建议寻求时的能力-热情偏好:思维模式和信息共享感的作用*

胡寅凤, 毕重增

心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (3) : 622-632.

PDF(1392 KB)
中文  |  English
PDF(1392 KB)
心理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (3) : 622-632. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260311
社会、人格与管理

建议寻求时的能力-热情偏好:思维模式和信息共享感的作用*

作者信息 +

Competence vs. Warmth?: Thinking Styles and Information Sharing Perceptions Shape Advice-Seeking Preferences

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

人们的建议寻求意愿及偏好受社会认知的影响。采用情境模拟实验,通过2个研究分别探讨思维模式(实验1)和信息共享感(实验2)对建议寻求时能力-热情偏好的影响。结果发现,寻求他人建议时人们偏好能力对象,但能力偏好效应依赖于分析思维的启动并受信息共享感的影响;决策者感知到信息完全共享时,建议寻求的能力偏好和思维模式的作用与未知共享信息时一致;决策者感知到信息不完全共享时,能力偏好逆转为热情偏好,且依赖于直觉思维的启动。研究不仅明确了建议寻求时的能力偏好效应,为利益依赖假说提供支持,还发现了信息不完全共享时能力偏好会转化为热情偏好。

Abstract

Research has shown that the impressions and cognitive evaluations individuals form of others influence their willingness to seek advice and whom they prefer to ask. For example, people tend to seek advice from those they perceive as competent or warm individuals (e.g., confident or polite). However, it is unclear whether competence or warmth is the preferred trait when seeking advice. Most relevant studies have focused on how an advisor’s impression affects advice-taking, and these studies have typically examined only a single dimension, overlooking the fact that ambivalent stereotypes—where individuals may be seen as both competent and lacking in warmth, or vice versa—are more commonly formed in real life. Accordingly, the present study examined individuals’ willingness and preferences for seeking advice from high competence-low warmth (HC-LW) and high warmth-low competence (HW-LC) individuals to test whether competence or warmth is more valued. In decision-making, thinking styles play a critical role in shaping outcomes. The different cognitive and emotional needs of decision-makers, depending on their mode of thinking, can influence their advice-seeking preferences. Since the goal of seeking advice is often to gather new information, decision-makers tend to prefer advisors with unique insights. The level of information sharing between decision-makers and advisors determines how well these needs are met, which affects their preference for competence or warmth. This study also investigates how thinking styles and perceptions of information sharing impact advice-seeking preferences.

Experiment 1 investigated the impact of thinking styles on advice-seeking preferences using an escape room scenario task. A total of 163 participants were assigned to a 2 (ambivalent stereotypes: HC-LW, HW-LC) × 2 (thinking styles: analytical, intuitive) mixed experimental design, with 84 participants engaged in analytical thinking and 79 in intuitive thinking. All participants read advice-seeking scenarios and assessed their willingness to seek advice from two individuals representing ambivalent stereotypes, as well as their preference between the two. The results showed that participants generally preferred seeking advice from HC-LW individuals. However, a clear preference for competence emerged only when analytical thinking was activated, while no preference for competence or warmth was observed under intuitive thinking.

Experiment 2 further examined how advice-seeking preferences are influenced by thinking styles under different information sharing states. A total of 315 participants were randomly assigned to a 3-factor mixed experimental design: 2 (ambivalent stereotypes: HC-LW, HW-LC) × 2 (thinking styles: analytical, intuitive) × 2 (shared information states: fully shared information, incompletely shared information). Of these participants, 158 were in the fully shared information group (73 engaged in analytical thinking, and 85 engaged in intuitive thinking), and 157 were in the incompletely shared information group (80 engaged in analytical thinking and 77 engaged in intuitive thinking). The experimental procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except participants received information about the state of shared information between the decision-maker and the advisor after the contextual imagery task. The findings revealed that the fully shared information scenario produced results similar to those observed in Experiment 1, in which no specific information about sharing was provided. In contrast, the incompletely shared information scenario led to a greater preference for warmth, with the intuitive thinking group favoring advice from HW-LC individuals, whereas the analytical thinking group showed no preference between the two ambivalent stereotype individuals.

This study clarifies the competence preference effect when people seek advice from others, provides direct support for the “interest-interdependence hypothesis”. In addition, this study explores how two key variables, thinking styles and perceptions of information sharing states, affect the competence preference effect, and identifies the conditions under which competence preference disappears or reverses, providing new insights into the mechanisms of preference change in the process of advice seeking.

关键词

能力 / 热情 / 思维模式 / 信息共享感 / 建议寻求偏好

Key words

competence / warmth / thinking styles / information sharing perception / advice-seeking preferences

引用本文

导出引用
胡寅凤, 毕重增. 建议寻求时的能力-热情偏好:思维模式和信息共享感的作用*[J]. 心理科学. 2026, 49(3): 622-632 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260311
Hu Yinfeng, Bi Chongzeng. Competence vs. Warmth?: Thinking Styles and Information Sharing Perceptions Shape Advice-Seeking Preferences[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(3): 622-632 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260311

