共查询到16条相似文献,搜索用时 281 毫秒
1.
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。 相似文献
2.
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。 相似文献
3.
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。 相似文献
4.
建议者面部宽高比对决策者建议采纳的影响 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
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。 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
决策过程中的建议采纳 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
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。 相似文献
8.
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。 相似文献
9.
10.
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。 相似文献
11.
从人际关系的视角,通过两个实验探讨权力感和任务难度对个体建议采纳的影响。实验一启动被试的合理权力感,实验二启动被试的不合理权力感。研究发现:(1)当权力合理时,权力感水平对建议采纳有显著影响,高权力感水平决策者的建议采纳程度显著低于低权力感水平的决策者;任务难度对建议采纳有显著影响,决策者在困难任务中的建议采纳程度显著高于简单任务中。(2)当权力不合理时,在简单任务中,高权力感水平决策者的建议采纳程度显著低于低权力感水平的决策者;而在困难任务中,两者的建议采纳程度没有显著性差异。 相似文献
12.
Past research has found that people treat advice differently depending on its source. In many cases, people seem to prefer human advice to algorithms, but in others, there is a reversal, and people seem to prefer algorithmic advice. Across two studies, we examine the persuasiveness of, and judges' preferences for, advice from different sources when forecasting geopolitical events. We find that judges report domain-specific preferences, preferring human advice in the domain of politics and algorithmic advice in the domain of economics. In Study 2, participants report a preference for hybrid advice, that combines human and algorithmic sources, to either one on it's own regardless of domain. More importantly, we find that these preferences did not affect persuasiveness of advice from these different sources, regardless of domain. Judges were primarily sensitive to quantitative features pertaining to the similarity between their initial beliefs and the advice they were offered, such as the distance between them and the relative advisor confidence, when deciding whether to revise their initial beliefs in light of advice, rather than the source that generated the advice. 相似文献
13.
14.
How do you respond when receiving advice from somebody with the argumentation “my gut tells me so” or “this is what my intuition says”? Most likely, you would find this justification insufficient and disregard the advice. Are there also situations where people do appreciate such intuitive advice and change their opinion accordingly? A growing number of authors write about the power of intuition in solving problems, showing that intuitively made decisions can be of higher quality than decisions based on analytical reasoning. We want to know if decision makers, when receiving advice based on an intuitive cognitive process, also recognize the value of such advice. Is advice justified by intuition necessarily followed to a lesser extent than an advice justified by analysis? Furthermore, what are the important factors influencing the effect of intuitive justification on advice taking? Participants across three studies show that utilization of intuitive advice varies depending on advisor seniority and type of task for which the advice is given. Summarizing, the results suggest that decision makers a priori doubt the value of intuitive advice and only assess it as accurate if other cues in the advice setting corroborate this. Intuitively justified advice is utilized more if it comes from a senior advisor. In decision tasks with experiential products, intuitively justified advice can even have more impact than analytically justified advice. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 相似文献
15.
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。 相似文献