How numeric advice precision affects advice taking

Thomas Schultze; David D. Loschelder

doi:10.1002/bdm.2211

How numeric advice precision affects advice taking

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Standard

How numeric advice precision affects advice taking. / Schultze, Thomas; Loschelder, David D.
In: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 34, No. 3, 07.2021, p. 303-310.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Bibtex

@article{f8e04f2a2d90435f8e4ec7ce9e22dccb,

title = "How numeric advice precision affects advice taking",

abstract = "Advice is a powerful means to improve peoples' judgments and decisions. Because advice quality is rarely apparent, decision‐makers must infer it from the characteristics of the advisor or the advice itself. Here, we focus on a largely neglected advice characteristic that should signal quality: advice precision. In a preregistered, high‐powered study (N = 195), we tested the effects of advice precision on advice taking. Drawing from past research and theorizing on anchor precision, we derived and tested two competing hypotheses for the relation of advice precision and advice taking—one predicting a monotone increase in advice taking when advice precision increases and the other predicting a backfiring effect of overly precise advice resulting in an inverted U‐shape. Our results support the notion of a monotone, albeit not a strong monotone, relationship. Higher perceived advice quality correlated with individuals' advice taking. Consistent with the idea that advice precision serves as a cue for advice quality, the effect of advice precision on advice taking was statistically mediated by perceived advice quality. Although the mediation analysis does not allow for causal interpretation because we did not manipulate the mediating variable, it shows that the effect of advice precision on advice taking is not merely a demand effect. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.",

keywords = "Business psychology, advice taking, judment and decision making, numerical precision, social influence",

author = "Thomas Schultze and Loschelder, {David D.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",

year = "2021",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1002/bdm.2211",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

pages = "303--310",

journal = "Journal of Behavioral Decision Making",

issn = "0894-3257",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Ltd.",

number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - How numeric advice precision affects advice taking

AU - Schultze, Thomas

AU - Loschelder, David D.

PY - 2021/7

Y1 - 2021/7

N2 - Advice is a powerful means to improve peoples' judgments and decisions. Because advice quality is rarely apparent, decision‐makers must infer it from the characteristics of the advisor or the advice itself. Here, we focus on a largely neglected advice characteristic that should signal quality: advice precision. In a preregistered, high‐powered study (N = 195), we tested the effects of advice precision on advice taking. Drawing from past research and theorizing on anchor precision, we derived and tested two competing hypotheses for the relation of advice precision and advice taking—one predicting a monotone increase in advice taking when advice precision increases and the other predicting a backfiring effect of overly precise advice resulting in an inverted U‐shape. Our results support the notion of a monotone, albeit not a strong monotone, relationship. Higher perceived advice quality correlated with individuals' advice taking. Consistent with the idea that advice precision serves as a cue for advice quality, the effect of advice precision on advice taking was statistically mediated by perceived advice quality. Although the mediation analysis does not allow for causal interpretation because we did not manipulate the mediating variable, it shows that the effect of advice precision on advice taking is not merely a demand effect. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.

AB - Advice is a powerful means to improve peoples' judgments and decisions. Because advice quality is rarely apparent, decision‐makers must infer it from the characteristics of the advisor or the advice itself. Here, we focus on a largely neglected advice characteristic that should signal quality: advice precision. In a preregistered, high‐powered study (N = 195), we tested the effects of advice precision on advice taking. Drawing from past research and theorizing on anchor precision, we derived and tested two competing hypotheses for the relation of advice precision and advice taking—one predicting a monotone increase in advice taking when advice precision increases and the other predicting a backfiring effect of overly precise advice resulting in an inverted U‐shape. Our results support the notion of a monotone, albeit not a strong monotone, relationship. Higher perceived advice quality correlated with individuals' advice taking. Consistent with the idea that advice precision serves as a cue for advice quality, the effect of advice precision on advice taking was statistically mediated by perceived advice quality. Although the mediation analysis does not allow for causal interpretation because we did not manipulate the mediating variable, it shows that the effect of advice precision on advice taking is not merely a demand effect. Implications of our findings for theory and practice are discussed.

