FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2609867867> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2609867867 abstract "Strategies for Evaluating Opinions: A Cross-Cultural Study Hugo Mercier (hmercier@isc.cnrs.fr) Institut Jean Nicod, 1bis, Avenue Lowendal Paris, 75007 France Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst (vanderhenst@isc.cnrs.fr) Institut des Sciences Cognitives, 67, boulevard Pinel Bron, 69675 France Hiroshi Yama (yama@mail.kobe-c.ac.jp) School of Human Sciences, Kobe College, 4-1 Okadayama Nishinomiya, 662-8505 Japan Yayoi Kawasaki (yayoi@iris.dti.ne.jp) School of Human Sciences, Kobe College, 4-1 Okadayama Nishinomiya, 662-8505 Japan Kuniko Adachi (k-adachi@osa.att.ne.jp) School of Human Sciences, Kobe College, 4-1 Okadayama Nishinomiya, 662-8505 Japan psychologists, under the headings of persuasion and attitude change. Here we will restrain the investigations to simple instantiations of these categories, using numerical estimates and giving only limited cues that might allow differentiating the value of the different opinions. Numerical estimates allow a precise evaluation of the way the various opinions involved are taken into account in establishing a final estimate. Abstract This paper aims at checking the cross-cultural validity of well-know findings concerning the way people integrate communicated information. In a first experiment, a Japanese and a French population weighted the advices they were given in similar ways. In a second experiment, both populations showed some evidence of bias towards their own answer relative to an advice. In both experiments, participants were more prone to choose one of the possible answers than to average over them. By replicating what had been previously found only in Western populations, these findings contradict some cross-cultural predictions. Mechanisms used in evaluating opinions Introduction Should you take your umbrella when leaving for work this morning? The weather forecast is good, but these clouds look quite menacing. Should you sell your shares in TransGear Inc.? Some experts say they will rise, but others predict a sudden drop. In everyday life we often have to rely, at least in part, on the opinions of other people. However, more often than not, these opinions are not in full agreement with each other. They may even openly clash, or they can contradict something you already thought. To deal with all these cases, we must be able to assess the value of the different pieces of information at our disposal, perhaps to reject some of them, before making our decisions. This paper will focus on the cases in which only two opinions are involved. They can either both come from some other people and pertain to a matter that we have no knowledge of; or an opinion can be given by someone else and be compared to our own. Broadly construed, this kind of phenomena has been extensively studied by social Several mechanisms designed to deal with these situations have been proposed. The first is the weighting heuristic (Yaniv, 1997). It is used when the quantitative estimates given are accompanied by a range of certainty. For example, one might predict that the chances that it rains tomorrow are of 50%, and give a range of 40 to 60%. Since it has been observed that confidence is correlated with accuracy (see Yaniv, Yates, & Smith, 1991), it is possible to use the size of the interval as a clue to the accuracy of the estimate. This is what the weighting heuristic does: it weights the different estimates by the relative size of the related interval: the wider the interval of an estimate, the smaller its weight. Other mechanisms are involved when one’s own opinion is involved in the process. In this case, the more robust finding is the self-other effect: it is a general bias to discount the other person’s opinion and to stick with one’s initial estimate (Harvey & Fischer, 1997; Lim & O'Connor, 1995; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000); see also (Mercier & Van der Henst, 2005). For a personal estimate of 0, and a communicated estimate of 100, the average final estimate will be around 30. This bias seems to depend on the distance separating one’s original opinion from the one that is" @default.
• W2609867867 created "2017-05-05" @default.
• W2609867867 creator A5005283382 @default.
• W2609867867 creator A5008786454 @default.
• W2609867867 creator A5058389100 @default.
• W2609867867 creator A5072330860 @default.
• W2609867867 creator A5089026187 @default.
• W2609867867 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2609867867 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2609867867 title "Strategies for Evaluating Opinions: A Cross-Cultural Study - eScholarship" @default.
• W2609867867 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2609867867 type Work @default.
• W2609867867 sameAs 2609867867 @default.
• W2609867867 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2609867867 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2609867867 hasAuthorship W2609867867A5005283382 @default.
• W2609867867 hasAuthorship W2609867867A5008786454 @default.
• W2609867867 hasAuthorship W2609867867A5058389100 @default.
• W2609867867 hasAuthorship W2609867867A5072330860 @default.
• W2609867867 hasAuthorship W2609867867A5089026187 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C168646138 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C2781310500 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C105795698 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C144024400 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C149923435 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C15744967 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C168646138 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C19165224 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C2776291640 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C2781310500 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C2908647359 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C33923547 @default.
• W2609867867 hasConceptScore W2609867867C77805123 @default.
• W2609867867 hasIssue "28" @default.
• W2609867867 hasLocation W26098678671 @default.
• W2609867867 hasOpenAccess W2609867867 @default.
• W2609867867 hasPrimaryLocation W26098678671 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W12679852 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W1535272433 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W1568473130 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W1682149967 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2000396213 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2019728854 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2038688246 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2071285904 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2106032541 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2136591320 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2138035124 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2185103196 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2256903694 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W231448966 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2318077769 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2323266428 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2396410512 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2427536174 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2586512630 @default.
• W2609867867 hasRelatedWork W2782414826 @default.
• W2609867867 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2609867867 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2609867867 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2609867867 magId "2609867867" @default.
• W2609867867 workType "article" @default.