Probing the Hypersalience Hypothesis-An Adapted Judge-Advisor System Tested in Individuals With Psychotic-Like Experiences

Can you trust this source? Advice taking in borderline personality disorder

Research suggests that patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) share a range of cognitive biases with patients with psychosis. As the disorder often manifests in dysfunctional social interactions, we assumed associated reasoning styles would be exaggerated in a social setting. For the present study, we applied the Judge-Advisor System by asking participants to provide initial estimates of a person's age and presumed hostility based on a portrait photo. Afterwards, we presented additional cues/advice in the form of responses by anonymous previous respondents. Participants could revise their estimate, seek additional advice, or make a decision. Contrary to our preregistered hypothesis, patients with BPD (n = 38) performed similarly to healthy controls (n = 30). Patients sought the same number of pieces of advice, were equally confident, and used advice in similar ways to revise their estimates. Thus, patients with BPD did trust advice. However, patients gave higher hostility ratings to the portrayed persons. In conclusion, patients with BPD showed no cognitive biases in seeking, evaluating, and integrating socially provided information. While the study implies emotional rather than cognitive biases in the disorder, cognitive biases may still prove to be useful treatment targets in order to encourage delaying and reflecting on extreme emotional responses in social interactions.

A meta-analysis of the weight of advice in decision-making

The degree to which people take advice, and the factors that influence advice-taking, are of broad interest to laypersons, professionals, and policy-makers. This meta-analysis on 346 effect sizes from 129 independent datasets (N = 17, 296) assessed the weight of advice in the judge-advisor system paradigm, as well as the influence of sample and task characteristics. Information about the advisor(s) that is suggestive of advice quality was the only unique predictor of the overall pooled weight of advice. Individuals adjusted estimates by 32%, 37%, and 48% in response to advisors described in ways that suggest low, neutral, or high quality advice, respectively. This indicates that the benefits of compromise and averaging may be lost if accurate advice is perceived to be low quality, or too much weight is given to inaccurate advice that is perceived to be high quality. When examining the three levels of perceived quality separately, advice-taking was greater for subjective and uncertain estimates, relative to objective estimates, when information about the advisor was neutral in terms of advice quality. Sample characteristics had no effect on advice-taking, thus providing no evidence that age, gender, or individualism influence the weight of advice. The findings contribute to current theoretical debates and provide direction for future research.