KW - Business psychology

KW - advice taking

KW - judment and decision making

KW - numerical precision

KW - social influence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091604410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bdm.2211

DO - 10.1002/bdm.2211

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 34

SP - 303

EP - 310

JO - Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

JF - Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

SN - 0894-3257

IS - 3

ER -

Related by journal

What Provides Justification for Cheating-Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Bassarak, C., Leib, M., Mischkowski, D., Strang, S., Glöckner, A. & Shalvi, S., 10.2017, In: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 30, 4, p. 964-975 12 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Decision making is painful, we knew it all along! Conflict and tradeoffs in decision making, Elke U. Weber, Jonathan Baron and Graham Loomes (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 347 pp., ISBN 0-521-77238-9 (hb)

Pfister, H.-R., 01.01.2003, In: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 16, 1, p. 73-75 3 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Critical reviews › Research

Other publications by the same author(s)

A psychological framework for social skill acquisition in immersive VR environments: Conceptualization, application, and empirical evaluation

Escher, Y. A., Petrowsky, H. M., Knabbe, F., Kuhl, P. & Loschelder, D. D., 12.08.2025, In: Computers in Human Behavior Reports. 19, 15 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Optimizing counteroffers: How timing and magnitude shape sale prices and impasses in 26 million asynchronous online negotiations

Teichmann, L., Petrowsky, H. M., Escher, Y. A., Lee, A. J. & Loschelder, D. D., 04.06.2025, (E-pub ahead of print) In: Group Decision and Negotiation. 26 p.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Round, just-below, or precise prices? Cultural differences in the prevalence of price endings in E-commerce

Ventura, A., Troll, E. S., Soliman, M. & Loschelder, D. D., 2025, In: Frontiers in Behavioral Economics. 4, 18 p., 1296207.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Self-Control Following Prior Exertion: An Empirical Test of the Motivational Shift and Compensatory Effort Hypotheses

