Past research on advice-taking has suggested that people are often insensitive to the level of advice independence when combining forecasts from advisors. However, this has primarily been tested for cases in which people receive numeric forecasts. Recent work by Mislavsky and Gaertig (2022) shows that people sometimes employ different strategies when combining verbal versus numeric forecasts about the likelihood of future events. Specifically, likelihood judgments based on two verbal forecasts (e.g., "rather likely") are more often extreme (relative to the forecasts) than are likelihood judgments based on two numeric forecasts (e.g., "70% probability"). The goal of the present research was to investigate whether advice-takers' use of combination strategies can be sensitive to advice independence when differences in independence are highly salient and whether sensitivity to advice independence depends on the format in which advice is given. In two studies, we found that advice-takers became more extreme with their own likelihood estimate when combining forecasts from advisors who use separate evidence, as opposed to the same evidence. We also found that two verbal forecasts generally resulted in more extreme combined likelihood estimates than two numeric forecasts. However, the results did not suggest that sensitivity to advice independence depends on the format of advice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

结合顾问的预测：建议独立性以及口头与数字格式的影响。


过去关于听取建议的研究表明，在结合顾问的预测时，人们往往对建议的独立性程度不敏感。然而，这主要针对人们收到数字预测的情况进行了测试。 Mislavsky 和 ​​Gaertig (2022) 最近的研究表明，人们在结合对未来事件可能性的口头预测和数字预测时有时会采用不同的策略。具体而言，基于两个口头预测（例如，“相当有可能”）的可能性判断通常比基于两个数字预测（例如，“70%概率”）的可能性判断更极端（相对于预测）。本研究的目的是调查当独立性差异非常显着时，建议接受者使用组合策略是否会对建议独立性敏感，以及对建议独立性的敏感性是否取决于给出建议的格式。在两项研究中，我们发现，当结合使用单独证据（而不是相同证据）的顾问的预测时，建议接受者对自己的可能性估计变得更加极端。我们还发现，两个口头预测通常会比两个数字预测产生更极端的组合可能性估计。然而，结果并不表明对建议独立性的敏感性取决于建议的格式。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。