决策过程中的建议采纳

建议采纳是指决策者参考他人建议并形成最终决策的过程。在过去的20年中,建议采纳研究集中探讨了三方面问题：（1）评判者多大程度上采纳了他人建议;（2）他人建议对决策质量的提升作用;（3）建议者和评判者在决策中的信心。本文首先介绍了建议采纳研究的实验范式,并从测量方法和研究成果两方面对上述三个问题进行回顾。未来的研究应注意丰富“建议”的外延、关注“建议者”角色、拓展决策任务、并探讨情绪在建议采纳过程中的作用。     

情境公开性与印象管理动机对建议采纳的影响

实验1和实验2分别探讨在公开和匿名条件下期望印象和印象标签对建议采纳的影响。结果表明：（1）期望印象会影响建议采纳，在公开情境中，当个体期望形成温暖的印象时，会更多采纳建议；当个体期望形成能力印象时，建议采纳程度更低。（2） 印象标签会影响建议采纳，在公开情境中，当个体期望维持原有的温暖印象时，会更多采纳建议；个体期望维持原有的能力印象时，建议采纳程度更低。本研究证明建议采纳过程中存在印象管理机制。     

建议者印象和基于动机的个体差异特征对建议采纳的影响

实验1和实验2分别探讨了建议者温暖和能力印象与认知需求或情感需求对建议采纳的影响。结果发现：（1）认知需求高的个体对能力印象建议者的建议采纳程度显著高于对温暖印象的建议者,而认知需求低的个体对能力和温暖印象建议者的建议采纳程度没有显著差异。（2）情感需求高的个体对能力和温暖印象建议者的建议采纳程度差异不显著,但均高于情感需求低的个体;而情感需求低的个体对能力印象建议者的建议采纳程度显著高于对温暖印象建议者的建议。（3）总体上,决策者对能力印象建议者的建议采纳程度高于对温暖印象建议者的建议。     

具体情绪对个体建议采纳的影响

通过两个实验探讨了不同评价倾向的情绪对个体建议采纳的影响.实验1采用视频片段诱发被试的恐惧和愤怒情绪,实验2则采用视频片段诱发悲伤和厌恶情绪,根据JAS范式,两个实验均采用硬币估计任务来衡量建议采纳程度.结果 表明:(1)不同情绪对建议采纳程度的影响不同,恐惧情绪状态下被试的建议采纳程度要高于愤怒情绪和中性情绪状态下的...     

损失-收益框架下责任感对建议采纳的影响

实验1和实验2分别探讨了在损失-收益框架下特质责任感和状态责任感对建议采纳的影响。结果发现：（1）无论是特质责任感还是状态责任感,高责任感的个体比低责任感个体更倾向于采纳他人建议。（2）收益框架下的个体比损失框架下的个体更愿意采纳他人建议。（3）无论是特质责任感还是状态责任感,高责任感的个体对他人建议的采纳程度不受框架的影响,而低责任感个体在收益框架下比在损失框架下的建议采纳程度高。     

情绪和认知方式对个体建议采纳的影响*

通过电影诱发被试的情绪,利用两个实验探讨了情绪和认知方式对个体建议采纳的影响。实验一采用选择任务,实验二采用估计任务,研究发现:(1)愉快情绪状态下的被试建议采纳程度高于愤怒的被试,场依存型被试建议采纳程度高于场独立型被试,女性比起男性更易采纳他人建议;(2)在估计任务中,无论场依存者还是场独立者,在愤怒状态下建议采纳程度无显著差异,且均低于愉快状态下。     

