This study investigates the effects of task demonstrability and replacing a human advisor with a machine advisor. Outcome measures include advice-utilization (trust), the perception of advisors, and decision-maker emotions. Participants were randomly assigned to make a series of forecasts dealing with either humanitarian planning (low demonstrability) or management (high demonstrability). Participants received advice from either a machine advisor only, a human advisor only, or their advisor was replaced with the other type of advisor (human/machine) midway through the experiment. Decision-makers rated human advisors as more expert, more useful, and more similar. Perception effects were strongest when a human advisor was replaced by a machine. Decision-makers also experienced more negative emotions, lower reciprocity, and faulted their advisor more for mistakes when a human was replaced by a machine.

Because operating room (OR) management decisions with optimal choices are made with ubiquitous biases, decisions are improved with decision-support systems. We reviewed experimental social-psychology studies to explore what an OR leader can do when working with stakeholders lacking interest in learning the OR management science but expressing opinions about decisions, nonetheless. We considered shared information to include the rules-of-thumb (heuristics) that make intuitive sense and often seem “close enough” (e.g., staffing is planned based on the average workload). We considered unshared information to include the relevant mathematics (e.g., staffing calculations). Multiple studies have shown that group discussions focus more on shared than unshared information. Quality decisions are more likely when all group participants share knowledge (e.g., have taken a course in OR management science). Several biases in OR management are caused by humans’ limited abilities to estimate tails of probability distributions in their heads. Groups are more susceptible to analogous biases than are educated individuals. Since optimal solutions are not demonstrable without groups sharing common language, only with education of most group members can a knowledgeable individual influence the group. The appropriate model of decision-making is autocratic, with information obtained from stakeholders. Although such decisions are good quality, the leaders often are disliked and the decisions considered unjust. In conclusion, leaders will find the most success if they do not bring OR management operational decisions to groups, but instead act autocratically while obtaining necessary information in 1:1 conversations. The only known route for the leader making such decisions to be considered likable and for the decisions to be considered fair is through colleagues and subordinates learning the management science.

Two studies examine reactions to permitted (offered and permission granted), volunteered (given without offer or assent), and imposed advice (offered and given even though declined). In Study 1, participants’ ratings of advice quality and implementation intention were higher for volunteered and permitted than imposed advice. Only for a task that was highly personal did recipients have a significantly higher intention to use permitted than volunteered advice. Study 2 replicated results from Study 1 with a nonstudent sample. In addition, Study 2 found stronger differences between volunteered and permitted advice, with permitted advice rated more positively. Study 2 also examined the effect of using you pronouns, which have been linked to confrontation and criticism, when giving advice, but found no consistent effects on advice outcomes.

The study found that encountering new information in an online chat rather than information that participants already knew and were familiar with was more likely to reduce support for the view that climate change is due to anthropogenic causes, even though the majority of the presented information supported anthropogenic causes. Participants reported feeling more competent and knowledgeable about the topic and felt less ostracized from others in the chat when participants were already familiar with information others discussed than when information discussed by others in the chat was new information. However, they viewed other chat members as more competent and knowledgeable when those others mentioned new information. Results are discussed within knowledge deficit model of science communication and the bias for common information.