IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v33y2017i1p280-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility

Author

Listed:
  • Önkal, Dilek
  • Sinan Gönül, M.
  • Goodwin, Paul
  • Thomson, Mary
  • Öz, Esra

Abstract

In expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) for forecasting, the perceived credibility of an expert is likely to affect the weighting attached to their advice. Four experiments have investigated the extent to which the implicit weighting depends on the advisor’s experienced (reflecting the accuracy of their past forecasts), or presumed (based on their status) credibility. Compared to a control group, advice from a source with a high experienced credibility received a greater weighting, but having a low level of experienced credibility did not reduce the weighting. In contrast, a high presumed credibility did not increase the weighting relative to a control group, while a low presumed credibility decreased it. When there were opportunities for the two types of credibility to interact, a high experienced credibility tended to eclipse the presumed credibility if the advisees were non-experts. However, when the advisees were professionals, both the presumed and experienced credibility of the advisor were influential in determining the weight attached to the advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Önkal, Dilek & Sinan Gönül, M. & Goodwin, Paul & Thomson, Mary & Öz, Esra, 2017. "Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 280-297.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:33:y:2017:i:1:p:280-297
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.12.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207016300061
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Wei & Tan, Hun-Tong, 2013. "Judgment effects of familiarity with an analyst’s name," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 214-227.
    2. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    3. Harvey, Nigel & Harries, Clare & Fischer, Ilan, 2000. "Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 252-273, March.
    4. Wright, George & Bradfield, Ron & Cairns, George, 2013. "Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 631-642.
    5. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Sniezek, Janet A. & Van Swol, Lyn M., 2001. "Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 288-307, March.
    7. Goodwin, Paul & Sinan Gönül, M. & Önkal, Dilek, 2013. "Antecedents and effects of trust in forecasting advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 354-366.
    8. Sinan Gönül & Dilek Önkal & Paul Goodwin, 2009. "Expectations, use and judgmental adjustment of external financial and economic forecasts: an empirical investigation," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 19-37.
    9. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.
    10. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    11. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120.
    12. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    13. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
    14. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Hirst, DE & Koonce, L & Miller, J, 1999. "The joint effect of management's prior forecast accuracy and the form of its financial forecasts on investor judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37, pages 101-124.
    16. Önkal, Dilek & Sayım, Kadire Zeynep & Gönül, Mustafa Sinan, 2013. "Scenarios as channels of forecast advice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 772-788.
    17. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    18. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    19. See, Kelly E. & Morrison, Elizabeth W. & Rothman, Naomi B. & Soll, Jack B., 2011. "The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 272-285.
    20. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    21. Bettman, James R & Zins, Michel A, 1979. "Information Format and Choice Task Effects in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 141-153, Se.
    22. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another's enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120, January.
    23. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    24. Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Döpke, Jörg & Müller, Karsten & Tegtmeier, Lars, 2018. "The economic value of business cycle forecasts for potential investors – Evidence from Germany," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 445-461.

    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:eee:intfor:v:33:y:2017:i:1:p:280-297. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.