消费者新产品采纳的特征

成功的新产品开发是企业获取竞争优势的重要因素, 但创新产品并非总能得到市场的接受, 大多数的新产品扩散往往以失败告终。因此, 业界和学界对新产品采纳问题进行了诸多探索。新产品采纳过程是指创新产品从被设计制造出来, 到最终被消费者或潜在消费者认识和采用的过程。对相关研究综述发现：以Rogers创新扩散模型为依据, 按采纳时间和特征的不同, 新产品采纳者可以系统分为早期采纳者和晚期采纳者, 二者之间主要从创新性、产品理解和易感性三个维度进行区分。具体来说, 早期采纳者具有高创新性、高产品理解和低易感性; 晚期采纳者具有低创新性、低产品理解和高易感性。在此基础上, 我们探究了各维度下影响消费者新产品采纳的具体因素。未来研究可以从这三个维度出发, 结合已有研究的不足以及当前环境、消费特点等进行拓展。     

建议的表面采纳的测量方法

前人研究建议采纳多集中于决策者初始决策和最终决策的区别,未曾考虑过决策者的内隐态度。本研究关注决策者的内隐态度,将建议采纳分成表面采纳与真实采纳,创新地提出用内隐联想测验法和重测法测量表面采纳。比较两种方法,它们各有利弊,内隐联想测验法理论基础较扎实但灵敏度不及重测法, 重测法操作较简便但更容易出现被试脱落等问题。     

职业决策情境中信任水平对建议采纳的影响*

研究应用“决策者-建议者系统”(Judge-Advisor System)经典研究范式,以62名大学生为被试,探讨了职业决策情境中信任水平、建议类型对建议采纳的影响。结果发现:(1)决策者的最终决策信心倾向于坚持原有信念;(2)信任水平的主效应及其与建议类型的交互作用对建议采纳主效应存在显著影响;(3)建议者信心对决策者的建议采纳权重具有正向预测作用,并削弱了信任对建议采纳权重的作用。这表明,在职业决策情境中,信任水平对决策者建议采纳权重的影响与建议者提供的建议类型(与决策者的初始决策是否一致),以及提供建议时的信心水平有关。     

建议者面部宽高比对决策者建议采纳的影响

在建议采纳过程中,建议者面孔宽高比作为可靠性线索可能影响决策者的决策与判断。本研究通过3个实验来分析建议者面孔宽高比对决策者建议采纳的影响及其机制,并探讨了建议者性别与决策情境的调节作用。结果显示: (1) 相较于女性与低面孔宽高比建议者,男性高面孔宽高比建议者的建议被更低程度地采纳,建议者可靠性感知中介了这一过程。(2) 建议情境的情绪困难程度调节了上述关系,高情绪困难会削弱面孔宽高比对建议采纳的影响。     

决策中的建议接受和判断

通过对近十余年建议接受（advicetaking）文献的回顾,阐述了建议接受的典型实验范式——判断-建议人系统（judge-advisor system）及其通常采用的决策任务类型。其中,重点讨论了建议接受中常出现的现象以及影响建议接受的因素,如自信、建议人数、情绪和决策精确度等。最后,探讨了建议接受未来的研究方向。     

焦虑、建议者善意程度对个体建议采纳的影响

通过两个实验探讨焦虑和建议者的善意程度对建议采纳的影响。实验一采用电影片段来诱发被试的焦虑情绪,实验二采用特质焦虑量表选取高低特质焦虑的被试参加实验。研究发现：（1）焦虑情绪对建议采纳有影响,焦虑情绪下的被试,其建议采纳程度大于处于中性情绪状态的被试。（2）高低特质焦虑的被试建议采纳程度没有显著差异。（3）建议者的善意程度会影响建议采纳,高善意建议者的建议更多地被采纳。     

Individual and group advice taking in judgmental forecasting: Is group forecasting superior to individual forecasting?

