Nonprofit Organizational Assessment

Advice Utilization
Advice utilization is the degree to which judges take advisor advice into consideration in
their final decision outcome, and advice discounting is any effect that lowers the degree
of advice utilization. Both of these terms are frequently used interchangeably in JAS
literature, as they are related in opposition to one another (i.e., advice discounting is a
lack of advice utilization). The amount of utilization is one of the most considered
outcomes of a JAS decision process and depends on all the types of inputs described
below. In addition to these inputs, there are theories for other sources of advice
discounting in decision-making literature; three of the most dominant theories are
differential information, anchoring, and egocentric bias. [4] The differential information
theory proposes that advice discounting stems from the fact that, unlike with people's
own opinions, they are not aware of advisors' internal reasons for their opinions and so
are less apt to fully accept them. The second theory, anchoring, suggests that people
use their own opinion as to the starting point for their choice, and only use advisor input
to a certain extent that will adjust their initial position up or down. The third
theory, egocentric bias, proposes advice discounting happens due to judges believing
they are superior to others, so weigh their own opinion stronger than inputs from any
other source.
In JAS literature, one of the most robust advice discounting classification is egocentric
advice discounting, which draws conceptually from the basic theories of anchoring and
egocentric bias. Simply put, egocentric advice discounting is the tendency of individuals
to prefer advice and opinions that closely align to their own opinions formed prior to
hearing any input. Therefore, judges tend to overly weigh advice from advisors that is
similar to their own viewpoint regardless of what sort of expertise an advisor appears to
have. Conversely, if the advice given is very dissimilar to the judge's initial opinions, that
advice will be discounted much more than should be justified given the advisor's level of
expertise.
Judge Decision-Making Style
Antecedents to Advice Utilization
Decision-making style refers to differences in the ways individuals approach decision
tasks and respond to situations. In a JAS, judges' differing styles can affect the way they
accept and respond to advisor advice. Five styles identified by Scott and Bruce (1995)
are rational, intuitive, dependent, spontaneous and avoidant.
Rational: relying on logical evaluations and exhaustive searches for all relevant
information
Intuitive: relying on intuition, hunches, and other intangibles
Dependent: relying on others for advice and direction
Spontaneous: relying on a strong urge to make decisions as soon as possible
Avoidant: relying on strategies for putting off the decision-making process as long
as possible
Page 112 of 211