Abstract:Advice taking and related research is dominated by deterministic weighting indices, specifically ratio‐of‐differences‐based formulas for investigating informational influence. Their arithmetic is intuitively simple, but they pose several measurement problems and restrict research to a particular paradigmatic approach. As a solution, we propose to specify how strongly peoples' judgments are influenced by externally provided evidence by fitting corresponding mixed‐effects regression models. Our approach explicitly distinguishes between endogenous components, such as updated beliefs, and exogenous components, such as independent initial judgments and advice. Crucially, mixed‐effects regression coefficients of various exogenous sources of information also reflect individual weighting but are based on a conceptually consistent representation of the endogenous judgment process. The formal derivation of the proposed weighting measures is accompanied by a detailed elaboration on their most important technical and statistical subtleties. We use this modeling approach to revisit empirical findings from several paradigms investigating algorithm aversion, sequential collaboration, and advice taking. In summary, we replicate and extend the original finding of algorithm appreciation and initially demonstrate a lack of evidence for both systematic order effects in sequential collaboration as well as differential weighting of multiple pieces of advice. In addition to opening new avenues for innovative research, appropriate modeling of information sampling and utilization has the potential to increase the reproducibility and replicability of behavioral science. Furthermore, the proposed method is relevant beyond advice taking, as mixed‐effects regression weights can also inform research on related cognitive phenomena such as multidimensional belief updating, anchoring effects, hindsight bias, or attitude change.

Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy–value model of attitudes

Myopic Loss Aversion or Equate-to-differentiate Heuristic? A Heuristic Decision Making Model for Both Single and Aggregated Plays.

When is More Better?

Scaling preferences using probabilistic choice models: is there a ratio-scale representation of subjective liking?

On the Benefits of Using Maximal Reliability in Educational and Behavioral Research

Combining factors

New Robust Scale Transformation Methods in the Presence of Outlying Common Items.

Mixed‐effects regression weights for advice taking and related phenomena of information sampling and utilization

Stability of Teacher Value-Added Rankings Across Measurement Model and Scaling Conditions

Improving the External Validity of Conjoint Analysis: The Essential Role of Profile Distribution

The Importance of Differential Weights in Multiple Attribute Models of Consumer Attitude

Adaptive testing with the GGUM-RANK multidimensional forced choice model: Comparison of pair, triplet, and tetrad scoring

Extreme Outcomes Accentuate Overweighting of Low Probabilities and Underweighting of High Probabilities in Experience‐Based Choice

Probability discounting of environmental gains: do we multiply or add up?

Interpreting moderated multiple regression: A comment on Van Iddekinge, Aguinis, Mackey, and DeOrtentiis (2018).

Interpreting and Testing Interactions in Conditional Mixture Models

Collected Notes on Aldrich-Mckelevey Scaling

Improving Likert scale big data analysis in psychometric health economics: reliability of the new compositional data approach

Balancing Higher Moments Matters for Causal Estimation: Further Context for the Results of Setodji et al. (2017)

Multidimensional credibility: A new approach based on joint distribution function

Leveraging covariate adjustments at scale in online A/B testing