IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp492.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Spurious Consensus and Opinion Revision: Why Might People Be More Confident in Their Less Accurate Judgments?

Author

Listed:
  • Ilan Yaniv
  • Shoham Choshen-Hillel
  • Maxim Milyavsky

Abstract

In the interest of improving their decision-making, individuals revise their opinions on the basis of samples of opinions obtained from others. However, such a revision process may lead decision-makers to experience greater confidence in their less accurate judgments. We theorize that people tend to underestimate the informative value of independently drawn opinions, if these appear to conflict with one another, yet place some confidence even in the "spurious consensus" which may arise when opinions are sampled interdependently. The experimental task involved people’s revision of their opinions (caloric estimates of foods) on the basis of advice. The method of sampling the advisory opinions (independent or interdependent) was the main factor. The results reveal a dissociation between confidence and accuracy. A theoretical underlying mechanism is suggested whereby people attend to consensus (consistency) cues at the expense of information on interdependence. Implications for belief-updating and for individual and group decisions are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Maxim Milyavsky, 2008. "Spurious Consensus and Opinion Revision: Why Might People Be More Confident in Their Less Accurate Judgments?," Discussion Paper Series dp492, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp492.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, Elke U. & Bã–Ckenholt, Ulf & Hilton, Denis J. & Wallace, Brian, 2000. "Confidence judgments as expressions of experienced decision conflict," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 69-100, April.
    2. Maines, Laureen A., 1996. "An experimental examination of subjective forecast combination," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 223-233, June.
    3. Bikhchandani, Sushil & Hirshleifer, David & Welch, Ivo, 1992. "A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change in Informational Cascades," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 992-1026, October.
    4. Yaniv, Ilan, 1997. "Weighting and Trimming: Heuristics for Aggregating Judgments under Uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 237-249, March.
    5. Peter M. DeMarzo & Dimitri Vayanos & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 2003. "Persuasion Bias, Social Influence, and Unidimensional Opinions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 118(3), pages 909-968.
    6. 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.
    7. Kroll, Yoram & Levy, Haim & Rapoport, Amnon, 1988. "Experimental Tests of the Separation Theorem and the Capital Asset Pricing Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(3), pages 500-519, June.
    8. Sniezek, Janet A., 1992. "Groups under uncertainty: An examination of confidence in group decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 124-155, June.
    9. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    2. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    3. Budescu, David V. & Rantilla, Adrian K. & Yu, Hsiu-Ting & Karelitz, Tzur M., 2003. "The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 178-194, January.
    4. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Yaniv, Ilan & Milyavsky, Maxim, 2007. "Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 104-120, May.
    9. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    10. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    11. Sgrignoli, P. & Agliari, E. & Burioni, R. & Schianchi, A., 2015. "Instability and network effects in innovative markets," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 260-271.
    12. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    13. Feri, Francesco & Meléndez-Jiménez, Miguel A. & Ponti, Giovanni & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 2011. "Error cascades in observational learning: An experiment on the Chinos game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 136-146, September.
    14. Gino, Francesca, 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, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    15. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    16. Corazzini, Luca & Pavesi, Filippo & Petrovich, Beatrice & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Influential listeners: An experiment on persuasion bias in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1276-1288.
    17. Antonio Guarino & Philippe Jehiel, 2013. "Social Learning with Coarse Inference," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 147-174, February.
    18. Jadbabaie, Ali & Molavi, Pooya & Sandroni, Alvaro & Tahbaz-Salehi, Alireza, 2012. "Non-Bayesian social learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 210-225.
    19. Ioannides, Yannis M., 2012. "Complexity and organizational architecture," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 193-202.
    20. Baddeley, Michelle & Parkinson, Sophia, 2012. "Group decision-making: An economic analysis of social influence and individual difference in experimental juries," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 558-573.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:huj:dispap:dp492. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.html .

    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.