Resentment of Advice and Norms of Advice

Advice-giving is an important means of supporting others to act well. It inspires gratitude, indifference and resentment in equal measure. Although we can often predict a resentful reception for advice, its normative implications may be unclear. Should advice that is likely to be resented be withheld or modified because of its resentability, or delivered despite it? The norms that underwrite advice-giving, and which inform justified resentment, have thus far evaded systematic philosophical analysis. Using a case proposed by Edward Hinchman, the first part of this paper develops three lines of reasoning that explain why advice might be resented. The second part explores three norms of advice suggested by the case. Together they cast light upon the role of advice in our moral and social lives, and offer a starting point for practical reasoning about when to give resentable advice, and how to be a good advisor.     

Empathic forecasting: How do we predict other people's feelings?

When making affective forecasts, people commit the impact bias. They overestimate the impact an emotional event has on their affective experience. In three studies we show that people also commit the impact bias when making empathic forecasts, affective forecasts for someone else. They overestimate the impact an emotional event has on someone else's affective experience (Study 1), they do so for friends and strangers (Study 2), and they do so when other sources of information are available (Study 3). Empathic forecasting accuracy, the correlation between one person's empathic forecast and another person's actual affective experience, was lower than between-person forecasting correspondence, the correlation between one person's empathic forecast and another person's affective forecast. Empathic forecasts do not capture other people's actual experience very well but are similar to what other people forecast for themselves. This may enhance understanding between people.     

The Measurement of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Are We Assuming Too Much?

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is assessed by measuring how frequently employees display extra-role and discretionary behaviors. One hundred forty-four managerial employees responded to an OCB scale and indicated the number of behaviors on the scale they believed to be formally evaluated. None of the behaviors were believed to be unevaluated by all employees. Data suggest that a typical OCB scale is not measuring citizenship behaviors for everybody, and that OCB measurement needs refinement. Best prediction of other organizational variables was obtained when both the OCB and an index of \"unevaluated\" behaviors were used as predictors. Supervisor fairness interacted with OCB when predicting organizational commitment, and this interaction was contingent on the extent OCBs were believed to be unevaluated.