Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice

This paper expands research on the judge advisor system (JAS) by examining advice utilization and trust. Experiment 1 examined five factors that could increase utilization of expert advice: judge's trust in the advisor, advisor confidence, advisor accuracy, judge's prior relationship with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of social psychology 2005-09, Vol.44 (3), p.443-461
Main Authors: van Swol, Lyn M., Sniezek, Janet A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Affect
Biological and medical sciences
Decision Making
Expert Testimony - legislation & jurisprudence
Experts
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Judgment
Male
Money
Psychological effects
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Social interactions. Communication. Group processes
Social psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Trust
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper expands research on the judge advisor system (JAS) by examining advice utilization and trust. Experiment 1 examined five factors that could increase utilization of expert advice: judge's trust in the advisor, advisor confidence, advisor accuracy, judge's prior relationship with the advisor, and judge's power to set payment to the advisor. While judge's trust and advisor confidence correlated with the judge matching the advisor's advice, a stepwise regression found that of the five variables, advisor confidence was the only significant predictor of the judge matching the advisor. Experiment 2 examined trust without the role assignment to judge or advisor. While trust expressed in partner was not higher for the judge than the advisor in Experiment 1, in Experiment 2 trust in partner expressed by the low‐expertise dyad member was higher than trust expressed by the high‐expertise dyad member. Results from the two experiments are discussed in the context of Sniezek and Van Swol (2001).
ISSN:0144-6665
2044-8309
DOI:10.1348/014466604X17092