Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions.

@article{Soll2009StrategiesFR,
  title={Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others' opinions.},
  author={Jack B. Soll and Richard P. Larrick},
  journal={Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition},
  year={2009},
  volume={35 3},
  pages={
          780-805
        }
}
  • Jack B. SollR. Larrick
  • Published 1 May 2009
  • Psychology
  • Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
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… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Taking a Disagreeing Perspective Improves the Accuracy of People’s Quantitative Estimates

Many decisions rest on people’s ability to make estimates of unknown quantities. In these judgments, the aggregate estimate of a crowd of individuals is often more accurate than most individual

Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved

The Bad Thing About Good Advice: Understanding When and How Advice Exacerbates Overconfidence

In several experiments, the extent to which advice agrees with a person’s initial opinion is measured, which allows us to pinpoint circumstances in which heeding advice is beneficial, improving accuracy or reducing overconfidence, as well as circumstances inWhich it is harmful, hurting accuracy or exacerbating overconfidence.

Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision

Four studies examining intuitions about group wisdom and the informational influence of groups find that when provided advice, participants relied more on groups than individuals to update their beliefs, but were only modestly sensitive to group size.

Knowing the crowd within: Metacognitive limits on combining multiple judgments.

Utility and use of accuracy cues in social learning of crowd preferences

The findings suggest that the utility and use of accuracy cues for problems with ‘socially correct’ answers differ from those with 'factually correct' answers, as follows: confidence does not have a significant utility and but people use their own confidence while ignoring others’ confidence.

Word Learning

opinions, then combine the opinions into a judgment or belief, and finally hold this belief with a certain degree of confidence. When it comes to making the most of diversity, people fall short at

Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do

Following up on a recent debate, we examined advice taking in dyads compared to individuals in a set of three studies (total N = 303 dyads and 194 individuals). Our first aim was to test the

Do we prefer consensual advice - even when it is detrimental to our judgment quality?

In our daily lives we frequently seek the advice of multiple persons to make informed judgements and decisions. Often, these opinions are not independent from each other but rather are correlated to
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 181 REFERENCES

Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle

It is described how people may face few opportunities to learn the benefits of averaging and how misappreciating averaging contributes to poor intuitive strategies for combining estimates.

The Accuracy of Intuitive Judgment Strategies: Covariation Assessment and Bayesian Inference

Using intuitive strategies, which are presumably simpler than normative strategies and are already part of people′s repertoire, may be the most efficient means of ensuring highly accurate judgment in these tasks.

Receiving Other People's Advice: Influence and Benefit

Overconfidence: It Depends on How, What, and Whom You Ask.

Determining why some people, some domains, and some types of judgments are more prone to overconfidence will be important to understanding how confidence judgments are made.

The Wisdom of Many in One Mind

The conditions under which dialectical bootstrapping fosters accuracy are derived and an empirical demonstration that its benefits go beyond reliability gains is provided.

When Words Speak Louder Than Actions: Another's Evaluations Can Appear More Diagnostic Than Their Decisions

Abstract When making decisions we often infer the value of the alternatives from the behavior of others. In some domains, however, we fail to make such inferences. Stock trading is a case in

Intuitive Theories of Information: Beliefs about the Value of Redundancy

The present experiments show that the preference for redundancy depends on one's intuitive theory of information, and lends insight into how intuitive theories might develop and also has potential ramifications for how statistical concepts such as correlation might best be learned and internalized.

Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility☆☆☆

Abstract Why do people take advice? To find out, we provided a low, medium, or high level of training on a task in which judgments varied in importance. Then, in a test session, we eliminated
...