2. What influences me?
3.2.6 · 35–55 minutes · reflect, test, discuss, review
2. What influences me?
What you will learn
- Distinguish shared information from pressure to agree.
- Protect independent contributions in a committee.
- Use dissent without rewarding contrarianism for its own sake.
3.2 · The Human Side
The Human Side
The Human Side · the work you will do
- 1What do I know?
- 2What influences me?
- 3How do I act?
- 4Record and review
Before you begin
Your first decision
The most confident person in your investing club says, “This is an obvious buy.” Four people agree before you speak. You had doubts. Is the group giving you new evidence, or making disagreement feel more difficult?
Record your first answer before continuing.
Video coming soon · about 3 minutes
Following the Crowd
Use the narration below while the recording is being made, then try the decisions in this lesson.
Read the full narration
The most confident person in your investing club says, “This is an obvious buy.” Four people agree before you speak. You had doubts. Is the group giving you new evidence, or making disagreement feel more difficult?
In this lesson, notice what affects your own judgement. You do not need to invest real money or share personal financial information.
Agreement can be useful when people bring independent information. It is less informative when everyone has repeated the chair’s view or the same article. Ask what each person actually knows. Popularity does not prove an investment is attractive, and being the lone dissenter does not prove you have found an edge.
Write your initial recommendation, strongest reason and biggest uncertainty before discussion. Ask the chair to speak after others have contributed. When your view changes, name the new evidence that changed it. You can learn from the group while keeping a record of what you thought independently.
A good challenger does more than say no. They identify a material assumption and suggest a test. Rotate the role so that disagreement is part of the task, not someone’s permanent reputation. Separate a dispute about the facts from a dispute about the forecast or the objective. Those questions need different kinds of resolution.
Who corrected a figure, found a better source or explained a risk clearly? These contributions matter even when the group ends up agreeing. Speaking confidently is not the same as improving the decision. Record the strongest unresolved concern, including a minority view, so that your final pitch does not hide the uncertainty that remains.
Pause for the worked example and the choices. Use the feedback to improve the explanation, then apply it to the fictional case. Keep your first view as well as any revision.
When did your view change during discussion? Was it a new fact, another person’s reasoning, their status, or the discomfort of disagreeing? You do not need to share the private part of your reflection.
Five votes may still be one source
Agreement can be useful when people bring independent information. It is less informative when everyone has repeated the chair’s view or the same article.
Ask what each person actually knows. Popularity does not prove an investment is attractive, and being the lone dissenter does not prove you have found an edge.
Research and nuance
Agreement can reflect good common evidence, shared assumptions, common incentives or deference. Count underlying information rather than votes as independent proof. A respected analyst may know something useful, but reputation does not establish the claim. Equally, disagreeing with a popular view does not create an investing edge without an evidence and price argument.
Keep your first view before the room reacts
Write your initial recommendation, strongest reason and biggest uncertainty before discussion. Ask the chair to speak after others have contributed.
When your view changes, name the new evidence that changed it. You can learn from the group while keeping a record of what you thought independently.
Research and nuance
Ask each pupil to write a recommendation, key reason and uncertainty before discussion. Invite the chair to speak later. Compare what changes after new evidence and what changes simply after hearing a confident voice. Anonymous initial views can help participation when appropriate. These are process safeguards, not a guarantee that a group will be accurate or free from social influence.
Make disagreement useful
A good challenger does more than say no. They identify a material assumption and suggest a test.
Rotate the role so that disagreement is part of the task, not someone’s permanent reputation. Separate a dispute about the facts from a dispute about the forecast or the objective. Those questions need different kinds of resolution.
Research and nuance
A challenger should identify a material assumption and a test, not oppose everything automatically. Rotate roles so disagreement is a contribution rather than a personal identity. The evidence checker reconciles facts and definitions; the chair distinguishes disputes about data, forecasts and objectives. Record a minority concern and why it was accepted, rejected or left unresolved.