We examined how individuals and groups behave in making judgmental forecasts when they are given external forecast advice. We compare individual and group advice-taking behavior under different conditions: (a) when advice quality is fixed, (b) when advice quality is randomly varied, and (c) when there is feedback on advice quality or not. Participants in Study 1 received fixed advice of either reasonable or unreasonable quality while making their decisions. Participants in Study 2 randomly received both reasonable and unreasonable advice. We found in both studies that groups feel more confident than individuals. This greater confidence decreased the groups' reliance on advice. We also found that groups are better than individuals at discerning the quality of advice. In the group treatment, the group's reliance on advice increased according to the degree of disagreement with the initial decisions of the group members. In Study 3, participants randomly received both reasonable and unreasonable advice, and in addition, they received feedback on actual realizations that enabled them to learn about the quality of advice. In the presence of feedback on random advice quality, groups are no longer less receptive to advice than individuals; with feedback, both individuals and groups discount advice more than they do without feedback. Nevertheless, groups are still better than individuals at discerning the quality of advice. We conclude that group forecasting is better than individual forecasting across various conditions that we investigate except when advice quality is known to be consistently reliable.     

Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review,and implications for the organizational sciences

This paper reviews the advice-giving and advice-taking literature. First, the central findings from this literature are catalogued. Topics include: advice utilization, confidence, decision accuracy, and differences between advisors and decision-makers. Next, the implications of several variations of the experimental design are discussed. These variations include: the presence/absence of a pre-advice decision, the number of advisors, the amount of interaction between the decision-maker and the advisor(s) and also among advisors themselves, whether the decision-maker can choose if and when to access advice, and the type of decision-task. Several ways of measuring advice utilization are subsequently contrasted, and the conventional operationalization of “advice” itself is questioned. Finally, ways in which the advice literature can inform selected topics in the organizational sciences are discussed.     

不同反应线索条件下调节匹配对建议采纳的影响

研究的目的是为了探究不同反应线索条件下调节匹配对建议采纳的影响。实验中有两个反应线索：言语性反应线索(实验一)与非言语性反应线索(实验二), 两个实验均采用2(调节取向：促进/防御)×2(建议策略：渴望/警惕)的混合设计。实验一、二的被试分别是81和79名在校大学生, 年龄均在19~25岁之间。实验结果表明, 在言语反应线索条件下, 调节匹配时人们对建议的采纳程度更高; 在非言语性反应线索条件下, 防御取向时, 调节匹配时人们显著提高了建议的采纳程度, 但促进取向条件人们对建议的采纳程度无明显差异。结果表明在促进取向下非言语性反应线索对调节匹配具有干扰作用, 这个结果值得进一步研究。     

Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation

Our framework for understanding advice-taking in decision making rests on two theoretical concepts that motivate the studies and serve to explain the findings. The first is egocentric discounting of others' opinions and the second is reputation formation for advisors. Advice discounting is attributed to differential information, namely, the notion that decision makers have privileged access to their internal reasons for holding their own opinion, but not to the advisors' internal reasons. Reputation formation is related to the negativity effect in impression formation and to the trust asymmetry principle. In three studies we measured decision makers' weighting policy for advice and, in a fourth study, their willingness to pay for it. Briefly, we found that advice is discounted relative to one's own opinion, while advisors' reputations are rapidly formed and asymmetrically revised. The asymmetry implies that it may be easier for advisors to lose a good reputation than to gain one. The cognitive and social origins of these phenomena are considered.     

What types of advice do decision-makers prefer?

In the decision-making literature, “advice” has typically been defined very restrictively, as a recommendation concerning which alternative the decision-maker should choose. The present paper examines decision-makers’ reactions to this and three additional types of advice (a recommendation concerning which alternative not to choose, information about alternatives, and a recommendation concerning how to make the decision), along with another common form of interpersonal assistance (Social Support), from the perspective of maximizing decision accuracy and maintaining decision autonomy. The role of situational and individual differences is also examined. Results from two multilevel policy-capturing studies indicate that, although they consider recommendations regarding which alternative to choose to be important in some contexts, decision-makers often prefer to receive a type of advice that is greatly understudied by researchers—namely, the provision of information about alternatives. The implications of these findings for the study of advice-taking are discussed, as are future research directions.