Mlynski, C., Roth, L., Loschelder, D. D., Gieseler, K., Job, V. & Friese, M., 30.01.2025, In: Collabra: Psychology. 11, 1, 14 p., 128616.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Vlasceanu, M., Doell, K. C., Bak-Coleman, J. B., Todorova, B., Berkebile-Weinberg, M. M., Grayson, S. J., Patel, Y., Goldwert, D., Pei, Y., Chakroff, A., Pronizius, E., Broek, K. L. V. D., Vlasceanu, D., Constantino, S., Morais, M. J., Schumann, P., Rathje, S., Fang, K., Aglioti, S. M., Alfano, M., Alvarado-Yepez, A. J., Andersen, A., Anseel, F., Apps, M. A. J., Asadli, C., Awuor, F. J., Azevedo, F., Basaglia, P., Bélanger, J. J., Berger, S., Bertin, P., Białek, M., Bialobrzeska, O., Blaya-Burgo, M., Bleize, D. N. M., Bø, S., Boecker, L., Boggio, P. S., Borau, S., Bos, B., Bouguettaya, A., Brauer, M., Brick, C., Brik, T., Briker, R., Brosch, T., Buchel, O., Buonauro, D., Butalia, R., Carvacho, H., Chamberlain, S. A. E., Chan, H.-Y., Chow, D., Chung, D., Cian, L., Cohen-Eick, N., Contreras-Huerta, L. S., Contu, D., Cristea, V., Cutler, J., D'Ottone, S., Keersmaecker, J. D., Delcourt, S., Delouvée, S., Diel, K., Douglas, B. D., Drupp, M. A., Dubey, S., Ekmanis, J., Elbaek, C. T., Elsherif, M., Engelhard, I. M., Escher, Y. A., Etienne, T. W., Farage, L., Farias, A. R., Feuerriegel, S., Findor, A., Freira, L., Friese, M., Gains, N. P., Gallyamova, A., Geiger, S. J., Genschow, O., Gjoneska, B., Gkinopoulos, T., Goldberg, B., Goldenberg, A., Gradidge, S., Grassini, S., Gray, K., Grelle, S., Griffin, S. M., Grigoryan, L., Grigoryan, A., Grigoryev, D., Gruber, J., Guilaran, J., Hadar, B., Hahnel, U. J. J., Halperin, E., Harvey, A. J., Haugestad, C. A. P., Herman, A. M., Hershfield, H. E., Himichi, T., Hine, D. W., Hofmann, W., Howe, L., Huaman-Chulluncuy, E. T., Huang, G., Ishii, T., Ito, A., Jia, F., Jost, J. T., Jovanović, V., Jurgiel, D., Kácha, O., Kankaanpää, R., Kantorowicz, J., Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, E., Mintz, K. K., Kaya, I., Kaya, O., Khachatryan, N., Klas, A., Klein, C., Klöckner, C. A., Koppel, L., Kosachenko, A. I., Kothe, E. J., Krebs, R., Krosch, A. R., Krouwel, A. P. M., Kyrychenko, Y., Lagomarsino, M., Lamm, C., Lange, F., Cunningham, J. L., Lees, J., Leung, T. Y., Levy, N., Lockwood, P. L., Longoni, C., Ortega, A. L., Loschelder, D. D., Lu, J. G., Luo, Y., Luomba, J., Lutz, A. E., Majer, J. M., Markowitz, E., Marsh, A. A., Mascarenhas, K. L., Mbilingi, B., Mbungu, W., McHugh, C., Meijers, M. H. C., Mercier, H., Mhagama, F. L., Michalakis, K., Mikus, N., Milliron, S., Mitkidis, P., Monge-Rodríguez, F. S., Mora, Y. L., Moreau, D., Motoki, K., Moyano, M., Mus, M., Navajas, J., Nguyen, T. L., Nguyen, D. M., Nguyen, T., Niemi, L., Nijssen, S. R. R., Nilsonne, G., Nitschke, J. P., Nockur, L., Okura, R., Öner, S., Özdoğru, A. A., Palumbo, H., Panagopoulos, C., Panasiti, M. S., Pärnamets, P., Paruzel-Czachura, M., Pavlov, Y. G., Payán-Gómez, C., Pearson, A. R., Costa, L. P. D., Petrowsky, H. M., Pfattheicher, S., Pham, N. T., Ponizovskiy, V., Pretus, C., Rêgo, G. G., Reimann, R., Rhoads, S. A., Riano-Moreno, J., Richter, I., Röer, J. P., Rosa-Sullivan, J., Ross, R. M., Sabherwal, A., Saito, T., Sarrasin, O., Say, N., Schmid, K., Schmitt, M. T., Schoenegger, P., Scholz, C., Schug, M. G., Schulreich, S., Shreedhar, G., Shuman, E., Sivan, S., Sjåstad, H., Soliman, M., Soud, K., Spampatti, T., Sparkman, G., Spasovski, O., Stanley, S. K., Stern, J. A., Strahm, N., Suko, Y., Sul, S., Syropoulos, S., Taylor, N. C., Tedaldi, E., Tinghög, G., Huynh, L. D. T., Travaglino, G. A., Tsakiris, M., Tüter, İ., Tyrala, M., Uluğ, Ö. M., Urbanek, A., Valko, D., Linden, S. V. D., Schie, K. V., Stekelenburg, A. V., Vanags, E., Västfjäll, D., Vesely, S., Vintr, J., Vranka, M., Wanguche, P. O., Willer, R., Wojcik, A. D., Xu, R., Yadav, A., Zawisza, M., Zhao, X., Zhao, J., Żuk, D. & Bavel, J. J. V., 09.02.2024, In: Science Advances. 10, 6, 19 p., eadj5778.

Research output: Journal contributions › Journal articles › Research › peer-review

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2211
Final published version

How numeric advice precision affects advice taking

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

RIS

Related by journal

What Provides Justification for Cheating-Producing or Observing Counterfactuals?

Decision making is painful, we knew it all along! Conflict and tradeoffs in decision making, Elke U. Weber, Jonathan Baron and Graham Loomes (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, 347 pp., ISBN 0-521-77238-9 (hb)

Other publications by the same author(s)

A psychological framework for social skill acquisition in immersive VR environments: Conceptualization, application, and empirical evaluation

Optimizing counteroffers: How timing and magnitude shape sale prices and impasses in 26 million asynchronous online negotiations

Round, just-below, or precise prices? Cultural differences in the prevalence of price endings in E-commerce

Self-Control Following Prior Exertion: An Empirical Test of the Motivational Shift and Compensatory Effort Hypotheses

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

DOI

Recently viewed

Researchers

Projects

Activities

Publications

Press / Media