建议者的权力和地位对决策者建议采纳的影响&#x0002A;

段锦云; 吴珏彧; 徐婷婷; 梁凤华

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240418

PDF(778 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (4) : 910-917. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240418

社会、人格与管理

建议者的权力和地位对决策者建议采纳的影响^*

段锦云¹, 吴珏彧², 徐婷婷³, 梁凤华^**1,4

作者信息 +

The Influence of Different Types of Power and Status on Advice-Taking

Duan Jinyun¹, Wu Jueyu², Xu Tingting³, Liang Fenghua^{1, 4}

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

通过四个实验研究探索了建议者的权力和地位及其交互作用对建议采纳的影响。研究1基于偏好性决策任务考察了高权和高位建议者对人们建议采纳的影响;研究2基于偏好性决策任务探索了建议采纳如何受建议者权/位的影响及能力和热情感知的中介作用;研究3基于事实性决策任务及社会职业的权位操纵进一步探索权/位对建议采纳的影响及能力和热情的中介作用;研究4基于社会职业的权/位操纵及偏好性任务决策进一步验证以上结果。结果建议者的权力和地位与建议采纳正相关,地位强化了权力与建议采纳的正向关系,能力中介了权力和地位与建议采纳的关系。结论建议者权力和地位对其建议采纳的影响表现出异质性,建议者能力感知在其中起着中介作用。

Abstract

Power and status are two prevalent bases of social hierarchy. Power and status share important similarities but also differ from each other. Power means the extent to which an individual can control others' outcomes by granting or withholding socially valued resources. Status refers to the extent to which an individual is respected, admired, and highly regarded in the eyes of others. Previous empirical studies on how power and status influence individuals' motives and behaviors have primarily focused on individuals with power and/or status. Scant studies have explored how the other party responded to individuals who have power and/or status, especially in the field of advice-taking area. This study attempts to explore how advisors' power and status influence the advice recipients' following powerful and/or high-status people's advice and the underlying mechanism.
Drawing from the literature on social hierarchy and interpersonal judgments, we propose that power and status have distinct effects on advice recipients' advice-taking. Four experiments were designed to test the hypotheses. Based on the scenario method, Study 1 separately examined the effects of high power and high status on advice-taking compared with the control group. Study 2 combined power and status into four conditions, that are, high power and high status, high power and low status, low power and high status, and low power and low status, to explore how advisors with different kinds of power and status influence acceptors' advice-taking by using scenario-based power/status manipulation and a preference decision-making task. Study 2 also explored whether the perceived competence and warmth of the advice providers mediated the relationship between the advisor's power and status with advice recipients' advice-taking. Based on Study 2, Study 3 further explored the effects of power/status on advice-taking and the mediating role of perceived competence and warmth by using social occupation-based power/status manipulation and a perceptual decision-making task. In study 4, a large sample was used to verify the results of the previous three studies based on social occupational power/status manipulation and the preference decision-making task.
The results showed that advisors who have higher power or status can promote advice recipients' advice-taking behavior. The positive relationship between power and advice-taking is contingent on the status of the advisor. When the status of the advisor is high, power is positively correlated with advice recipients' advice-taking; when the status is low, the positive relationship between power and advice-taking is weakened or even disappeared. Perception of the advisor's competence mediates the relationship between the position of the advisor's power/status and the recipients' advice-taking behavior, while the perception of warmth does not have a consistent mediating effect on the relationship.
To conclude, the power and status position of the advisor positively predict advice recipients' advice-taking. The positive relationship between advisors' power and the acceptor's advice-taking is moderated by the advisor's status. That is, when the status of the advisor is high, the relationship is positive; when the status is low, the relationship is weakened or even disappeared. And the relationship between the power/status of the advisor and the acceptor's advice-taking is mediated by the perception of the advisor's competence.

