Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions

By E. Jonas, Dieter Frey. 2003

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e362cd018eb73bad4e111e3e10c840dd60eac544

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

1. Reeshad S. Dalal
2. Amanda S Hinojosa
3. Kelly L. Haws
4. Evan Polman
5. W. Gardner
6. Michael H. Birnbaum
7. Ulf-Dietrich Reips

In General Decision Sciences

1. Reeshad S. Dalal
2. Silvia Bonaccio
3. Maxim Milyavsky
4. Kathleen Seiders
5. Kelly L. Haws
6. L. Berry
7. A. G. Flynn
8. Ilan Yaniv

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Reeshad S. Dalal
2. Silvia Bonaccio
3. Maxim Milyavsky
4. Ilan Yaniv
5. Claudia Cogliser
6. Kelly L. Haws
7. L. Berry
8. Evan Polman

Citations in the corpus

• Motivating Customers to Adhere to Expert Advice in Professional Services (2015, background): “Theoretical implications are relevant not only for advice taking research but also for advice giving, which is less studied (Jonas and Frey 2003).”
• Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences (2006, background): “Differences between advisors and ‘‘personal decisionmakers’’ Whereas most JAS research has taken the perspective of the judge, fewer studies have chosen to take the perspective of the advisor (Jonas & Frey, 2003).”
• Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments (2007, background): “Future research should focus on the integration of other advice formats, such as probabilities (Yates, Price, Lee, & Ramirez, 1996), preferences, and advice supported by arguments (Jonas & Frey, 2003).”
• Self-other decision making and loss aversion (2012, methodology): “We used this scale because research has shown that people who choose for others seek out more information and alternatives than people who choose for themselves (Jonas & Frey, 2003; Polman, 2010; Polman & Emich, 2011).”
• A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Management Research (2017, background): “…evidence suggests that decision makers’ tendencies toward confirmation bias and selective information processing can be countered by relying on advisors to inform their decision, as advisors are less prone to these cognitive biases and have stronger accuracy motivations (Jonas & Frey, 2003).”