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 (Scopus)
42 Downloads (Pure)


In expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) for forecasting, the perceived credibility of an expert is likely to affect the weighting attached to their advice. Four experiments have investigated the extent to which the implicit weighting depends on the advisor’s experienced (reflecting the accuracy of their past forecasts), or presumed (based on their status) credibility. Compared to a control group, advice from a source with a high experienced credibility received a greater weighting, but having a low level of experienced credibility did not reduce the weighting. In contrast, a high presumed credibility did not increase the weighting relative to a control group, while a low presumed credibility decreased it. When there were opportunities for the two types of credibility to interact, a high experienced credibility tended to eclipse the presumed credibility if the advisees were non-experts. However, when the advisees were professionals, both the presumed and experienced credibility of the advisor were influential in determining the weight attached to the advice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)280-297
Number of pages18
JournalInternational Journal of Forecasting
Issue number1
Early online date25 Apr 2016
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2017


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