The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences

IF 3.4 2区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104378
Jessica A. Reif, Richard P. Larrick, Jack B. Soll
{"title":"The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences","authors":"Jessica A. Reif,&nbsp;Richard P. Larrick,&nbsp;Jack B. Soll","doi":"10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Scholars have devoted considerable research attention to examining how people use advice from others. However, there is much less research exploring the preceding step of how people solicit advice from others. Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments. Across naturalistic and laboratory samples, we find that advice seekers include anchors when seeking quantitative advice between 20 and 50 percent of the time. In five preregistered studies (N = 6,981), we investigate the causes and consequences of including anchors when seeking advice. We find that impression management motives increase the tendency to include anchors when seeking advice, while a goal of minimizing influence on advisors reduces the tendency to include anchors. We then show that anchors are indeed effective in achieving impression management goals, but that advice seekers who include them benefit less from opinion combination strategies such as averaging because they introduce shared sources of error. This work contributes to the literatures on advice seeking, anchoring, and collective judgments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48442,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 104378"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","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/S0749597824000700","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

Scholars have devoted considerable research attention to examining how people use advice from others. However, there is much less research exploring the preceding step of how people solicit advice from others. Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments. Across naturalistic and laboratory samples, we find that advice seekers include anchors when seeking quantitative advice between 20 and 50 percent of the time. In five preregistered studies (N = 6,981), we investigate the causes and consequences of including anchors when seeking advice. We find that impression management motives increase the tendency to include anchors when seeking advice, while a goal of minimizing influence on advisors reduces the tendency to include anchors. We then show that anchors are indeed effective in achieving impression management goals, but that advice seekers who include them benefit less from opinion combination strategies such as averaging because they introduce shared sources of error. This work contributes to the literatures on advice seeking, anchoring, and collective judgments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在寻求建议时加入锚点:原因与后果
学者们在研究人们如何使用他人建议方面投入了大量的精力。然而,对于人们如何征求他人建议的前一步,研究却少得多。有时,建议寻求者会在他们的建议请求中加入自己的想法,提供锚点,使他们的顾问难以获得自己的独立判断。在自然和实验室样本中,我们发现寻求建议者在寻求定量建议时有 20% 到 50% 的时间会加入锚点。在五项预先登记的研究中(N = 6981),我们调查了在寻求建议时加入锚的原因和后果。我们发现,印象管理动机增加了在寻求建议时加入锚点的倾向,而将对顾问的影响降至最低的目标则降低了加入锚点的倾向。我们随后证明,锚在实现印象管理目标方面确实很有效,但加入锚的建议寻求者从意见组合策略(如平均法)中获益较少,因为它们引入了共同的误差源。这项研究对有关建议寻求、锚定和集体判断的文献有所贡献。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
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
期刊最新文献
The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences Joining disconnected others reduces social identity threat in women brokers Retraction notice to “Don’t stop believing: Rituals improve performance by decreasing anxiety” [Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137C (2016) 71–85] The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online A Numeracy-Task interaction model of perceived differences
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1