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

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":"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","authors":"Maxim Milyavsky,&nbsp;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":"183 ","pages":"Article 104328"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence\",\"authors\":\"Maxim Milyavsky,&nbsp;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\":\"183 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104328\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

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
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