Skip to main content
Research Article

On the Inability to Ignore Useless Advice

A Case for Anchoring in the Judge-Advisor-System

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000361

Abstract. Research in the judge-advisor-paradigm suggests that advice is generally utilized less than it should be according to its quality. In a series of four experiments, we challenge this widely held assumption. We hypothesize that when advice quality is low, the opposite phenomenon, namely overutilization of advice, occurs. We further assume that this overutilization effect is the result of anchoring: advice serves as an anchor, thus causing an adjustment toward even useless advice. The data of our four experiments support these hypotheses. Judges systematically adjusted their estimates toward advice that we introduced to them as being useless, and this effect was stable after controlling for intentional utilization of this advice. Furthermore, we demonstrate that anchoring-based adjustment toward advice is independent of advice quality. Our findings enhance our understanding of the processes involved in advice taking and identify a potential threat to judgment accuracy arising from an inability to discount useless advice.

References

  • Anderson, C. A. & Sechler, E. S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 24–34. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.24 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G. & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 73–106. doi: 10.1162/00335530360535153 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bednarik, P. & Schultze, T. (2015). The effectiveness of improper weighting in advice taking. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 265–276. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1465–1476. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bonaccio, S. & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127–151. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Davis-Stober, C. P., Budescu, D. V., Dana, J. & Broomell, S. B. (2014). When is a crowd wise? Decision, 1, 79–101. doi: 10.1037/dec0000004 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12, 391–396. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00372 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Why adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17, 311–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Frederick, S. W. & Mochon, D. (2012). A scale distortion theory of anchoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 124–133. doi: 10.1037/a0024006 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Furnham, A. & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gardner, P. H. & Berry, D. C. (1995). The effect of different forms of advice on the control of a simulated complex system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 55–79. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350090706 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gino, F. (2008). Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 234–245. doi: 10.1037/h0025276 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gino, F., Brooks, A. W. & Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 491–512. doi: 10.1037/a0026413 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gino, F. & Moore, D. A. (2007). Effects of task difficulty on use of advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 21–35. doi: 10.1002/bdm.539 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gino, F. & Schweitzer, M. (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions influence advice taking. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1165–1173. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1165 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Gino, F., Shang, J. & Croson, R. (2009). The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 287–302. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.08.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harvey, N. & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 117–133. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2697 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harvey, N. & Harries, C. (2004). Effects of judges’ forecasting on their later combination of forecasts for the same outcomes. International Journal of Forecasting, 20, 391–409. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2003.09.012 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harvey, N., Harries, C. & Fischer, I. (2000). Using advice and assessing its quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 252–273. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1999.2874 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Herzog, S. & Hertwig, R. (2009). The Wisdom of Many in One Mind: Improving Individual Judgments With Dialectical Boot-strapping. Psychological Science, 20, 231–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02271.x First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Kadous, K., Krische, S. & Sedor, L. (2006). Using counter-explanation to limit analysts’ forecast optimism. The Accounting Review, 81, 377–397. doi: 10.2308/accr.2006.81.2.377 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lim, J. S. & O’Connor, M. (1995). Judgmental adjustment of initial forecasts: Its effectiveness and biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making, 8, 149–168. doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960080302 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Minson, J. A. & Mueller, J. S. (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23, 219–224. doi: 10.1177/0956797611429132 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, 472–489. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.472 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T., Pfeiffer, T. & Strack, F. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1142–1150. doi: 10.1177/01461672002611010 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136–164. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1364 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mussweiler, T. & Strack, F. (2001). Considering the impossible: Explaining the effects of implausible anchors. Social Cognition, 19, 145–160. doi: 10.1521/soco.19.2.145.20705 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oppenheimer, D., LeBoeuf, R. & Brewer, N. (2008). Anchors aweigh: A demonstration of cross-modality anchoring and magnitude priming. Cognition, 106, 13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.008 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Sniezek, J. A. & Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 159–174. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1040 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schultze, T., Rakotoarisoa, A. & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2015). Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 144–171. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Soll, J. B. & Larrick, R. (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: how (and how well) people use others’ opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 780–805. doi: 10.1037/a0015145 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Soll, J. B. & Mannes, A. E. (2011). Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved. International Journal of Forecasting, 27, 81–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.05.003 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 62–69. doi: 10.1006/jesp.2000.1431 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wong, K. F. E. & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 314–333. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2900 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Yaniv, I. (2004a). The benefit of additional opinions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 75–78. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00278.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yaniv, I. (2004b). Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.08.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yaniv, I. & Choshen-Hillel, S. (2012). When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1022–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.016 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Yaniv, I. & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260–281. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2909 First citation in articleCrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

  • Yaniv, I. & Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 104–210. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.006 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar