IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i6p909-925_3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inducing feelings of ignorance makes people more receptive to expert (economist) opinion

Author

Listed:
  • Meyers, Ethan A.
  • Turpin, Martin H.
  • Białek, Michał
  • Fugelsang, Jonathan A.
  • Koehler, Derek J.

Abstract

While they usually should, people do not revise their beliefs more to expert (economist) opinion than to lay opinion. The present research sought to better understand the factors that make it more likely for an individual to change their mind when faced with the opinions of expert economists versus the general public. Across five studies we examined the role that overestimation of knowledge plays in this behavior. We replicated the finding that people fail to privilege the opinion of experts over the public across two different (Study 1) and five different (Study 5) economic issues. We further find that undermining an illusion of both topic-relevant (Studies 2–4) and -irrelevant knowledge (Studies 3 and 4) leads to greater normative belief revision in response to expert rather than lay opinion. We suggest one reason that people fail to revise their beliefs more in response to experts is because people think they know more than they really do.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyers, Ethan A. & Turpin, Martin H. & Białek, Michał & Fugelsang, Jonathan A. & Koehler, Derek J., 2020. "Inducing feelings of ignorance makes people more receptive to expert (economist) opinion," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(6), pages 909-925, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:909-925_3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500008135/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:909-925_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.