• Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
Item View 
  •   Home
  • Naturwissenschaften, Mathematik und Informatik
  • Fakultät für Biologie und Psychologie (inkl. GAUSS)
  • Item View
  •   Home
  • Naturwissenschaften, Mathematik und Informatik
  • Fakultät für Biologie und Psychologie (inkl. GAUSS)
  • Item View
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Do we prefer consensual advice - even when it is detrimental to our judgment quality?

by Stella Katherina Wanzel
Doctoral thesis
Date of Examination:2017-12-11
Date of issue:2019-07-23
Advisor:Prof. Dr. Stefan Schulz-Hardt
Referee:Prof. Dr. Stefan Schulz-Hardt
Referee:Prof. Dr. Michael R. Waldmann
crossref-logoPersistent Address: http://dx.doi.org/10.53846/goediss-6688

 

 

Files in this item

Name:Dissertation Stella Wanzel.pdf
Size:1.03Mb
Format:PDF
Description:Dissertation
ViewOpen

The following license files are associated with this item:


Abstract

English

In our daily lives we frequently seek the advice of multiple persons to make informed judgements and decisions. Often, these opinions are not independent from each other but rather are correlated to some degree. This interdependence can result from individuals’ influencing each other, from using the same data, working in the same organization, etc. Previous literature has shown that interdependent opinions are less accurate, but also more consistent (in terms of similarity between the opinions) than independent opinions. Since independent opinions are more accurate individuals should prefer these over interdependent opinions. However, since the latter display a higher (albeit spurious) consensus individuals might take this as a signal for accuracy. In the present thesis I investigated individuals’ preference for interdependent vs. independent opinions in a set of overall 6 studies. In the first manuscript I disentangle a possible confound between interdependence of opinions and the similarity to the judge’s own estimate. In the second manuscript I explore individuals’ preference by giving them the opportunity to choose between interdependent and independent advice as well as by investigating how much they take both types of advice into account in scenarios where interdependent advice is more accurate as well as when it is less accurate than independent advice. My studies show, that individuals show a preference for dependent advice only when weighting it. When given the opportunity to choose, they pick the more accurate advice independent of its consistency. 
Keywords: Advice; Judgment; Decision making; Interdependent opinions; Correlated opinions
 

Statistik

Publish here

Browse

All of eDissFaculties & ProgramsIssue DateAuthorAdvisor & RefereeAdvisorRefereeTitlesTypeThis FacultyIssue DateAuthorAdvisor & RefereeAdvisorRefereeTitlesType

Help & Info

Publishing on eDissPDF GuideTerms of ContractFAQ

Contact Us | Impressum | Cookie Consents | Data Protection Information | Accessibility
eDiss Office - SUB Göttingen (Central Library)
Platz der Göttinger Sieben 1
Mo - Fr 10:00 – 12:00 h


Tel.: +49 (0)551 39-27809 (general inquiries)
Tel.: +49 (0)551 39-28655 (open access/parallel publications)
ediss_AT_sub.uni-goettingen.de
[Please replace "_AT_" with the "@" sign when using our email adresses.]
Göttingen State and University Library | Göttingen University
Medicine Library (Doctoral candidates of medicine only)
Robert-Koch-Str. 40
Mon – Fri 8:00 – 24:00 h
Sat - Sun 8:00 – 22:00 h
Holidays 10:00 – 20:00 h
Tel.: +49 551 39-8395 (general inquiries)
Tel.: +49 (0)551 39-28655 (open access/parallel publications)
bbmed_AT_sub.uni-goettingen.de
[Please replace "_AT_" with the "@" sign when using our email adresses.]