Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility

Limited Access
This item is unavailable until:
2019-03-01
Date
2017
Editor(s)
Advisor
Supervisor
Co-Advisor
Co-Supervisor
Instructor
Source Title
International Journal of Forecasting
Print ISSN
0169-2070
Electronic ISSN
Publisher
Elsevier B.V.
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
280 - 297
Language
English
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Series
Abstract

In expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) for forecasting, the perceived credibility of an expert is likely to affect the weighting attached to their advice. Four experiments have investigated the extent to which the implicit weighting depends on the advisor's experienced (reflecting the accuracy of their past forecasts), or presumed (based on their status) credibility. Compared to a control group, advice from a source with a high experienced credibility received a greater weighting, but having a low level of experienced credibility did not reduce the weighting. In contrast, a high presumed credibility did not increase the weighting relative to a control group, while a low presumed credibility decreased it. When there were opportunities for the two types of credibility to interact, a high experienced credibility tended to eclipse the presumed credibility if the advisees were non-experts. However, when the advisees were professionals, both the presumed and experienced credibility of the advisor were influential in determining the weight attached to the advice.

Course
Other identifiers
Book Title
Citation
Published Version (Please cite this version)