Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Zaleskiewicz T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5037174 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Zaleskiewicz Tomasz T Gasiorowska Agata A Stasiuk Katarzyna K Maksymiuk Renata R Bar-Tal Yoram Y

Frontiers in psychology 20160927

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' expect ...[more]

PMID: 27729892

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe onset, treatment and trajectory of cancer is associated with financial stress among patients across a range of health and welfare systems and has been identified as a significant unmet need. Welfare rights advice can be delivered effectively in healthcare settings, has the potential to alleviate financial stress, but has not yet been evaluated. We present an evaluation of a welfare rights advice intervention designed to address the financial consequences of cancer.MethodsDescriptive study of welfare outcomes among 533 male and 641 female cancer patients and carers aged 4-95 (mean 62) years, who accessed the welfare rights advice service in North East England between April 2009 and March 2010; and qualitative interview study of a maximum variation sample of 35 patients and 9 carers.ResultsOver two thirds of cancer patients and carers came from areas of high socio-economic deprivation. Welfare benefit claims were successful for 96% of claims made and resulted in a median increase in weekly income of £70.30 ($109.74, €84.44). Thirty-four different types of benefits or grants were awarded. Additional resources were perceived to lessen the impact of lost earnings, help offset costs associated with cancer, reduce stress and anxiety and increase ability to maintain independence and capacity to engage in daily activities, all of which were perceived to impact positively on well-being and quality of life. Key barriers to accessing benefit entitlements were knowledge, system complexity, eligibility concerns and assumptions that health professionals would alert patients to entitlements.ConclusionsThe intervention proved feasible, effectively increased income for cancer patients and was highly valued. Addressing the financial sequelae of cancer can have positive social and psychological consequences that could significantly enhance effective clinical management and suitable services should be routinely available. Further research is needed to evaluate health outcomes definitely and assess cost-effectiveness.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets