Cited by 52Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Social InfluenceRisk Perception and Management

Do People Inherently Dislike Uncertain Advice?

Open access
Gaertig, Celia, Simmons, Joseph P.·2018·Psychological Science

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797617739369

Cites

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?

  • 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.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 52

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.005 · DOI
  2. Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
  3. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Moore D. A., 2016, The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 182
  5. 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1255 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.02.001 · DOI
  7. 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.299 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01847.x · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.006 · DOI
  10. Tetlock P. E., 2015, Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
  11. 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
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
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