Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Egocentric advice discounting arises because decision makers have direct access to the reasoning behind their own estimates, but not to the reasoning behind the advisor's recommendation.
“This tendency arises because decision makers have direct access to the reasoning behind their own estimates, but not to the reasoning behind the advisor's recommendation (Yaniv 2004).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv 2004
Individuals tend to give greater weight to their initial judgments than to external recommendations, a phenomenon known as egocentric advice discounting.
“A consistent finding in this literature is that individuals tend to give greater weight to their initial judgments than to external recommendations, a phenomenon known as egocentric advice discounting.”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv 2004
This finding differs from the expectation that experienced judges may be more resistant to advice because they can generate more internal arguments supporting their initial view.
“This finding differs from the expectation that experienced judges may be more resistant to advice because they can generate more internal arguments supporting their initial view (Yaniv 2004;Bonaccio and Dalal 2006).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv 2004
Judges tend to give greater weight to their own initial assessments because they have direct access to the reasoning underlying their own judgments, but not to the reasoning underlying external advice.
“This finding is consistent with Yaniv (2004) argument that judges tend to give greater weight to their own initial assessments because they have direct access to the reasoning underlying their own judgments, but not to the reasoning underlying external advice.”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv (2004)
Individuals often favor congruent information over objectively accurate but contradictory recommendations, a tendency driven by confirmation and self-validation processes.
“Existing research shows that individuals often favor congruent information over objectively accurate but contradictory recommendations, a tendency driven by confirmation and self-validation processes (Yaniv 2004).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv 2004
Experienced judges possess richer internal knowledge structures, enabling them to retrieve more self-generated arguments to support their initial assessments.
“Experienced judges possess richer internal knowledge structures, enabling them to retrieve more selfgenerated arguments to support their initial assessments (Yaniv 2004).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Yaniv 2004
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 [56]
Asking neutral, general knowledge questions allows capturing the mechanisms of opinion adaptation while controlling its emotional impact.
“Following the methods of existing experiments, we deliberately asked neutral, general knowledge questions, which allows capturing the mechanisms of opinion adaptation while controlling its emotional impact [6], [30].”
From Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
When facing the opinions of peers on a given issue, people tend to filter and integrate the social information they receive and adjust their own beliefs accordingly.
“When facing the opinions of peers on a given issue, people tend to filter and integrate the social information they receive and adjust their own beliefs accordingly [6], [7].”
From Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
Two variables have an important influence on how an individual revises their opinion when exposed to the opinion and confidence of another participant: the difference in confidence values and the normalized distance between opinions.
“In agreement with previous studies [6], [30], our results show that two variables have an important influence on how the individual i revises his or her opinion when exposed to the opinion and confidence of another participant j: the difference in confidence values and the normalized distance between opinions”
From Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
When the distance between opinions is very large (>1), the strength of social influence diminishes progressively.
“Finally, when the distance between opinions is very large (i.e., >1), the strength of social influence diminishes progressively [6].”
From Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
Participants exhibited a significant bias toward their own initial opinion rather than equally weighting all social information they were exposed to.
“The first result of our experiment is that participants exhibited a significant bias toward their own initial opinion rather than equally weighting all social information they were exposed to [6], [30].”
From Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation (2013) · cites this paper as [6]
Cites
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338 · see citing works
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,169 · see citing works
Nature and Operation of Attitudes
Ajzen, I. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 · Cited by 4,321 · see citing works
Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography
Clemen, R. T. (1989) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(89)90012-5 · Cited by 2,172 · see citing works
Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,843 · see citing works
Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90002-j · Cited by 1,596 · see citing works
Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography
(1990) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/0024-6301(90)90316-v · Cited by 1,508 · see citing works
Armstrong, J. S. (2001) · International series in management science/operations research/International series in operations research & management science · doi:10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3 · Cited by 1,189 · see citing works
Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?*1
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0 · Cited by 1,107 · see citing works
Evaluations of Self and Others: Self-Enhancement Biases in Social Judgments
Brown, J. D. (1986) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1986.4.4.353 · Cited by 911 · see citing works
Advice taking in decision making: egocentric discounting and reputation formation
Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2909 · Cited by 701 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991) · Cited by 608 · see citing works
Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility
Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2697 · Cited by 592 · see citing works
Principles of Forecasting. A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners
Devezas, T. (2002) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/s0040-1625(02)00180-4 · Cited by 523 · see citing works
Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view.
Birnbaum, M. H., & Stegner, S. E. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.48 · Cited by 505 · see citing works
Database Models and Managerial Intuition: 50% Model + 50% Manager
Blattberg, R. C., & Hoch, S. J. (1990) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.8.887 · Cited by 473 · see citing works
Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making
Sniezek, J. A., & Buckley, T. (1995) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1040 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Accepting threatening information: Self‐affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00182 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change.
Aronson, E., Turner, J. A., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963) · Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045513 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Accuracy and confidence in group judgment
Sniezek, J. A., & Henry, R. A. (1989) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90055-1 · Cited by 358 · see citing works
The psychology of attitude change and social influence
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3609 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
A note on aggregating opinions
Hogarth, R. M. (1978) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90037-5 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Einhorn, H. J., Hogarth, R. M., & Klempner, E. (1977) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.158 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Bayesian inference: Combining base rates with opinions of sources who vary in credibility.
Birnbaum, M. H., & Mellers, B. A. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.792 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change.
Bochner, S., & Insko, C. A. (1966) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0021192 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Svenson, O. (1996) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0026 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Signal-detection analysis of group decision making.
