Cited by 1,011Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesTeam Dynamics and Performance

Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences

Bonaccio, Silvia, Dalal, Reeshad S.·2006·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

Cites

165 of 165 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Individuals frequently discount recommendations that contradict their prior judgment, even when those recommendations are objectively accurate.

    “Individuals frequently discount recommendations that contradict their prior judgment, even when those recommendations are objectively accurate (Bonaccio and Dalal 2006).”

    From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Bonaccio and Dalal 2006

  • Even when external advice is objectively accurate, decision makers frequently maintain their original judgment, especially when that advice contradicts their prior beliefs or professional intuition.

    “Even when external advice is objectively accurate, decision makers frequently maintain their original judgment, especially when that advice contradicts their prior beliefs or professional intuition.”

    From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Bonaccio and Dalal 2006

  • 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 Bonaccio and Dalal 2006

  • Expertise may amplify discounting behavior; individuals who perceive themselves as highly competent generally show stronger resistance to external advice.

    “Expertise may further amplify this discounting behavior.Individuals who perceive themselves as highly competent generally show stronger resistance to external advice (Bonaccio and Dalal 2006).”

    From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Bonaccio and Dalal 2006

  • Convergent advice from multiple sources increases perceived validity and strengthens confidence in external recommendations.

    “Research indicates that convergent advice from multiple sources increases perceived validity and strengthens confidence in external recommendations (Bonaccio and Dalal 2006;Soll et al. 2022).”

    From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Bonaccio and Dalal 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 171 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Bonaccio, Silvia
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-11
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
127-151
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2148237550
Cited by
1,011
References
171
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 54
FWCI
6.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
advice taking, advice-giving, decision-making, decision accuracy, confidence, organizational behavior

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