Smart advice for better governance: applying expert methods to high-stakes decisions

Abstract

The main aim of this paper was to examine the consistency of experts (N = 71) in evaluation in high-stakes real-life decision-making, and how their consistency relates to other psychological constructs such as cognitive reflection and overconfidence. A pool of top Slovak experts was assembled, and the AHP method for eliciting policy priorities was applied. Moreover, the cognitive reflection and overconfidence of experts were measured. The consistency of experts tended to improve over time and this improvement occurred also in exercises with increased cognitive demand. Improved consistency may have resulted both from the learning effect and from better comprehension of one’s preferences. However, there was no correlation between the consistency of experts and their cognitive reflection or overconfidence. The results suggest that for technological and economic development of any state it is beneficial for real experts to decide these issues. However, experts are not perfect and free from mistakes; therefore, attention should be paid to the selection process of future experts and their learning environment.