Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
3
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
3 results for “advice taking”
Advice Taking under Uncertainty: The Impact of Genuine Advice versus Arbitrary Anchors on Judgment
<p>A major module of rational advice taking consists in the metacognitive ability to distinguish between credible advice and arbitrary anchors. Accordingly, we investigated the extent to which framing the very same information as either advice or anchor exerts a differential influence on quantitative judgments. Four experiments showed that although arbitrary anchors were given lower weight than advice, they nevertheless exerted a systematic impact on final judgments. Degree of integration was related to subjective confidence only in the advice condition, but not in the anchoring condition, suggesting that arbitrary anchors were not considered informative. Framing the source of advice as a human being versus as a computer did not affect our results. Only the aboutness of advice, that is, whether it targeted the focal judgment item, determined its influence on final judgments and on confidence. On the one hand, these findings speak to the (partial) sensitivity of human judges to the source and validity of advice under uncertainty. On the other hand, the persevering effect of arbitrary anchors demonstrates the dependence of judgments on unauthorized influences. Both findings together highlight the need to study advice taking from a metacognitive perspective.</p>
A consistency account of advice taking: Integrating the effects of advice consensus and advice distance
<p>Which factors determine how individuals utilize advice? Previous research focused on either the consensus or the proximity of advice. We develop a general account of advice taking, arguing that both consensus and proximity influence the consistency (or variance) of the information on hand. From this account, we derive a number of predictions regarding the effects of consensus, distance, and amount of advice on confidence, judgment revision, and advice weighting. Across three experiments, we orthogonally manipulated the distance and consensus of advice. The amount of advice was either measured (Experiments 1 and 2) or manipulated (Experiment 3). The results provide strong support for our consistency account of advice taking. It allows explaining a complex pattern of findings that neither consensus nor proximity alone can account for. This research advances our theoretical understanding of advice taking, while adding to a broader literature that highlights the importance of consistency of information for judgment and decision making.</p>
Advisors want their advice to be used – but not too much: An interpersonal perspective on advice taking
<p>Much advice taking research investigates whether advice weighting accords to normative principles for maximizing decision accuracy. The present research complements this normative perspective with an interpersonal one, arguing that judges should also pay attention to how much their advisors <em>want</em> them to weight advice. In four experiments, we found that advisors do not always want their advice to be adopted fully. Instead, they often give advice about which they are uncertain and therefore want their advice to be averaged with judges’ initial opinions or not used at all. Furthermore, advisors’ desired advice weighting is often congruent with the judges’ actual weighting, but moderators that affect advisor or judge confidence can cause desired and actual weighting to diverge (Experiments 1 and 2). When tasks were difficult, judges put more weight on the advice than advisors desired, because increasing the difficulty of the task led advisors to want their advice weighted less, whereas judges placed more weight on the advice. The reverse was true for easy tasks (Experiment 2). Importantly, both weighting more and less than advisors desired caused advisors to evaluate judges more negatively, which resulted in reduced willingness to give advice again in the future (Experiments 3 and 4), indicating that advisors want their advice used, but not too much.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.