The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking

11440 10 67906 2 187833 document 67906 The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking.pdf application/pdf b0047de5e6b96b6851a6dc279926be4e MD5 837480 2016-07-25 07:56:20 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/11440/1/The%20effectiveness%20of%20imperfect%20weighting%20in%20advice%20taking.pdf 11440 1 1 application/pdf text en public cc_by

The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking.pdf

published 67907 2 187836 document 67907 lightbox.jpg image/png 6cd017505d243400a1e3f64054f2470f MD5 53948 2016-07-25 07:56:32 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/11440/2/lightbox.jpg 11440 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en public

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

indexcodes.txt

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/67906 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/67906 http://eprints.org/relation/isIndexCodesVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/67906 archive 351 disk0/00/01/14/40 2016-01-15 08:53:16 2021-08-27 17:39:54 2016-01-15 08:53:16 article show Bednarik P. 2085 Schultze T. The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking pub iis_mod prog_eep prog_risk prog_pds prog_rpv advice taking; judge-advisor-system; rational behavior; normative model We investigate decision-making in the Judge-Advisor-System where one person, the "judge", wants to estimate the number of a certain entity and is given advice by another person. The question is how to combine the judge's initial estimate and that of the advisor in order to get the optimal expected outcome. A previous approach compared two frequently applied strategies, taking the average or choosing the better estimate. In most situations, averaging produced the better estimates. However, this approach neglected a third strategy that judges frequently use, namely a weighted mean of the judges' initial estimate and the advice. We compare the performance of averaging and choosing to weighting in a theoretical analysis. If the judge can, without error, detect ability differences between judge and advisor, a straight-forward calculation shows that weighting outperforms both of these strategies. More interestingly, after introducing errors in the perception of the ability differences, we show that such emph{imperfect} weighting may or may not be the optimal strategy. The relative performance of imperfect weighting compared to averaging or choosing depends on the size of the actual ability differences as well as the magnitude of the error. However, for a sizeable range of ability differences and errors, weighting is preferable to averaging and more so to choosing. Our analysis expands previous research by showing that weighting, even when imperfect, is an appropriate advice taking strategy and under which circumsances judges benefit most from applying it. 2015-05 published Society for Judgment and Decision Making http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14731/jdm14731.pdf XJ-15-122 Judgment and Decision Making; 10(3):265-276 (May 2015) <journal.sjdm.org/14/14731/jdm14731.pdf> 27 public Judgment and Decision Making 10 3 265-276 TRUE 1930-2975 FALSE info:eu-repo/semantics/article