CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Expert Advice Influences Decision Making

Open access
Meshi, Dar, Biele, Guido, Korn, Christoph W., Heekeren, Hauke R.·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049748PMC PMC3504100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

People often use expert advice when making decisions in our society, but how we are influenced by this advice has yet to be understood. To address this, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we provided expert and novice advice to participants during an estimation task. Participants reported that they valued expert advice more than novice advice, and activity in the ventral striatum correlated with this valuation, even before decisions with the advice were made. When using advice, participants compared their initial opinion to their advisor's opinion. This comparison, termed the "opinion difference", influenced advice utilization and was represented in reward-sensitive brain regions. Finally, the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex integrated both the size of the opinion difference and the advisor's level of expertise, and average activity in this area correlated with mean advice utilization across participants. Taken together, these findings provide neural evidence for how advice engenders behavioral change during the decision-making process.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0049748

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Experimental task. Participants had 8.5 s to estimate the real monthly rental price of an apartment in New York City by using four attributes (square meters, number of rooms, number of bathrooms, neighborhood). They then discovered the expertise level of their advisor (Time 1; 2.5 s). After a short delay, participants were then given advice on the rental price and allowed to adjust their answer (Time 2; 7 s).
Figure 1 Experimental task. Participants had 8.5 s to estimate the real monthly rental price of an apartment in New York City by using four attributes (square meters, number of rooms, number of bathrooms, neighborhood). They then discovered the expertise level of their advisor (Time 1; 2.5 s). After a short delay, participants were then given advice on the rental price and allowed to adjust their answer (Time 2; 7 s).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Behavioral data illustrating the utilization of advice. (A) Participants used expert advice more than novice advice (p<0.001). Important to note, all advice that participants received, from both experts and novices, was the actual price of the apartment (see Materials and Methods). Participants also used advice significantly more when the advice amount was close to their first estimate (low opinion difference) compared to when the advice was far from their first estimate (high opinion difference) (p = 0.017). (B) Histogram of individual differences in usage of advice with respect to expertise (mean expert WOA minus mean novice WOA). Participants demonstrated variability in their usage of advice from different sources. Notably however, all of the participants used expert advice qualitatively more than novice advice (no participants below zero). (C) Participants exhibited shorter reaction times when using expert advice than when using novice advice (p<0.001). They also responded more quickly when the opinion difference was high compared to when the opinion difference was low (p = 0.039). (D) After the experiment, participants rated the expert advice as being more valuable than the novice advice (scale from 1 = low to 5 = high; p<0.001). Error bars represent standard error of the mean. All analyses performed using repeated measures ANOVA unless otherwise indicated. OD = opinion difference.
Figure 2 Behavioral data illustrating the utilization of advice. (A) Participants used expert advice more than novice advice (p<0.001). Important to note, all advice that participants received, from both experts and novices, was the actual price of the apartment (see Materials and Methods). Participants also used advice significantly more when the advice amount was close to their first estimate (low opinion difference) compared to when the advice was far from their first estimate (high opinion difference) (p = 0.017). (B) Histogram of individual differences in usage of advice with respect to expertise (mean expert WOA minus mean novice WOA). Participants demonstrated variability in their usage of advice from different sources. Notably however, all of the participants used expert advice qualitatively more than novice advice (no participants below zero). (C) Participants exhibited shorter reaction times when using expert advice than when using novice advice (p<0.001). They also responded more quickly when the opinion difference was high compared to when the opinion difference was low (p = 0.039). (D) After the experiment, participants rated the expert advice as being more valuable than the novice advice (scale from 1 = low to 5 = high; p<0.001). Error bars represent standard error of the mean. All analyses performed using repeated measures ANOVA unless otherwise indicated. OD = opinion difference.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Brain regions showing a main effect between the expert and novice condition. (A) When contrasting expert > novice at Time 1, participants showed greater changes in BOLD signal in the ventral striatum upon discovering that their advisor will be an expert compared to discovering that their advisor will be a novice. (B) When contrasting expert > novice at Time 2, participants showed greater changes in BOLD signal in the medial prefrontal cortex when using advice from experts compared to using advice from novices. (C) Parameter estimates in the medial prefrontal cortex at Time 2. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. BOLD activation maps thresholded at Z >2.3, p<0.05, cluster corrected. L = left, OD = opinion difference, PFC = prefrontal cortex.
Figure 3 Brain regions showing a main effect between the expert and novice condition. (A) When contrasting expert > novice at Time 1, participants showed greater changes in BOLD signal in the ventral striatum upon discovering that their advisor will be an expert compared to discovering that their advisor will be a novice. (B) When contrasting expert > novice at Time 2, participants showed greater changes in BOLD signal in the medial prefrontal cortex when using advice from experts compared to using advice from novices. (C) Parameter estimates in the medial prefrontal cortex at Time 2. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. BOLD activation maps thresholded at Z >2.3, p<0.05, cluster corrected. L = left, OD = opinion difference, PFC = prefrontal cortex.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Brain regions demonstrating differential activity due to size of opinion difference upon revealing the advice (Time 2). (A) When contrasting high opinion difference trials > low opinion difference trials, changes in BOLD signal were greater in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. (C) When contrasting low opinion difference trials > high opinion difference trials, changes in BOLD signal were greater in the ventral striatum and the anterior cingulate cortex. (B,D) Parameter estimates in these regions. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. BOLD activation maps significant at p<0.01, FDR corrected within a priori defined areas (see Materials and Methods). L = left, OD = opinion difference, OFC = orbitofrontal cortex.
Figure 4 Brain regions demonstrating differential activity due to size of opinion difference upon revealing the advice (Time 2). (A) When contrasting high opinion difference trials > low opinion difference trials, changes in BOLD signal were greater in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. (C) When contrasting low opinion difference trials > high opinion difference trials, changes in BOLD signal were greater in the ventral striatum and the anterior cingulate cortex. (B,D) Parameter estimates in these regions. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. BOLD activation maps significant at p<0.01, FDR corrected within a priori defined areas (see Materials and Methods). L = left, OD = opinion difference, OFC = orbitofrontal cortex.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Interaction effect between expertise and size of opinion difference when advice was revealed (Time 2) in left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. (A) BOLD activity in an interaction contrast ((expert high opinion difference trials > expert low opinion difference trials) > (novice high opinion difference trials > novice low opinion difference trials)) revealed a significant interaction effect in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. BOLD activation map is significant at p<0.01, FDR corrected within a priori defined areas (see Materials and Methods). (B) Parameter estimates in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. (C) The mean activation across all advice trials in this lateral orbitofrontal region predicts the mean weight of advice over all advice trials for individual participants (Pearson’s r = 0.488, p = 0.007). L = left, OD = opinion difference.
Figure 5 Interaction effect between expertise and size of opinion difference when advice was revealed (Time 2) in left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. (A) BOLD activity in an interaction contrast ((expert high opinion difference trials > expert low opinion difference trials) > (novice high opinion difference trials > novice low opinion difference trials)) revealed a significant interaction effect in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. BOLD activation map is significant at p<0.01, FDR corrected within a priori defined areas (see Materials and Methods). (B) Parameter estimates in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Bars indicate standard error of the mean. (C) The mean activation across all advice trials in this lateral orbitofrontal region predicts the mean weight of advice over all advice trials for individual participants (Pearson’s r = 0.488, p = 0.007). L = left, OD = opinion difference.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 107

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Meshi, D., Biele, G., Korn, C. W., & Heekeren, H. R.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
  • Meshi, Dar
  • Heekeren, Hauke R.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-11-21
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
e49748
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0049748
PMC
PMC3504100
OpenAlex
W2052744504
Cited by
107
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
expert advice, decision-making, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, behavior change, reward processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Behavior, Brain, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Professional Competence, Reward, Neuroimaging

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