Effects of cost and accuracy on the decision to request and to utilize expert advice were investigated in 2 experiments using a choice task. Experiments 1 and 2 found that experienced accuracy significantly predicted requesting expert advice. Participants in Experiment 2 used very inaccurate experts to rule out the expert's option. Cost affected requesting advice in Experiment 1 only when cost was able to exceed the amount that could be gained for a correct choice. Experiment 2 found a significant interaction between cost and experienced accuracy. Both experiments found requesting advice was the only significant predictor for changing answers. The results did not support an adherence to sunk costs in the decision to change answers.

No / We use the method of policy capturing to address three open-ended questions regarding how people judge the fairness of events. First, do people differ in how they judge whether a situation is fair or unfair; second, are fairness judgments stable within-person; and, third, how much insight do people have into how they make fairness judgments? To investigate these questions, we used the method of policy capturing and a representative design that samples situations as well as participants. Forty-nine employees rated the global fairness of 56 performance appraisals sampled from their own organization (N = 2,744 situations), and regression methods were used to infer their judgment policy from their choices. We found that people differed greatly in how they judged fairness but used quite consistent policies across similar situations. Participants also provided self-reports of their judgment policies, and comparisons of these self-reports with actual policies revealed limited levels of self-insight.