流言、权力和建议:闲聊者被赋予的专家权力较少

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Alexis D. Gordon, Maurice E. Schweitzer
{"title":"流言、权力和建议:闲聊者被赋予的专家权力较少","authors":"Alexis D. Gordon,&nbsp;Maurice E. Schweitzer","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104655","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Gossip harms power. Across 6 pre-registered primary studies and 7 pre-registered supplemental studies, we demonstrate that a reputation for engaging in negative gossip (sharing negatively-valanced information about an absent target) reduces expert power (power derived from being regarded as a superior source of expertise). A reputation for engaging in negative gossip harms expert power in two ways: (1) it reduces the likelihood that others will ask experts for advice, even when experts are clearly competent, and (2) it harms perceptions of the experts' competence. We also find that reputations for general, neutral, and sometimes even positive gossip reduce the likelihood that experts are asked for advice. Our results advance our understanding of who gains power in organizations and highlight an important cost of gossip for both individuals and their organizations. Our findings also underscore the important relationship between advice and power. Whether or not and from whom individuals seek advice determines who is accorded power.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gossip, power, and advice: Gossipers are conferred less expert power\",\"authors\":\"Alexis D. Gordon,&nbsp;Maurice E. Schweitzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104655\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Gossip harms power. Across 6 pre-registered primary studies and 7 pre-registered supplemental studies, we demonstrate that a reputation for engaging in negative gossip (sharing negatively-valanced information about an absent target) reduces expert power (power derived from being regarded as a superior source of expertise). A reputation for engaging in negative gossip harms expert power in two ways: (1) it reduces the likelihood that others will ask experts for advice, even when experts are clearly competent, and (2) it harms perceptions of the experts' competence. We also find that reputations for general, neutral, and sometimes even positive gossip reduce the likelihood that experts are asked for advice. Our results advance our understanding of who gains power in organizations and highlight an important cost of gossip for both individuals and their organizations. Our findings also underscore the important relationship between advice and power. Whether or not and from whom individuals seek advice determines who is accorded power.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48441,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000684\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000684","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

流言会损害权力。在 6 项预先登记的主要研究和 7 项预先登记的补充研究中,我们证明了参与负面流言(分享关于不在场目标的负面信息)的声誉会降低专家权力(因被视为卓越的专业知识来源而产生的权力)。负面流言的名声从两个方面损害了专家权力:(1)降低了他人向专家咨询的可能性,即使专家显然是有能力的;(2)损害了人们对专家能力的看法。我们还发现,一般的、中性的,有时甚至是正面的流言蜚语会降低专家被征求意见的可能性。我们的研究结果加深了我们对组织中谁会获得权力的理解,并强调了流言蜚语对个人及其组织的重要代价。我们的研究结果还强调了建议与权力之间的重要关系。个人是否寻求建议以及向谁寻求建议决定了谁能获得权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gossip, power, and advice: Gossipers are conferred less expert power

Gossip harms power. Across 6 pre-registered primary studies and 7 pre-registered supplemental studies, we demonstrate that a reputation for engaging in negative gossip (sharing negatively-valanced information about an absent target) reduces expert power (power derived from being regarded as a superior source of expertise). A reputation for engaging in negative gossip harms expert power in two ways: (1) it reduces the likelihood that others will ask experts for advice, even when experts are clearly competent, and (2) it harms perceptions of the experts' competence. We also find that reputations for general, neutral, and sometimes even positive gossip reduce the likelihood that experts are asked for advice. Our results advance our understanding of who gains power in organizations and highlight an important cost of gossip for both individuals and their organizations. Our findings also underscore the important relationship between advice and power. Whether or not and from whom individuals seek advice determines who is accorded power.

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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology publishes original research and theory on human social behavior and related phenomena. The journal emphasizes empirical, conceptually based research that advances an understanding of important social psychological processes. The journal also publishes literature reviews, theoretical analyses, and methodological comments.
×
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