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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 165 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 171 references

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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Cooper, R. S. (1991). Information processing in the judge–adviser system of group decision-making. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  2. Dalal, R. S. (2001). The effect of expert advice and financial incentives on cooperation. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  3. Gibbons, A. M. (2003). Alternative forms of advice in natural decision settings. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  4. Griffeth, 1995, The employee turnover process, Vol. 13, 245
  5. Jungermann, H. (1999). Advice-giving and taking. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-32). Maui, HI: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). [CD-ROM]. www.gp.tu-berlin.de/Users/j/jungermann/Publications/Advice%20giving.html.
  6. Lualhati, J.C. (1992). Performance forecast accuracy and confidence in a judge–adviser decision system. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
  7. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th ed.) (2003). [Electronic version]. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.
  8. Mount, 1995, The Big Five Personality Dimensions: implications for research and practice in human resources management, Vol. 13, 153
  9. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (Eds.) (2001). Shared cognition [Special Issue]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 1,003

Metadata

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