Learning Processes in the Judge–Advisor System: A Neglected Advantage of Advice Taking

ABSTRACT Previous research in the judge–advisor paradigm has focused on how judges utilize the wisdom of others by taking their advice and on the beneficial effect of receiving advice on judges' postadvice final judgments about the exact same problem. However, a completely different possibility of how judges might benefit from advice has been overlooked so far: Learning processes could improve the accuracy of judges' subsequent initial judgments from one problem to another problem on the same type of task as well. Hence, we test the assumption that advice can induce individual performance enhancements that differ as a function of the advisor's judgment accuracy. The results of three experiments support our hypothesis and indicate positive learning, particularly when participants receive high‐quality advice. Furthermore, we show that external information about the advisor's accuracy is not crucial for the occurrence of these individual performance enhancements. In general, our results suggest that advice can have a positive effect on judges' subsequent initial judgments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Published
2025-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.70029
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
15.98
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Learning Processes in the Judge–Advisor System: A Neglected Advantage of Advice Taking

Alexander Stern, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz‐Hardt
1 citations
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
15.98
article

Learning Processes in the Judge–Advisor System: A Neglected Advantage of Advice Taking

Alexander Stern, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz‐Hardt
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Previous research in the judge–advisor paradigm has focused on how judges utilize the wisdom of others by taking their advice and on the beneficial effect of receiving advice on judges' postadvice final judgments about the exact same problem. However, a completely different possibility of how judges might benefit from advice has been overlooked so far: Learning processes could improve the accuracy of judges' subsequent initial judgments from one problem to another problem on the same type of task as well. Hence, we test the assumption that advice can induce individual performance enhancements that differ as a function of the advisor's judgment accuracy. The results of three experiments support our hypothesis and indicate positive learning, particularly when participants receive high‐quality advice. Furthermore, we show that external information about the advisor's accuracy is not crucial for the occurrence of these individual performance enhancements. In general, our results suggest that advice can have a positive effect on judges' subsequent initial judgments.

Journal of Behavioral Decision MakingVol. 38(3)
Queen's University Belfast (GB), University of Göttingen (DE), University of Bamberg (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
15.98
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.