Sorkin, R. D., Hays, C. J., & West, R. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.183 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Performance of a composite as a function of the number of judges
Libby, R., & Blashfield, R. K. (1978) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90044-2 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
The Social Influence of Confidence in Group Decision Making
Zarnoth, P., & Sniezek, J. A. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1326 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Judgemental adjustment of initial forecasts: Its effectiveness and biases
Lim, J. S., & O’Connor, M. J. (1995) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.3960080302 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation.
Anderson, N. H., & Jacobson, A. (1965) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0022484 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Cue-Consistency and Cue-Utilization in Judgment
Slovic, P. (1966) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1420883 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01326.x · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results
Ashton, A. H., & Ashton, R. H. (1985) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.31.12.1499 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.5.965 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Evaluating and Combining Physicians' Probabilities of Survival in an Intensive Care Unit
Winkler, R., & Poses, R. (1993) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.12.1526 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1431 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions
Budescu, D. V., & Rantilla, A. K. (2000) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00037-8 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
Good probabilistic forecasters: The ‘consumer's’ perspective
Yates, J., Price, P. C., Lee, J. W., & Ramirez, J. (1996) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(95)00636-2 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
The accuracy of individual and group forecasts from business outlook surveys
Zarnowitz, V. (1984) · Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1002/for.3980030103 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Weighting and Trimming: Heuristics for Aggregating Judgments under Uncertainty
Yaniv, I. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2685 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Self-citationDeterminants of the Justifiability of Performance in Ill-Structured Audit Tasks
Kennedy, J. J., Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Peecher, M. E. (1997) · Journal of Accounting Research · doi:10.2307/2491456 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Information search and presentation in advisor–client interactions
Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2003) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/s0749-5978(03)00059-1 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.965 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Kessler, S. (1989) · American Journal of Medical Genetics · doi:10.1002/ajmg.1320340310 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Application of a linear-serial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation.
Anderson, N. H. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0026816 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Budescu, D. V., Erev, I., & Wallsten, T. S. (1997) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199709)10:3 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Averaging probability judgments: Monte Carlo analyses of asymptotic diagnostic value
Johnson, T. R., Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (2001) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.369 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Be careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal-injury damages awards.
Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037//1076-898x.6.2.91 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Judgmental Versus Statistical Prediction: Information Asymmetry and Combination Rules
Yaniv, I., & Hogarth, R. M. (1993) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00558.x · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Self-citationBe careful what you ask for: The effect of anchors on personal-injury damages awards.
Marti, M. W., & Wissler, R. L. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.6.2.91 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Davis, J. H., Zarnoth, P., Hulbert, L. G., Chen, X.-P., Parks, C. D., & Nam, K. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2733 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
When you can't do it right: ethical dilemmas of informing people about risks
Jungermann, H. (1997) · Risk Decision and Policy · doi:10.1080/135753097348456 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 · Cited by 1,011 · see citing works
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
Transparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems
Schmidt, P., Biessmann, F., & Teubner, T. (2020) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1819094 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation
Moussaïd, M., Kämmer, J. E., Analytis, P. P., & Neth, H. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078433 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359152 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2012) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.10.001 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Disparate Interactions: An Algorithm-in-the-Loop Analysis of Fairness in Risk Assessments
Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287563 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Decision difficulty in the age of consumer empowerment
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Griffin, J. G. (2014) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.003 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations
Schemmer, M., Kuehl, N., Benz, C., Bartos, A., & Satzger, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3581641.3584066 · Cited by 208 · see citing works
Adaptive personalization using social networks
Chung, T. S., Wedel, M., & Rust, R. T. (2016) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0441-x · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Keding, C., & Meissner, P. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120970 · Cited by 168 · see citing works
Why does peer instruction benefit student learning?
Tullis, J. G., & Goldstone, R. L. (2020) · Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications · doi:10.1186/s41235-020-00218-5 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence
Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aec8352 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
How Expert Advice Influences Decision Making
Meshi, D., Biele, G., Korn, C. W., & Heekeren, H. R. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049748 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Opinion Dynamics with Confirmation Bias
Allahverdyan, A. E., & Galstyan, A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099557 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Do fit opinions matter? The impact of fit context on online product returns
Wang, Y., Ramachandran, V., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2021) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2020.0965 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Psychological Traits and Appropriate Reliance: Factors Shaping Trust in AI
Küper, A., & Krämer, N. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2348216 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Du, Y., Antoniadi, A. M., McNestry, C., McAuliffe, F. M., & Mooney, C. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app122010323 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Neurocomputational mechanisms of confidence in self and others
Bang, D., Moran, R., Daw, N. D., & Fleming, S. M. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-31674-w · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Why Does Advice Discounting Occur? The Combined Roles of Confidence and Trust
Wang, X., & Du, X. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02381 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Küper, A., Lodde, G. C., Livingstone, E., Schadendorf, D., & Krämer, N. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/58660 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“The WoA is a commonly used metric to quantify the incorporation of advice [67] and is defined as follows: WoA = (response 2 – response 1 )/(advice – response 1 ) (1) WoA was cut off at −1 and 1 for the purpose of this study, assuming a maximum magnitude of 100%.”
Laxar, D., Eitenberger, M., Maleczek, M., Kaider, A., Hammerle, F. P., & Kimberger, O. (2023) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-023-03068-2 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Quantifying machine influence over human forecasters
Abeliuk, A., Benjamin, D. M., Morstatter, F., & Galstyan, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72690-4 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment
Lacroux, A., & Martin Lacroux, C. (2026) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.70085
- Authors
- Yaniv, I.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Yaniv, Ilan
- ORCID
- Yaniv, Ilan
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-01
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-13
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025486241
- Cited by
- 652
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 45
- FWCI
- 7.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- advice seeking, judgment accuracy, attitude change, decision-making, theory of judgment
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
