The impact of advice uncertainty and individual regulatory modes on advice taking

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Xiufang Du, Ruiqi He, Yating Wang, Jing Wang
{"title":"The impact of advice uncertainty and individual regulatory modes on advice taking","authors":"Xiufang Du,&nbsp;Ruiqi He,&nbsp;Yating Wang,&nbsp;Jing Wang","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In previous research on advice taking, researchers have mainly focused on certain types of advice. However, in practice, when people give advice to others, there is often a degree of uncertainty (e.g. I think that the distance between Beijing and Shanghai is between 800 and 1200 km). To date, only a few studies have examined the impact of uncertain advice on advice taking. Through two studies, the present research explores the influence of advice uncertainty and individuals’ regulatory mode predominance on advice taking and the mediating mechanism. In Study 1, the participants' chronic regulatory mode was measured by a questionnaire, and in Study 2, we induced the predominance of the participants’ situational regulatory mode using a recall task. We found that people are more likely to adopt advice with low uncertainty. The moderating effect of participants' regulatory mode on the impact of advice uncertainty on advice taking occurs only when the regulatory mode is induced by the situation. For the assessment-predominant group, there was a significant difference between the no-uncertainty group and the high-uncertainty group, while for the locomotion-predominant group, this difference was not significant. Additionally, our study revealed the mediating role of advice reliability, which existed only when the participants were able to compare low- and no-uncertainty advice in a within-participant design. That is, when decision makers adopt uncertainty advice within ranges, they not only consider reliability but also weigh multiple factors. Our findings contribute to understanding the mechanisms underlying individuals' preferences for uncertain advice and reasoning about individual differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3063","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In previous research on advice taking, researchers have mainly focused on certain types of advice. However, in practice, when people give advice to others, there is often a degree of uncertainty (e.g. I think that the distance between Beijing and Shanghai is between 800 and 1200 km). To date, only a few studies have examined the impact of uncertain advice on advice taking. Through two studies, the present research explores the influence of advice uncertainty and individuals’ regulatory mode predominance on advice taking and the mediating mechanism. In Study 1, the participants' chronic regulatory mode was measured by a questionnaire, and in Study 2, we induced the predominance of the participants’ situational regulatory mode using a recall task. We found that people are more likely to adopt advice with low uncertainty. The moderating effect of participants' regulatory mode on the impact of advice uncertainty on advice taking occurs only when the regulatory mode is induced by the situation. For the assessment-predominant group, there was a significant difference between the no-uncertainty group and the high-uncertainty group, while for the locomotion-predominant group, this difference was not significant. Additionally, our study revealed the mediating role of advice reliability, which existed only when the participants were able to compare low- and no-uncertainty advice in a within-participant design. That is, when decision makers adopt uncertainty advice within ranges, they not only consider reliability but also weigh multiple factors. Our findings contribute to understanding the mechanisms underlying individuals' preferences for uncertain advice and reasoning about individual differences.

建议的不确定性和个别监管模式对接受建议的影响
在以往关于建议采纳的研究中,研究人员主要关注某些类型的建议。然而,在实际生活中,当人们向他人提供建议时,往往存在一定程度的不确定性(例如,我认为北京和上海之间的距离在 800 到 1200 公里之间)。迄今为止,只有少数研究探讨了不确定性建议对接受建议的影响。本研究通过两项研究,探讨了建议的不确定性和个体的调节模式主导地位对建议采纳的影响及中介机制。在研究 1 中,我们通过问卷调查测量了参与者的慢性调节模式;在研究 2 中,我们通过回忆任务诱导参与者的情景调节模式主导地位。我们发现,人们更倾向于采纳不确定性低的建议。只有在情境诱导调节模式的情况下,参与者的调节模式才会对建议不确定性对建议采纳的影响产生调节作用。对于评估主导组,无不确定性组与高不确定性组之间存在显著差异,而对于运动主导组,这种差异并不显著。此外,我们的研究还揭示了建议可靠性的中介作用,只有当参与者能够在参与者内部设计中比较低不确定性建议和无不确定性建议时,建议可靠性才会存在。也就是说,当决策者在一定范围内采纳不确定性建议时,他们不仅会考虑可靠性,还会权衡多种因素。我们的研究结果有助于理解个人对不确定性建议的偏好机制以及对个体差异的推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信