咨询多位顾问:什么时候会伤害顾问与受访者的关系,什么时候不会?

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2382
Mauricio Palmeira, Gerri Spassova
{"title":"咨询多位顾问:什么时候会伤害顾问与受访者的关系,什么时候不会?","authors":"Mauricio Palmeira,&nbsp;Gerri Spassova","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co-advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co-advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co-advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consulting Multiple Advisors: When It Hurts and When It Does Not Hurt the Advisor–Advisee Relationship?\",\"authors\":\"Mauricio Palmeira,&nbsp;Gerri Spassova\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co-advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co-advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co-advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2382\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2382","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

咨询多个顾问往往会提高决策质量;然而,人们对顾问如何应对共同顾问的存在了解有限。以往的研究提醒人们注意从多个来源寻求建议的潜在人际成本。这表明,顾问可能会认为自己的建议不太可能被采纳,从而降低他们继续为寻求者提供帮助的意愿。与此相反,我们认为,如果求职者向他人咨询,顾问一般不会在意,只要他们在提供建议之前了解了相关信息即可。我们认为,除非顾问推断出求职者拒绝接受他们的建议,否则他们不会密切关注或纠缠于建议的使用情况,并对求职者保持积极的态度。在三项研究中,我们表明,预先披露共同顾问会使拒绝建议的推断变得不可信,从而完全消除任何负面的人际影响。无论是否存在多个共同顾问,也无论是否先咨询或后咨询顾问,顾问的反应都如同他们是唯一的顾问。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Consulting Multiple Advisors: When It Hurts and When It Does Not Hurt the Advisor–Advisee Relationship?

Consulting multiple advisors tends to improve decision quality; however, limited understanding exists regarding how advisors respond to the presence of co-advisors. Previous research has cautioned about the potential interpersonal costs of seeking advice from multiple sources. It suggests that advisors may perceive their advice as less likely to be utilized, diminishing their willingness to continue assisting the seeker. In contrast, we propose that advisors are generally unconcerned if seekers consult others, as long as they are informed before offering advice. We argue that advisors do not closely monitor or dwell on the utilization of their advice and maintain a positive attitude toward the seeker unless they infer rejection of their advice. In three studies, we show that disclosing a co-advisor upfront completely eliminates any negative interpersonal effects by rendering inferences about advice rejection implausible. Advisors respond as if they were the sole advisor irrespective of the presence of multiple co-advisors and regardless of whether they are consulted first of second.

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
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Correction to The Effect of a Default Nudge on Experienced and Expected Autonomy: A Field Study on Food Donation Equivalence Framing and the Construction of Advocacy Messages Predicting Emotional and Behavioral Reactions to Collective Wrongdoing: Effects of Imagined Versus Experienced Collective Guilt on Moral Behavior Reference-Dependent Risk-Taking in the NBA The Relative Importance of the Contrast and Assimilation Effects in Decisions Under Risk
×
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