Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence

IF 3.4 2区管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104328

Maxim Milyavsky, Yaniv Gvili

{"title":"Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence","authors":"Maxim Milyavsky, Yaniv Gvili","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People are constantly subject to various types of informational social influences, such as others’ opinions and advice. A tacit assumption in the advice-taking literature is that decision makers treat others’ opinions and advice equally. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by examining the differential effects of advice versus others’ opinions on people’s judgments. Across six preregistered experiments (<em>N</em> = 3,411), we found that participants placed greater weight on and paid more for others’ estimates when presented as advice than when presented as opinions. This advice framing effect substantially reduced egocentric discounting and held across various types of judgments, and for both good and ecological advice. We propose that the advice framing effect stems from higher helping intentions and thereby trustworthiness ascribed to the source of advice (vs. opinions). Both mediational analyses and experimental evidence support this model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000207","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

People are constantly subject to various types of informational social influences, such as others’ opinions and advice. A tacit assumption in the advice-taking literature is that decision makers treat others’ opinions and advice equally. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by examining the differential effects of advice versus others’ opinions on people’s judgments. Across six preregistered experiments (N = 3,411), we found that participants placed greater weight on and paid more for others’ estimates when presented as advice than when presented as opinions. This advice framing effect substantially reduced egocentric discounting and held across various types of judgments, and for both good and ecological advice. We propose that the advice framing effect stems from higher helping intentions and thereby trustworthiness ascribed to the source of advice (vs. opinions). Both mediational analyses and experimental evidence support this model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

接受建议与综合意见：将社交信息定格为建议会增加信息来源的帮助意图、信任度和影响力

人们经常受到各种信息社会的影响，如他人的意见和建议。接受建议的文献中有一个默认的假设，即决策者对他人的意见和建议一视同仁。在本文中，我们通过研究建议与他人意见对人们判断的不同影响来挑战这一假设。在六个预先登记的实验中（N = 3,411），我们发现，当他人的建议以意见的形式出现时，参与者会更加重视他人的估计，并为其支付更多的费用。这种建议框架效应大大降低了以自我为中心的贴现，并在各种类型的判断中，以及在好的和生态的建议中都保持不变。我们认为，建议框架效应源于更高的帮助意图，因此建议来源（与意见相比）更值得信赖。中介分析和实验证据都支持这一模型。我们还讨论了理论和管理方面的影响。

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

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Multiple-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes publishes fundamental research in organizational behavior, organizational psychology, and human cognition, judgment, and decision-making. The journal features articles that present original empirical research, theory development, meta-analysis, and methodological advancements relevant to the substantive domains served by the journal. Topics covered by the journal include perception, cognition, judgment, attitudes, emotion, well-being, motivation, choice, and performance. We are interested in articles that investigate these topics as they pertain to individuals, dyads, groups, and other social collectives. For each topic, we place a premium on articles that make fundamental and substantial contributions to understanding psychological processes relevant to human attitudes, cognitions, and behavior in organizations. In order to be considered for publication in OBHDP a manuscript has to include the following: 1.Demonstrate an interesting behavioral/psychological phenomenon 2.Make a significant theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature 3.Identify and test the underlying psychological mechanism for the newly discovered behavioral/psychological phenomenon 4.Have practical implications in organizational context