|
|
|
| The influence of linguistic concreteness on advice taking： The role of gender |
| LI Sixian, SONG Aijia, DUAN Jinyun |
| School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Advice taking is a process in which decision-makers compare and tradeoff advice from others and initial opinion of themselves, and finally make a decision. Drawing on the role theory, we examined whether the interaction of gender and the extent of linguistic concreteness of advice would affect advice taking. Our main experiment included 127 participants, who needed to make their first decision in a dilemma. After receiving advice of different concreteness, they needed to make a second decision for the same dilemma. The discrepancy of two decisions represents the extent of advice taking. We found that decision makers were more likely to adopt concrete advice, and the effect was more pronounced among women than men, confirming our hypotheses. We believe that our results reveal the different linguistic preference of men and women, as well as the role of gender in advice taking, which suggests we should choose an appropriate way to express our opinion to men and women so as to increase perceived utility of the advice. This study is of great significance for understanding how the concreteness of advice affects advice taking and the effect of different roles in the advice taking process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 孙露莹, 陈琳, & 段锦云. (2017). 决策过程中的建议采纳:策略、影响及未来展望. 心理科学进展, 25(1), 169-179.
[2] 徐惊蛰, & 谢晓非. (2011). 解释水平视角下的自己-他人决策差异. 心理学报, 43(1), 11-20.
[3] Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15-19.
[4] Ashraf A. R., Thongpapanl N., & Spyropoulou S. (2016). The connection and disconnection between e-commerce businesses and their customers: Exploring the role of engagement, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease-of-use. Electronic Commerce Research & Applications, 20, 69-86.
[5] Banerjee A.,& Urminsky, O. (2021). The language that drives engagement: A systematic large-scale analysis of headline experiments. Social Science Electronic Publishing. Available at SSRN 3770366.
[6] Bar-Anan Y., Liberman N., Trope Y., & Algom D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 136(4), 610-622.
[7] Biddle B. J.(1981). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Academic Press.
[8] Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
[9] Brooks A. W., Gino F., & Schweitzer M. E. (2015). Smart people ask for (my) advice: Seeking advice boosts perceptions of competence. Management Science, 61(6), 1421-1435.
[10] Cross S. E., Gore J. S., & Morris M. L. (2003). The relational-interdependent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 85(5), 933-944.
[11] Danziger S., Montal R., & Barkan R. (2012). Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice: A psychological distance account. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 102(6), 1105-1117.
[12] Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1165.
[13] Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439-60.
[14] Horsky D., Nelson P., & Posavac S. S. (2004). Stating preference for the ethereal but choosing the concrete: How the tangibility of attributes affects attribute weighting in value elicitation and choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1-2), 132-140.
[15] Joshi P. D., Wakslak C. J., Appel G., & Huang L. (2019). Gender differences in communicative abstraction. Journal of Personality Social Psychology Quarterly, 118(3), 417-435.
[16] Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2013). When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(5), 561-576.
[17] Lee A. Y., Anand K. P., & Brian S. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 735-747.
[18] Liberman, N., & Förster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 203.
[19] Palmeira, & Mauricio. (2015). Abstract language signals power, but also lack of action orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 59-63.
[20] Magee J. C., Milliken F. J., & Lurie A. R. (2010). Power differences in the construal of a crisis: The immediate aftermath of september 11, 2001. Personality Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 354-370.
[21] Manzi, F. (2019). Are the processes underlying discrimination the same for women and men? A critical review of congruity models of gender discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 469.
[22] Packard, G., & Berger, J. (2021). How concrete language shapes customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 787-806.
[23] Pogacar R., Shrum L. J., & Lowrey T. M. (2018). The effects of linguistic devices on consumer information processing and persuasion: A language complexity× processing mode framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 689-711.
[24] Reyt J. N., Wiesenfeld B. M., & Trope Y. (2016). Big picture is better: The social implications of construal level for advice taking. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 135, 22-31.
[25] Rhodes M., Leslie S. J., Yee K. M., & Saunders, K. J. P. S. (2019). Subtle linguistic cues increase girls' engagement in science. Psychological Science, 30(3), 455-466.
[26] Sadoski M., Goetz E. T., & Rodriguez M. (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 85-95.
[27] Snefjella, B., & Kuperman, V. (2015). Concreteness and psychological distance in natural language use. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1449-1460.
[28] Stephan E., Liberman N., & Trope Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268-280.
[29] Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
[30] Wakslak C. J., Smith P. K., & Han A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 41-55.
[31] Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28-38. |
|
|
|