参考文献

[1]
杜秀芳, 袁晓倩, 徐政. (2023). 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. 心理科学, 46(3), 719-725.
[2]
柳武妹, 王璐. (2024). 流浪动物慈善救助中的“远狗近猫”效应及其机制探析. 心理学报, 56(6), 777-805.
[3]
尚雪松, 陈卓, 陆静怡. (2021). 帮忙失败后我会被差评吗?好心帮倒忙中的预测偏差. 心理学报, 53(3), 291-305.
[4]
闫宜人, 刘宁. (2023). 热情还是能力?合作关系中的热情-能力偏好. 心理科学, 46(3), 594-602.
[5]
杨晓莉, 邹妍, 周文文, 王源, 王芳. (2023). 遵从排斥者的心理代价与补偿行为:被排斥者热情和能力的调节作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 31(6), 1281-1287.
[6]
Berman, J. Z., & Silver, I. (2022). Prosocial behavior and reputation: When does doing good lead to looking good? Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 102-107.
[7]
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.
[8]
Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
[9]
Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., & Goodwin, G. P. (2021). The primacy of morality in impression development: Theory, research, and future directions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 64, 187-262.
[10]
Brosnan, M., Ashwin, C., & Lewton, M. (2017). Brief report: Intuitive and reflective reasoning in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 2595-2601.
[11]
Capraro, V. (2024). The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(5), 719-757.
[12]
Cuddy, A. J., 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.
[13]
Duan, J., Xu, Y., Guo, Y., & Wang, X. H. (2022). Evaluation sensitivity and advice seeking: The mediating role of self-uncertainty and moderation role of peer exclusion. Current Psychology, 41(5), 2606-2614.
[14]
Dupree, C., H., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Universal dimensions of social signals:Warmth and competence. In J. K. Burgoon, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, M. Pantic, & Eds.), Social signal processing (pp.23-33). Cambridge University Press.
[15]
Evans, J. S. B. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313-326.
[16]
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
[17]
Fan, Z., Chen, M., & Lin, Y. (2022). Self-control and problematic internet use in college students: The chain mediating effect of rejection sensitivity and loneliness. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 459-470.
[18]
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[19]
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., and Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Separate dimensions of competence and warmth respectively follow from status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
[20]
Glöckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: A categorisation of processes underlying intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking and Reasoning, 16(1), 1-25.
[21]
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230.
[22]
Huang, X., Bei, L., Yinyin, W., Xin, L., & Miao, C. (2023). Effect of visual warmness of counseling room on primary school students' willingness to psychological help-seeking: The role of intimacy and cognitive style. Psychology in the Schools, 60(12), 5004-5024.
[23]
Kämmer, J. E., Choshen-Hillel, S., Müller-Trede, J., Black, S. L., & Weibler, J. (2023). A systematic review of empirical studies on advice-based decisions in behavioral and organizational research. Decision, 10(2), 107-137.
[24]
Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V., & Judd, C. M. (2010). Compensation between warmth and competence: Antecedents and consequences of a negative relation between the two fundamental dimensions of social perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 155-187.
[25]
Liang, F., Tan, Q., Zhan, Y., Wu, X., & Li, J. (2021). Selfish or altruistic? The influence of thinking styles and stereotypes on moral decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110465.
[26]
Lin, M. S., Sharma, A., Pan, B., & Quadri-Felitti, D. (2023). Information asymmetry in the innovation adoption decision of tourism and hospitality SMEs in emerging markets: A mixed-method analysis. Tourism Management, 99, 104793.
[27]
Milan, G. S., Bebber, S., Toni, D. D., & Eberle, L. (2015). Information quality, distrust and perceived risk as antecedents of purchase intention in the online purchase context. Journal of Management Information System and E-commerce, 2(2), 111-129.
[28]
Oleszkiewicz, A., & Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K. (2016). Perceived competence and warmth influence respect, liking and trust in work relations. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 47(4), 431-435.
[29]
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 425-432.
[30]
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 260-290.
[31]
Porath, C. L., Gerbasi, A., & Schorch, S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527-1541.
[32]
Raue, M., & Scholl, S. G. (2018). The use of heuristics in decision making under risk and uncertainty. In M. Raue, E. Lermer, & Eds.), Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis: Theory, models and applications (pp.153-179). Springer.
[33]
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 423-428.
[34]
Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434-459.
[35]
Van Swol, L. M. (2009). Factors affecting decision makers' preference for unshared information. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13(1), 31-45.
[36]
Van Swol, L. M., & Ludutsky, C. L. (2007). Tell me something I don' t know: Decision makers' preference for advisors with unshared information. Communication Research, 34(3), 297-312.
[37]
Wang, X. L., Shi, K., & Fan, H. X. (2006). Psychological mechanisms of investors in Chinese stock markets. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(6), 762-780.
[38]
Wen, W., Li, J., Georgiou, G. K., Huang, C., & Wang, L. (2020). Reducing the halo effect by stimulating analytic thinking. Social Psychology, 51(5), 1-7.
[39]
Winet, Y. K., Tu, Y., Choshen-Hillel, S., & Fishbach, A. (2022). Social exploration: When people deviate from options explored by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(3), 427-442.
[40]
Woolley, K., & Liu, P. J. (2021). How you estimate calories matters: Calorie estimation reversals. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(1), 147-168.
[41]
Yagil, D., & Moshe, I. (2003). Helpers' characteristics and problem intimacy as determinants of emotions associated with help-seeking. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(3), 223-228.

基金

*西南大学研究生科研创新项目(SWUB24021)

PDF(1392 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/