Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments

By Ilan Yaniv, Maxim Milyavsky. 2007

245 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/55ce9bf44c628ece380d6be3c4d857dd89b09c0b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved (2011, background): “For instance, many studies of opinion revision have involved updating one’s own opinion based on the opinion of a single advisor (for exceptions see Mannes, 2009; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007), whereas studies of combining others’ opinions have typically involved several opinions being combined.”
The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. (2012, background): “Yaniv and Milyavsky (2007) found that people ―cherry pick‖ the advice from a larger crowd, focusing on the judgments most consistent with their own.”
The ambivalent mind can be a wise mind: Emotional ambivalence increases judgment accuracy (2013, methodology): “…135 females, 4 unspecified; M age=19.14) completed the affect priming instructions used in Experiment 1 and, in an ostensibly unrelated task, were then asked to provide best estimates for a seven-item trivia task on general knowledge facts (cf., Soll & Klayman, 2004; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007).”
Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen (2012, background): “…1997; Feng & MacGeorge, 2006; Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004; Soll & Larrick, 2009; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007) and when the advisors express greater confidence in the quality of their advice (Lawrence & Warren, 2003; Phillips, 1999;…”
Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences (2006, background): “This raises the interesting possibility that advisors can strategically use expressed confidence levels as a means to influence judges (Hollenbeck et al., 1995; Sniezek & Buckley, 1995; Yates et al., 1996).”