UCL Discovery

Abstract

People received advice from four sources and used it to produce a judgment, They also assessed the quality of advice by estimating the probability that it would be correct. They were better at assessing than at using advice: combinations of advice based on their assessments were superior to their judgments. Order of assessing and using advice, superficial differences between advisors, and using other methods of advice assessment had no significant effects on this superiority of advice assessment over advice use, However, use but not assessment was improved when some advisors exhibited biases opposite to those that people typically show. It appears that using advice imposes a heavier processing load than assessing its quality and that this load can be lightened by including advisors who exhibit unusual behavior. Their salience may help people working under a heavy processing load make appropriate pairings between advisor weights and advice, (C) 2000 Academic Press.