Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:34:23.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STRATEGIES FOR ADVICE TAKING: THE ROLE OF EPISTEMIC SOCIAL INFORMATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2015

Annika Wallin  and
Richard McElreath
Annika Wallin
Affiliation:
Department of Cognitive Science, Lund University, Box 192, 22100 Lund. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.fil.lu.se/person/AnnikaWallin
Richard McElreath
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, UC Davis, One Shields Avenue Davis, California 95616, USA. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://anthropology.ucdavis.edu/people/mcelreat
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

How does an individual decision maker update his or her beliefs in the light of others’ beliefs? We present an empirical investigation that varies decision makers’ access to other peoples’ beliefs: whether they know what course of action others have taken (in this case how a problem is solved) and whether they know why this course of action was taken (why a particular solution is preferred). We propose a number of process models of advice taking that do and do not accommodate the reasons given for belief (epistemic social information), and evaluate which is used through model comparison techniques.

Keywords

Adviceconformityepistemic informationimitationsocial information
Type
Symposium on Individual and Social Deliberation
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 67 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A. and Brunsman, B. 1996. The forgotten variable in conformity research: impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 915–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F. 2007. How do individuals solve the doctrinal paradox in collective decisions? an empirical investigation. Psychological Science 18: 753–755.Google Scholar
Bonnefon, J.-F. 2010. Behavioral evidence for framing effects in the resolution of the doctrinal paradox. Social Choice and Welfare 34: 631–641.Google Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W.. 2004. Voting procedures for complex collective decisions: an epistemic perspective. Ratio Juris 17: 241–258.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J.. 1985. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R.. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretical Approach (2nd edn). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory, Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Condorcet, J. A. 1785. Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probalités décisions rendures à la pluralité des voix. Paris: L’Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Davis, J. H. 1973. Group decision and social interaction. Psychological Review 80: 97–125.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. B.. 1955. A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51: 629–636.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Spiekermann, K.. 2013. Epistemic democracy with defensible premises. Economics and Philosophy 29: 87–120.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. and Wason, P. C.. 1976. Rationalisation in a reasoning task. British Journal of Psychology 63: 205–212.Google Scholar
Griggs, R. A. 1995. The effects of rule clarification, decision justification, and selection instruction on Wason's abstract selection task. In Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Peter Wason, ed. Newstead, S. E. and Evans, J. S. B. T., 17–39. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. and Boyd, R.. 1998. The evolution of conformist transmission and between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior 19: 215–242.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. and Gil-White, F.. 2001. The evolution of prestige: freely conferred status as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22: 1–32.Google Scholar
Hong, L. and Page, S. E.. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can out-perform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 16385–16389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, E. and Frey, D.. 2003. Information search and presentation in advisor–client interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91: 154–168.Google Scholar
Kameda, T. and Nakanishi, D.. 2002. Cost-benefit analysis of social/cultural learning in a nonstationary uncertain environment: an evolutionary simulation and an experiment with human subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior 23: 373–393.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. and Elster, J.. 2012. Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Larrick, R. P. and Soll, J. B.. 2006. Intuitions about combining opinions: misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Science 52: 111–127.Google Scholar
List, C. and Puppe, C.. 2009. Judgment aggregation: a survey. In Oxford Handbook of Rationality and Social Choice, ed. Anand, P., Puppe, C. and Pattanaik, P., 457–482. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElreath, R., Lubell, M., Richerson, P. J., Waring, T. M., Baum, W., Edsten, E., Efferson, C. and Paciotti, B.. 2005. Applying evolutionary models to the laboratory study of social learning. Evolution and Human Behavior 26: 483–508.Google Scholar
Moshman, D. and Geil, M.. 1998. Collaborative reasoning: evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning 4: 231–248.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. R. 1988. Does biology constrain culture? American Anthropologist 90: 819–831.Google Scholar
Schlag, K. 1998. Why imitate, and if so, how? A boundedly rational approach to multi-armed bandits. Journal of Economic Theory 78: 130–156.Google Scholar
Schlag, K. 1999. Which one should I imitate? Journal of Mathematical Economics 31: 493–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I., Nowlis, S. M. and Simonson, Y.. 1993. The effect of irrelevant preference arguments on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2: 287–306.Google Scholar
Sniezek, J. and Buckley, T.. 1995. Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62: 159–174.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2006. Deliberating groups vs prediction markets (or Hayek's challenge to Habermas). Episteme 3: 192–213.Google Scholar
Vulkan, N. 2000. An economist's perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 14: 101–118.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. 1966. Reasoning. In New Horizons in Psychology, ed. Foss, B. M., 135–151. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. 1968. Reasoning about a rule. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20: 273–281.Google Scholar
Wason, P. C. and Evans, J. S. B. T.. 1975. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition 3: 141–154.Google Scholar
Yaniv, I. 2004. Receiving other people's advice: influence and benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93: 1–13.Google Scholar
Yaniv, I. and Kleinberger, E.. 2000. Advice taking in decision making: ego-centric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83: 260–281.Google Scholar
Yaniv, I. and Milyavsky, M.. 2007. Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103: 104–120.Google Scholar
Yates, F., Price, P. C., Lee, J.-W. and Ramirez, J.. 1996. Good probabilistic forecasters: the ‘consumer's’ perspective. International Journal of Forecasting 12: 41–56.Google Scholar