Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation.

By Ilan Yaniv, Eli Kleinberger. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000

678 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/babb60b88ef088d9140ce6807706fdb2670a8d7f

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

The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. (2012, background): “Most research has focused on a very simple version of a crowd: Two-person collectives involving the self (Sniezek & Buckley, 1995; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000).”
How Gullible are We? A Review of the Evidence from Psychology and Social Science (2017, background): “Moreover, participants quickly learn to discount more heavily the opinions of senders whose estimates have proven unreliable (Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000).”
The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment (2009, methodology): “When making judgments, people routinely rely on advice from others, although previous research suggests that this advice is underweighted ( Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000; Yaniv, 2004).”
The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines (2015, background): “Egocentrism: individuals tend to preferentially rate their own opinion higher than that of others (Yaniv & Kleinberger 2000).”
Inferring binary trust relationships in Web-based social networks (2006, background): “This is seen in a variety of hierarchies [Yaniv and Kleinberger 2000].”
The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy (2011, background): “Indeed, the proposed motives for taking advice often center on the desire to improve objective accuracy (e.g., Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000), whereas attitude conformity is typically explained by social pressure and the desire to avoid social sanctions (Dittes & Kelley, 1956).”
Reputation, Gossip, and Human Cooperation (2016, background): “Given that it is harder to gain but easier to lose a good reputation (Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000), people should be motivated to (a) build a cooperative reputation when their reputation is at stake and (b) further maintain their reputation through cooperation in future interactions, even with no…”
ARTICLES: Validation of Ethical Decision Making Measures: Evidence for a New Set of Measures (2006, background): “In the case of the cognitive strategies, these dimensions included (a) recognition of circumstances, (b) seeking help, (c) questioning one’s judgment, (d) anticipating consequences, (e) dealing with emotions, (f) analysis of personal motivations, and (g) consideration of effects of action on others ”
Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen (2012, background): “…from experienced and knowledgeable advisors more heavily than advice received from advisors with less experience or expertise (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Feng & MacGeorge, 2006; Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Sniezek, Schrah, & Dalal, 2004; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007).”
Group Decision Making Under Conditions of Distributed Knowledge: The Information Asymmetries Model. (2007, background): “There is increasing evidence suggesting that decision makers treat the contributions of others less favorably than their own (e.g., Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000).”
Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments (2007, methodology): “This weight measure, which is akin to those used earlier (Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000; Yaniv, 2004b), enables us to compare behavior across the four experimental conditions.”
Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved (2011, background): “In fact, Yaniv and Kleinberger (2000) suggested that people are sensitive not only to the balance of available reasons, but also to the perceived quality of the judges, based on past performance.”
Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use (2008, background): “According to the differential information explanation, decision makers discount advice because they lack access to the advisor’s internal thought processes, while having privileged access to the rationale behind their own opinions (Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000 ).”