(1), 66– 77. 10.1002/bdm.1790 · DOI
  76. Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marín-Martínez F, & Sánchez-Meca J (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behaviour Research Methods, 45(2), 576– 594. 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6 23055166 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Van Swol LM (2011). Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 103– 120. 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.03.002 · DOI
  78. Van Swol LM, Paik JE, & Prahl A (2018). Advice recipients: The psychology of advice utilization. In MacGeorge EL & Van Swol LM (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Advice. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190630188.001.0001 · DOI
  79. Viechtbauer W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta- for package. Journal Of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1– 48. 10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · DOI · Paper page
  80. * Wanzel SK, Schultze T& Schulz-Hardt S (2017). Disentangling the effects of advisor consensus and advice proximity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(10), 1669– 1675. 10.1037/xlm0000396 28287767 · DOI · Paper page
  81. Yamagishi T, Cook KS, & Watabe M (1998). Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165– 194. 10.1086/210005 · DOI
  82. Yaniv I. (2004a). Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 93(1), 1– 13. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
  83. Yaniv I. (2004b). The benefit of additional opinions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 75– 78. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00278.x · DOI
  84. Yaniv I, & Choshen-Hillel S (2012). Exploiting the wisdom of others to make better decisions: Suspending judgment reduces egocentrism and increases accuracy. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 25(5), 427– 434. 10.1002/bdm.740 · DOI
  85. * Yaniv I, & Kleinberger E (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 260– 281. 10.1006/obhd.2000.2909 11056071 · DOI · Paper page
  86. * Yaniv I, & Milyavsky M (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 104– 120. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006 · DOI
  87. * Yoon H, Scopelliti I, & Morewedge CK (2021). Decision making can be improved through observational learning. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 162, 155– 188. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.011 · DOI
  88. * Zhang T, & North MS (2020). What goes down when advice goes up: Younger advisers underestimate their impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(10), 1444– 1460. 10.1177/0146167220905221 32124654 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bailey, P. E., Leon, T., Ebner, N. C., Moustafa, A. A., & Weidemann, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Bailey, Phoebe E.
ORCID
Venue
Current Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-08-09
Volume
42
Issue
28
Pages
24516-24541
ISSN
  • 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4733
DOI
10.1007/s12144-022-03573-2
PMC
PMC11661855
OpenAlex
W4292356785
Cited by
82
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Current Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (1R01AG057764)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
advice taking, Judge-Advisor System, gender, individualism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review