Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking

Contents:

Author Info

  • Ilan Yaniv
  • Shoham Choshen-Hillel
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    We investigated how perspective-taking might be used to overcome bias and improve advice-based judgments. Decision makers often tend to underweight the opinions of others relative to their own, and thus fail to exploit the wisdom of others. We tested the idea that decision makers taking the perspective of another person engage a less egocentric mode of processing of advisory opinions and thereby improve their accuracy. In Studies 1-2, participants gave their initial opinions and then considered a sample of advisory opinions in two conditions. In one condition (self-perspective), they were asked to give their best advice-based estimates. In the second (other-perspective), they were asked to give advice-based estimates from the perspective of another judge. The dependent variables were the participants’ accuracy and indices that traced their judgment policy. In the self-perspective condition participants adhered to their initial opinions, whereas in the other-perspective condition they were far less egocentric, weighted the available opinions more equally and produced more accurate estimates. In Study 3, initial estimates were not elicited, yet the data patterns were consistent with these conclusions. All the studies suggest that switching perspectives allows decision makers to generate advice-based judgments that are superior to those they would otherwise have produced. We discuss the merits of perspective-taking as a procedure for correcting bias, suggesting that it is theoretically justifiable, practicable, and effective.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp622.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem in its series Discussion Paper Series with number dp622.

    as in new window
    Length: 19 pages
    Date of creation: Aug 2012
    Date of revision:
    Publication status: Published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 1022–1028
    Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp622

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Feldman Building - Givat Ram - 91904 Jerusalem
    Phone: +972-2-6584135
    Fax: +972-2-6513681
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.ratio.huji.ac.il/
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Harvey, Nigel & Harries, Clare, 2004. "Effects of judges' forecasting on their later combination of forecasts for the same outcomes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 391-409.
    2. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    3. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    4. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    5. Katherine Lyford Milkman & Dolly Chugh & Max H. Bazerman, 2008. "How Can Decision Making Be Improved?," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-102, Harvard Business School, revised Jul 2008.
    6. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    7. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp622. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ilan Nehama).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.