Judge the contribution, not the performance
Who corrected a figure, found a better source or explained a risk clearly? These contributions matter even when the group ends up agreeing.
Speaking confidently is not the same as improving the decision. Record the strongest unresolved concern, including a minority view, so that your final pitch does not hide the uncertainty that remains.
Research and nuance
A good discussion makes the reasoning clearer, even if everyone eventually agrees. Assess whether pupils introduced relevant evidence, corrected an error or exposed an important uncertainty. Do not score charisma, loudness or conformity. For finance-leader interviews later, ask how junior analysts can challenge a senior view and request a concrete example of a process that permits revision.
An average is not evidence of independence
Five invented initial value estimates are £280,000, £300,000, £320,000, £340,000 and £360,000. They use the same unsupported demand forecast. Calculate the mean and range.
- Sum=£1,600,000; mean=£320,000.
- Minimum £280,000; maximum £360,000; spread £80,000.
- Averaging does not remove a shared error in the demand assumption.
The estimates may contain useful differences, but their apparent agreement does not validate their common input. Inspect methods and information before treating the average as a stronger valuation.
Put it into practice
1. Run independent first views
Before discussing DailyCup, each pupil writes a view, one reason and one uncertainty. Compare the initial record with the final group note.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
Record which changes follow new evidence and which follow discussion alone. Discussion can reveal useful reasoning; it need not force a switch or establish a psychological diagnosis.
2. Set committee rules
Design three rules that support a quieter evidence checker and a confident advocate equally.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
Use written initial views, equal opportunities for evidence-based questions, a chair who speaks later and a recorded unresolved concern. Rotate roles and assess contributions by relevance.
3. Test a contrarian claim
Respond to “everyone likes it, so I will automatically sell”.
Write your response in your workbook before opening feedback.
Compare with a model response
Popularity can reflect information or shared error. A different action needs its own business, valuation and mandate case. Opposing a crowd is not itself evidence of an advantage.
Notice your own judgement
When did your view change during discussion? Was it a new fact, another person’s reasoning, their status, or the discomfort of disagreeing? You do not need to share the private part of your reflection.
Original On Judgement teaching. Research and further reading: Likierman; Duke; Yale teaching.
Jargon buster
Social information
What others’ views or actions may reveal.
Conformity pressure
Influence toward agreement apart from evidential merit.
Shared error
A mistaken input or mechanism affecting several judgements.
Independent first view
A recorded assessment before group influence.
Evidence challenger
A role that tests material assumptions constructively.
Minority concern
A reasoned objection retained even without majority support.
Knowledge check
Make each choice on the page. Feedback explains the reasoning. Use Try again after revisiting an idea.
AQA connection and further reading
AQA 7138 applied links: AO 2–AO 4 evidence, analysis and evaluation (4.2); uncertainty and change (3.3.4), with quantitative interpretation in Annex 6 where used. Named psychological effects and calibration methods are investing enrichment, not specified AQA content. Classroom exercises illustrate processes; they do not diagnose individual traits.
AQA 7138 specification
Primary curriculum reference; links and original classroom rubrics are interpretive, not endorsement.
Likierman · six elements explained by London Business School
Public LBS explanation checked on 1 November 2026. Six elements are attributed to Sir Andrew Likierman; the three-area grouping and investing exercises are On Judgement adaptations, not his published model or an endorsement.
Andrew Likierman · Judgement at Work: Making Better Choices
Publisher book page. The full book has not been reviewed; teaching uses the publicly explained six-element framework with original examples.
Understand yourself as an investor
Compare your private view with your view after discussion. Which change reflected information, and which may have reflected social pressure?
Keep this reflection private unless you choose to share. Use evidence from the fictional exercise; no personal finances or fixed investor-personality label is required.
Take forward
Distinguish shared information from pressure to agree. Protect independent contributions in a committee. Use dissent without rewarding contrarianism for its own sake.