当顾问不知道什么对被顾问最有利时:不确定性阻碍了建议的提供。

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
PsyCh journal Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1002/pchj.745
Ruida Zhu, Honghong Tang, Jinghua Xue, Yuanping Li, Zilu Liang, Simeng Wu, Song Su, Chao Liu
{"title":"当顾问不知道什么对被顾问最有利时:不确定性阻碍了建议的提供。","authors":"Ruida Zhu, Honghong Tang, Jinghua Xue, Yuanping Li, Zilu Liang, Simeng Wu, Song Su, Chao Liu","doi":"10.1002/pchj.745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While seeking advice can be beneficial for advisees, advisors may not always possess the necessary knowledge to provide appropriate guidance. Poor-quality advice can mislead advisees rather than offering assistance. Despite the research interest in advisees, few studies have investigated advisors' psychological and behavioral responses, especially when they faced uncertainty regarding the optimal course of action for advisees. To fill this gap, we developed novel paradigms aiming at manipulating advisors' uncertainty, allowing for a systematic investigation of advisors' behavior, motivation, and emotion. Across four studies, we consistently found that advisors under uncertainty give less advice. Furthermore, we observed that uncertainty modulates advisors' motivation to influence, worry about harm to others, and/or sense of power. The motivation to influence and/or worry about harm to others can mediate the effect of uncertainty on advice giving. Besides, we identified nuanced distinctions in the effects of ambiguity and risk, two distinct types of uncertainty, on advisors' psychological processes. Our findings shed light on advisors' self-monitoring of the quality of their advice, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of advisor-advisee communication from the perspective of advisors.</p>","PeriodicalId":20804,"journal":{"name":"PsyCh journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317185/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When advisors do not know what is best for advisees: Uncertainty inhibits advice giving.\",\"authors\":\"Ruida Zhu, Honghong Tang, Jinghua Xue, Yuanping Li, Zilu Liang, Simeng Wu, Song Su, Chao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pchj.745\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While seeking advice can be beneficial for advisees, advisors may not always possess the necessary knowledge to provide appropriate guidance. Poor-quality advice can mislead advisees rather than offering assistance. Despite the research interest in advisees, few studies have investigated advisors' psychological and behavioral responses, especially when they faced uncertainty regarding the optimal course of action for advisees. To fill this gap, we developed novel paradigms aiming at manipulating advisors' uncertainty, allowing for a systematic investigation of advisors' behavior, motivation, and emotion. Across four studies, we consistently found that advisors under uncertainty give less advice. Furthermore, we observed that uncertainty modulates advisors' motivation to influence, worry about harm to others, and/or sense of power. The motivation to influence and/or worry about harm to others can mediate the effect of uncertainty on advice giving. Besides, we identified nuanced distinctions in the effects of ambiguity and risk, two distinct types of uncertainty, on advisors' psychological processes. Our findings shed light on advisors' self-monitoring of the quality of their advice, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of advisor-advisee communication from the perspective of advisors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PsyCh journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11317185/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PsyCh journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.745\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PsyCh journal","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.745","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然寻求建议对被建议者有好处,但顾问未必总能掌握必要的知识来提供适当的指导。劣质的建议可能会误导建议者,而不是提供帮助。尽管研究人员对被建议者很感兴趣,但很少有研究调查顾问的心理和行为反应,尤其是当他们面对被建议者最佳行动方案的不确定性时。为了填补这一空白,我们开发了新的范式,旨在操纵顾问的不确定性,从而对顾问的行为、动机和情绪进行系统的调查。在四项研究中,我们一致发现,顾问在不确定情况下给出的建议较少。此外,我们还观察到,不确定性会调节顾问的影响动机、对伤害他人的担忧和/或权力感。影响他人的动机和/或担心对他人造成伤害的担忧可以调节不确定性对提供建议的影响。此外,我们还发现了模糊性和风险这两种不同类型的不确定性对顾问心理过程影响的细微差别。我们的研究结果揭示了顾问对其建议质量的自我监控,从而有助于从顾问的角度加深对顾问与受访者沟通的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
When advisors do not know what is best for advisees: Uncertainty inhibits advice giving.

While seeking advice can be beneficial for advisees, advisors may not always possess the necessary knowledge to provide appropriate guidance. Poor-quality advice can mislead advisees rather than offering assistance. Despite the research interest in advisees, few studies have investigated advisors' psychological and behavioral responses, especially when they faced uncertainty regarding the optimal course of action for advisees. To fill this gap, we developed novel paradigms aiming at manipulating advisors' uncertainty, allowing for a systematic investigation of advisors' behavior, motivation, and emotion. Across four studies, we consistently found that advisors under uncertainty give less advice. Furthermore, we observed that uncertainty modulates advisors' motivation to influence, worry about harm to others, and/or sense of power. The motivation to influence and/or worry about harm to others can mediate the effect of uncertainty on advice giving. Besides, we identified nuanced distinctions in the effects of ambiguity and risk, two distinct types of uncertainty, on advisors' psychological processes. Our findings shed light on advisors' self-monitoring of the quality of their advice, thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of advisor-advisee communication from the perspective of advisors.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
PsyCh journal
PsyCh journal PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: PsyCh Journal, China''s first international psychology journal, publishes peer‑reviewed research articles, research reports and integrated research reviews spanning the entire spectrum of scientific psychology and its applications. PsyCh Journal is the flagship journal of the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences – the only national psychology research institute in China – and reflects the high research standards of the nation. Launched in 2012, PsyCh Journal is devoted to the publication of advanced research exploring basic mechanisms of the human mind and behavior, and delivering scientific knowledge to enhance understanding of culture and society. Towards that broader goal, the Journal will provide a forum for academic exchange and a “knowledge bridge” between China and the World by showcasing high-quality, cutting-edge research related to the science and practice of psychology both within and outside of China. PsyCh Journal features original articles of both empirical and theoretical research in scientific psychology and interdisciplinary sciences, across all levels, from molecular, cellular and system, to individual, group and society. The Journal also publishes evaluative and integrative review papers on any significant research contribution in any area of scientific psychology
×
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