Do People Inherently Dislike Uncertain Advice?
Open accessAbstract
Research suggests that people prefer confident to uncertain advisors. But do people dislike uncertain advice itself? In 11 studies ( N = 4,806), participants forecasted an uncertain event after receiving advice and then rated the quality of the advice (Studies 1–7, S1, and S2) or chose between two advisors (Studies 8–9). Replicating previous research, our results showed that confident advisors were judged more favorably than advisors who were “not sure.” Importantly, however, participants were not more likely to prefer certain advice: They did not dislike advisors who expressed uncertainty by providing ranges of outcomes, giving numerical probabilities, or saying that one event is “more likely” than another. Additionally, when faced with an explicit choice, participants were more likely to choose an advisor who provided uncertain advice over an advisor who provided certain advice. Our findings suggest that people do not inherently dislike uncertain advice. Advisors benefit from expressing themselves with confidence, but not from communicating false certainty.
Integrity 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?
People prefer advice indicating uncertainty and are more likely to follow sensible advice when provided with notions of confidence.
“Previous research has shown that people prefer advice indicating uncertainty and are more likely to follow sensible advice when provided with notions of confidence37.”
From Do as AI say: susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids (2021) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 52
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.005 · DOI
- Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
- 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502 · DOI · Paper page
- Moore D. A., 2016, The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 182
- 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1255 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.02.001 · DOI
- 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01847.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.006 · DOI
- Tetlock P. E., 2015, Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
- Van Zant A. B, 2017, Certainty posturing: Evidence of inauthentic certainty displays as strategic impression management
- Authors
- Gaertig, C., & Simmons, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gaertig, Celia
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-02-21
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 504-520
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2788484292
- Cited by
- 52
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- probability communication, trust in advice
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Self Concept, Uncertainty
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