导出引用

段锦云, 吴珏彧, 徐婷婷, 梁凤华. 建议者的权力和地位对决策者建议采纳的影响^*[J]. 心理科学. 2024, 47(4): 910-917 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240418

Duan Jinyun, Wu Jueyu, Xu Tingting, Liang Fenghua. The Influence of Different Types of Power and Status on Advice-Taking[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2024, 47(4): 910-917 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240418

参考文献

[1] 金剑, 李晔, 陈冬明, 郭凯娇. (2017). 权力和地位对自利行为的影响及其机制. 心理科学进展, 25(5), 878-886.
[2] 马君, 张锐. (2022). 权重望寡: 如何化解低地位领导的补偿性辱虐管理行为? 心理学报, 54(5), 566-581.
[3] 张艳梅, 杜秀芳, 王修欣. (2015). 焦虑、建议者善意程度对个体建议采纳的影响. 心理科学, 38(5), 1155-1161.
[4] Anderson, C., & Brion, S. (2014). Perspectives on power in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 67-97.
[5] Anderson C., John O. P., & Keltner D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.
[6] Anicich E. M., Fast N. J., Halevy N., & Galinsky A. D. (2016). When the bases of social hierarchy collide: Power without status drives interpersonal conflict. Organization Science, 27(1), 123-140.
[7] Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 994-1014.
[8] Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y. R. (2014). What' s in a name? Status, power, and other forms of social hierarchy. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & C. Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 71-95). Springer.
[9] Blader S. L., Shirako A., & Chen Y. R. (2016). Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 723-737.
[10] Blue P. R., Hu J., Peng L., Yu H. B., Liu H. Y., & Zhou X. L. (2020). Whose promises are worth more? How social status affects trust in promises. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 189-206.
[11] Blunden H., Logg J. M., Brooks A. W., John L. K., & Gino F. (2019). Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 83-100.
[12] Brambilla M., Sacchi S., Castellini F., & Riva P. (2010). The effects of status on perceived warmth and competence: Malleability of the relationship between status and stereotype content. Social Psychology, 41(2), 82-87.
[13] Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., & Glick P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
[14] Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., & Beninger A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73-98.
[15] Djurdjevic E., Stoverink A. C., Klotz A. C., Koopman J., Da Motta Veiga, S. P., Yam K. C., & Chiang, J. T. J. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(7), 1124-1147.
[16] Dutilh, G., & Rieskamp, J. (2016). Comparing perceptual and preferential decision making. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(3), 723-737.
[17] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., & Glick P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
[18] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., & Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.
[19] Fragale A. R., Overbeck J. R., & Neale M. A. (2011). Resources versus respect: Social judgments based on targets' power and status positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 767-775.
[20] Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117-133.
[21] Hays N. A., Li H. S., Yang X., Oh J. K., Yu A., Chen Y. R., & Jamieson B. B. (2021). A tale of two hierarchies: Interactive effects of power differentiation and status differentiation on team performance. Organization Science. Advance online publication.
[22] Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
[23] Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
[24] Meng Y., He J., & Luo C. K. (2014). Science research group leader's power and members' compliance and satisfaction with supervision. Research Management Review, 20(1), 1-15.
[25] Raz K., Fragale A. R., & Levontin L. (2021). Who do I (Dis) trust and monitor for ethical misconduct? Status, power, and the structural paradox. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication.
[26] See K. E., Morrison E. W., Rothman N. B., & Soll J. B. (2011). The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 272-285.
[27] Soll, J. B., & Larrick, R. P. (2009). Strategies for revising judgment: How (and how well) people use others' opinions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 780-805.
[28] Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 86-94.
[29] Tost L. P., Gino F., & Larrick R. P. (2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don' t listen. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 53-65.
[30] van der Toorn J., Tyler T. R., & Jost J. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 127-138.
[31] van Vugt M., Hogan R., & Kaiser R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.
[32] White, T. B. (2005). Consumer trust and advice acceptance: The moderating roles of benevolence, expertise, and negative emotions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 141-148.
[33] Yaniv I., Choshen-Hillel S., & Milyavsky M. (2011). Receiving advice on matters of taste: Similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 111-120.
[34] Yu A., Hays N. A., & Zhao E. Y. (2019). Development of a bipartite measure of social hierarchy: The perceived power and perceived status scales. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 152, 84-104.