We report the results of a novel experiment that addresses two unresolved questions in the judgmental forecasting literature. First, how does combining the estimates of others differ from revising one’s own estimate based on the judgment of another? The experiment found that participants often...

We report the results of a novel experiment that addresses two unresolved questions in the judgmental forecasting literature. First, how does combining the estimates of others differ from revising one's own estimate based on the judgment of another? The experiment found that participants often...

Recent research has advanced our understanding of how people use the advice of others to update their beliefs. Because groups and teams play a significant role in organizations and collectively are wiser than their individual members, it is important to understand their influence on belief...

Incorporating input from others can enhance decision quality, yet often people do not effectively utilize advice. We propose that greater power increases the propensity to discount advice, and that a key mechanism explaining this effect is elevated confidence in one’s judgment. We investigate...

Due to an error in typesetting, Figures 1-4 and Tables 1-3 were incorrectly labeled as part of this paper in Management Science, Vol. 52, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 111-127. The figures and tables are reprinted correctly below and in the electronic version.

Averaging estimates is an effective way to improve accuracy when combining expert judgments, integrating group members' judgments, or using advice to modify personal judgments. If the estimates of two judges ever fall on different sides of the truth, which we term bracketing, averaging must...