Receiving advice on matters of taste: Similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination

Yaniv, Ilan; Choshen‐Hillel, Shoham; Milyavsky, Maxim

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.006

Cited by 61 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 correlated to his or her own, advice from a similar adviser is diagnostic and consequently more persuasive (Hovland et al 1953). Consistent with this explanation, the effect attenuates when correlated preferences cannot be inferred (e.g., when similarity is irrelevant to the advice topic) (Berscheid 1966;Simon, Berkowitz, and Moyer 1970;Wyer 2010), or when having correlated preferences with the adviser is less important for the advice-taker (Gino et al 2009;Goethals and Nelson 1973;Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel, and Milyavsky 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty

Faraji-Rad¹,

Samuelsen

Warlop

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 72%

On the Persuasiveness of Similar Others: The Role of Mentalizing and the Feeling of Certainty

Faraji-Rad¹,

Samuelsen

Warlop

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Not all judgments, however, can be evaluated against objective values. Notably, judgments on matters of taste are individual and subjective, in that different judges have different criteria for assessing the accuracy of opinions (Gilbert, Killingsworth, Eyre, & Wilson, 2009;Müller-Trede, Choshen-Hillel, Barneron, & Yaniv, 2017;Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel, & Milyavsky, 2011). One could imagine a continuum of judgments ranging from complete matters of taste (such as how good vanilla ice cream tastes) to facts (such as the length of a river) with other kinds of judgment that are between these endpoints (see Laughlin & Ellis, 1986, for a typology of tasks).…”

Section: General Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rate it again: Using the wisdom of many to improve performance evaluations

Barneron

Allalouf

Yaniv

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much research shows that judgmental estimation could be improved by combining estimates from independent judges as well as within judges. These results have been obtained mostly with judgments about matters of fact, that is, for which there are objective truth criteria. In the present research, we extend these findings to performance evaluations. In a controlled field study, expert judges provided evaluations of a large number of essays written by college applicants taking college entrance tests. The judges were asked to evaluate each essay twice—on two occasions, a week apart. This design allowed us to assess the benefits of two methods of combining evaluations: within rater and across raters. Accuracy gains were obtained with both methods. Although the within‐rater combinations yielded fewer gains than the across‐rater ones, they were still appreciable in comparison with the across rater ones. Our findings extend the class of judgments to which the “wisdom of many” could be applied. These findings are potentially applicable to performance evaluations in social, educational, and employment settings.

show abstract

“…We reversed these scores; thus, higher scores indicate greater accuracy (and therefore more knowledge). Second, because older students may not feel comfortable taking advice from younger counterparts (Yaniv, Choshen-Hillel, & Milyavsky, 2011), we controlled for age in all analyses.…”

Section: Design Procedure and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%