Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: users’ reactions to presumed vs experienced credibility

Dilek Önkal, M. Sinan Gönül, Paul Goodwin, Mary Thomson, Esra Öz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Citations (SciVal)


In expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) in forecasting the perceived credibility of experts is likely to affect the weighting attached to their advice. Four experiments investigated the extent to which the implicit weighting depends on the advisor’s experienced credibility (reflecting the accuracy of their past forecasts), and their presumed credibility (based on their status). Compared to a control group, advice from a source with high experienced credibility received a greater weighting but a low level of experienced credibility did not reduce weighting. In contrast, compared to a control group, high presumed credibility did not increase weighting while low presumed credibility decreased it. When there were opportunities for both types of credibility to interact, high experienced credibility tended to eclipse presumed credibility if advisees were non-experts. However, when advisees were professionals both the advisor's presumed credibility and their experienced credibility were influential in determining the weight attached to the advice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)280-297
JournalInternational Journal of Forecasting
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2017


  • source credibility; presumed credibility; experienced credibility; advice; forecasting; information use.


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: users’ reactions to presumed vs experienced credibility'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this