The DOI matches its Crossref record; 149 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions.
Abstract
A basic issue in social influence is how best to change one's judgment in response to learning the opinions of others. This article examines the strategies that people use to revise their quantitative estimates on the basis of the estimates of another person. The authors note that people tend to use 2 basic strategies when revising estimates: choosing between the 2 estimates and averaging them. The authors developed the probability, accuracy, redundancy (PAR) model to examine the relative effectiveness of these two strategies across judgment environments. A surprising result was that averaging was the more effective strategy across a wide range of commonly encountered environments. The authors observed that despite this finding, people tend to favor the choosing strategy. Most participants in these studies would have achieved greater accuracy had they always averaged. The identification of intuitive strategies, along with a formal analysis of when they are accurate, provides a basis for examining how effectively people use the judgments of others. Although a portfolio of strategies that includes averaging and choosing can be highly effective, the authors argue that people are not generally well adapted to the environment in terms of strategy selection.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.
Longford, N. T., Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075823 · Cited by 18,724
A BEHAVIORAL MODEL OF RATIONAL CHOICE
Simon, H. A. (1955) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884852 · Cited by 15,877
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 · Cited by 7,731
(2013) · Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,486
Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Simon, H. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042769 · Cited by 5,919
Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook
Beaton, A. E., & Keppel, G. (1975) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162588 · Cited by 5,822
Another look at measures of forecast accuracy
Hyndman, R. J., & Koehler, A. B. (2006) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.03.001 · Cited by 5,757
Structural Holes and Good Ideas
Burt, R. S. (2004) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/421787 · Cited by 5,642
Cited by
Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., Bos, M. W., Lehmann, D. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88067-4_21 · Cited by 1,441
Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science
MARTIN, T. G., BURGMAN, M. A., FIDLER, F., KUHNERT, P. M., LOW‐CHOY, S., MCBRIDE, M., & MENGERSEN, K. (2012) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x · Cited by 829
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
Intuitions about combining opinions: misappreciation of the averaging principle
Larrick, R. P., & Soll, J. B. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0459 · Cited by 410
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Soll, J. B., & Larrick, R. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 780-805
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2032056105
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 149
- FWCI
- 13.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0015145
- The paper
- Soll, J. B., & Larrick, R. P. (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015145
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
