LAUSR

Abstract Past studies on advice-taking have typically not given decision makers a way to evaluate the quality of the advice, other than by comparing it to their own judgment. In reality, decision makers are often aware of cues that suggest which estimates or options are better. I consider this common, but neglected context, and examine how the relationship between advice and external cues affect perceptions of expertise. I propose that a recommendation that conflicts with external cues has opposing effects: it decreases perceptions of expertise as it lowers perceptions of accuracy, but it increases perceptions of expertise as it signals judgment independence. Because the latter is more affected by diminishing sensitivity than the former, the impact of level of conflict on expertise takes an inverted-U form. Further, consistent with the egocentric bias, I find that advisors underestimate the negative impact of a non-conflicting advice on perceptions of expertise.