Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorÖnkal D.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGoodwin, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorThomson, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGönül, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPollock, A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T10:02:26Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T10:02:26Z
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.identifier.issn0894-3257
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/22613
dc.description.abstractDecision makers and forecasters often receive advice from different sources including human experts and statistical methods. This research examines, in the context of stock price forecasting, how the apparent source of the advice affects the attention that is paid to it when the mode of delivery of the advice is identical for both sources. In Study 1, two groups of participants were given the same advised point and interval forecasts. One group was told that these were the advice of a human expert and the other that they were generated by a statistical forecasting method. The participants were then asked to adjust forecasts they had previously made in light of this advice. While in both cases the advice led to improved point forecast accuracy and better calibration of the prediction intervals, the advice which apparently emanated from a statistical method was discounted much more severely. In Study 2, participants were provided with advice from two sources. When the participants were told that both sources were either human experts or both were statistical methods, the apparent statistical-based advice had the same influence on the adjusted estimates as the advice that appeared to come from a human expert. However when the apparent sources of advice were different, much greater attention was paid to the advice that apparently came from a human expert. Theories of advice utilization are used to identify why the advice of a human expert is likely to be preferred to advice from a statistical method.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleJournal of Behavioral Decision Makingen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.637en_US
dc.subjectAdviceen_US
dc.subjectAdvice utilizationen_US
dc.subjectForecast adjustmenten_US
dc.subjectForecastingen_US
dc.subjectRole of expertsen_US
dc.subjectSource framingen_US
dc.titleThe relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustmentsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Managementen_US
dc.citation.spage390en_US
dc.citation.epage409en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber22en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/bdm.637en_US
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons Ltden_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record