• Corpus ID: 208193817

Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do

@inproceedings{Schultze2019WhyDH,
  title={Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do},
  author={Thomas Schultze and Andreas Mojzisch and Stefan Schulz-Hardt},
  year={2019}
}
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 replicability of an important previous finding, namely that dyads heed advice less than individuals because they feel more confident in the accuracy of their initial judgments. Second, we aimed to explain dyads’ behavior based on three premises: first, that dyads understand that the added value of an… 

Figures from this paper

Advice taking by groups: The effects of consensus seeking and member opinion differences

Individuals often underutilize the advice they receive from others, a phenomenon known as egocentric advice discounting. Recent research suggests that this tendency may be even stronger in groups

Individuals vs groups: Advice-taking in decision making

: External advice is often considered as an effective approach to improve the quality of decision outcomes. However, there is a significant difference in advice-taking performance between individuals

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 28 REFERENCES

Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do Because They Should

An overlooked gem is revealed in Minson and Mueller’s (2012) study, namely, an asymmetry in assessing the informational value of aggregated judgments: Whereas judges seem to be sensitive to the increased reliability of their own aggregated initial estimates, they ignore the same increased reliability when it comes to aggregated advice.

Groups Weight Outside Information Less Than Individuals Do, Although They Shouldn’t

By suggesting that dyads should give less weight to outside advice than individuals should, Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013) raise important questions re garding whether and when

The Cost of Collaboration

The analyses demonstrate that, relative to individuals, dyads suffered an accuracy cost and if dyad members had given as much weight to peer input as individuals working alone did, their revised estimates would have been significantly more accurate.

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

The authors developed the probability, accuracy, redundancy (PAR) model and found that averaging was the more effective strategy across a wide range of commonly encountered environments and that despite this finding, people tend to favor the choosing strategy.

Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy

In this article, we ask how well people fulfill informational motives by using the judgments of others. We build on advice-taking research from the judgment and decision making literature, which has

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

Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization

Six experiments investigated how the distance between one's initial opinion and advice relates to advice utilization. Going beyond previous research, we relate advice distance to both relative

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.

The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments

We evaluate the effect of discussion on the accuracy of collaborative judgments. In contrast to prior research, we show that discussion can either aid or impede accuracy relative to the averaging of