IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v183y2024ics0749597824000207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence

Author

Listed:
  • Milyavsky, Maxim
  • Gvili, Yaniv

Abstract

People are constantly subject to various types of informational social influences, such as others’ opinions and advice. A tacit assumption in the advice-taking literature is that decision makers treat others’ opinions and advice equally. In this paper, we challenge this assumption by examining the differential effects of advice versus others’ opinions on people’s judgments. Across six preregistered experiments (N = 3,411), we found that participants placed greater weight on and paid more for others’ estimates when presented as advice than when presented as opinions. This advice framing effect substantially reduced egocentric discounting and held across various types of judgments, and for both good and ecological advice. We propose that the advice framing effect stems from higher helping intentions and thereby trustworthiness ascribed to the source of advice (vs. opinions). Both mediational analyses and experimental evidence support this model. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Milyavsky, Maxim & Gvili, Yaniv, 2024. "Advice taking vs. combining opinions: Framing social information as advice increases source’s perceived helping intentions, trust, and influence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000207
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104328
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000207
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104328?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.