Cargando…

Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias

The goal of this experimental project was to investigate lay peoples’ perceptions of epistemic authority (EA) in the field of finance. EA is defined as the extent to which a source of information is treated as evidence for judgments independently of its objective expertise and based on subjective be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz, Gasiorowska, Agata, Stasiuk, Katarzyna, Maksymiuk, Renata, Bar-Tal, Yoram
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27729892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01476
_version_ 1782455681928921088
author Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz
Gasiorowska, Agata
Stasiuk, Katarzyna
Maksymiuk, Renata
Bar-Tal, Yoram
author_facet Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz
Gasiorowska, Agata
Stasiuk, Katarzyna
Maksymiuk, Renata
Bar-Tal, Yoram
author_sort Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz
collection PubMed
description The goal of this experimental project was to investigate lay peoples’ perceptions of epistemic authority (EA) in the field of finance. EA is defined as the extent to which a source of information is treated as evidence for judgments independently of its objective expertise and based on subjective beliefs. Previous research suggested that EA evaluations are biased and that lay people tend to ascribe higher EA to experts who advise action (in the case of medical experts) or confirm clients’ expectations (in the case of politicians). However, there has been no research into biases in lay evaluations of financial experts and this project is aimed to fill this gap. Experiment 1 showed that lay people tended to ascribe greater authority to financial consultants who gave more active advice to clients considering taking out a mortgage. Experiment 2 confirmed the action advice effect found in Experiment 1. However, the outcomes of Experiments 2 and – particularly – 3 suggested that this bias might also be due to clients’ desire to confirm their own opinions. Experiment 2 showed that the action advice effect was moderated by clients’ own opinions on taking loans. Lay people ascribed the greatest EA to the advisor in the scenario in which he advised taking action and where this coincided with the client’s positive opinion on the advisability of taking out a loan. In Experiment 3 only participants with a positive opinion on the financial product ascribed greater authority to experts who recommended it; participants whose opinion was negative tended to rate consultants who advised rejecting the product more highly. To conclude, these three experiments revealed that lay people ascribe higher EA to financial consultants who advise action rather than maintenance of the status quo, but this effect is limited by confirmation bias: when the client’s a priori opinion is salient, greater authority is ascribed to experts whose advice confirms it. In this sense, results presented in the present paper suggest that the action advice effect might be also interpreted as a specific manifestation of confirmation bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5037174
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50371742016-10-11 Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz Gasiorowska, Agata Stasiuk, Katarzyna Maksymiuk, Renata Bar-Tal, Yoram Front Psychol Psychology The goal of this experimental project was to investigate lay peoples’ perceptions of epistemic authority (EA) in the field of finance. EA is defined as the extent to which a source of information is treated as evidence for judgments independently of its objective expertise and based on subjective beliefs. Previous research suggested that EA evaluations are biased and that lay people tend to ascribe higher EA to experts who advise action (in the case of medical experts) or confirm clients’ expectations (in the case of politicians). However, there has been no research into biases in lay evaluations of financial experts and this project is aimed to fill this gap. Experiment 1 showed that lay people tended to ascribe greater authority to financial consultants who gave more active advice to clients considering taking out a mortgage. Experiment 2 confirmed the action advice effect found in Experiment 1. However, the outcomes of Experiments 2 and – particularly – 3 suggested that this bias might also be due to clients’ desire to confirm their own opinions. Experiment 2 showed that the action advice effect was moderated by clients’ own opinions on taking loans. Lay people ascribed the greatest EA to the advisor in the scenario in which he advised taking action and where this coincided with the client’s positive opinion on the advisability of taking out a loan. In Experiment 3 only participants with a positive opinion on the financial product ascribed greater authority to experts who recommended it; participants whose opinion was negative tended to rate consultants who advised rejecting the product more highly. To conclude, these three experiments revealed that lay people ascribe higher EA to financial consultants who advise action rather than maintenance of the status quo, but this effect is limited by confirmation bias: when the client’s a priori opinion is salient, greater authority is ascribed to experts whose advice confirms it. In this sense, results presented in the present paper suggest that the action advice effect might be also interpreted as a specific manifestation of confirmation bias. Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5037174/ /pubmed/27729892 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01476 Text en Copyright © 2016 Zaleskiewicz, Gasiorowska, Stasiuk, Maksymiuk and Bar-Tal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz
Gasiorowska, Agata
Stasiuk, Katarzyna
Maksymiuk, Renata
Bar-Tal, Yoram
Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title_full Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title_fullStr Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title_full_unstemmed Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title_short Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias
title_sort lay evaluation of financial experts: the action advice effect and confirmation bias
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5037174/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27729892
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01476
work_keys_str_mv AT zaleskiewicztomasz layevaluationoffinancialexpertstheactionadviceeffectandconfirmationbias
AT gasiorowskaagata layevaluationoffinancialexpertstheactionadviceeffectandconfirmationbias
AT stasiukkatarzyna layevaluationoffinancialexpertstheactionadviceeffectandconfirmationbias
AT maksymiukrenata layevaluationoffinancialexpertstheactionadviceeffectandconfirmationbias
AT bartalyoram layevaluationoffinancialexpertstheactionadviceeffectandconfirmationbias