IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v185y2024ics0749597824000700.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Reif, Jessica A.
  • Larrick, Richard P.
  • Soll, Jack B.

Abstract

Scholars have devoted considerable research attention to examining how people use advice from others. However, there is much less research exploring the preceding step of how people solicit advice from others. Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments. Across naturalistic and laboratory samples, we find that advice seekers include anchors when seeking quantitative advice between 20 and 50 percent of the time. In five preregistered studies (N = 6,981), we investigate the causes and consequences of including anchors when seeking advice. We find that impression management motives increase the tendency to include anchors when seeking advice, while a goal of minimizing influence on advisors reduces the tendency to include anchors. We then show that anchors are indeed effective in achieving impression management goals, but that advice seekers who include them benefit less from opinion combination strategies such as averaging because they introduce shared sources of error. This work contributes to the literatures on advice seeking, anchoring, and collective judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Reif, Jessica A. & Larrick, Richard P. & Soll, Jack B., 2024. "The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:185:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000700
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597824000700
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2024.104378?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:185:y:2024:i:c:s0749597824000700. 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.