More from the Author

• Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2018

  Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

  Hayley Blunden, Jennifer M. Logg, Alison Wood Brooks, Leslie John and Francesca Gino

  Prior advice research has focused on understanding when and why people rely on (or ignore) advice and how this impacts judgment accuracy; little is known about the interpersonal consequences of the advice-seeking process. In this paper, we investigate the interpersonal consequences when an advisor believes his or her advice will be ignored. We find that advisors interpersonally penalize seekers perceived to ignore their advice because such dismissal threatens advisors’ sense of self-worth, leading them to judge seekers more harshly. Moreover, these effects are compounded by advisor expertise: expert advisors are more likely to punish seekers who ignore their advice than are non-expert advisors. We further find this effect drives advisor reactions to one of the most widely recommended advice-seeking strategies: seeking advice from multiple advisors to leverage the wisdom of crowds. Advisors negatively judge and interpersonally distance themselves from seekers who they learn consulted others, an effect which is mediated by perceptions that their own advice will not be followed. Advice seekers fail to anticipate this negative relational impact, exposing them to unanticipated adverse consequences of their advice-seeking decisions. These findings challenge previous recommendations for optimal advice seeking behavior.

  Keywords: advice; advice seeking; expertise; impression management; wisdom of crowds; Interpersonal Communication; Behavior; Experience and Expertise; Perception; Judgments;

  Citation:

  Blunden, Hayley, Jennifer M. Logg, Alison Wood Brooks, Leslie John, and Francesca Gino. "Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 18-084, February 2018. (Revised April 2018.)  View Details

  CiteView Details Read Now

  Related

• Article | Harvard Business Review | January–February 2018

  Ads That Don't Overstep: How to Make Sure You Don't Take Personalization Too Far

  Leslie John, Tami Kim and Kate Barasz

  Data gathered on the web has vastly enhanced the capabilities of marketers. With people regularly sharing personal details online and internet cookies tracking every click, companies can now gain unprecedented insight into individual consumers and target them with tailored ads. But when this practice feels invasive to people, it can prompt a strong backlash. Marketers today need to understand where to the draw the line. The good news is that psychologists already know a lot about what triggers privacy concerns off-line. These norms—and the authors’ research—strongly suggest that firms steer clear of two ad-targeting techniques generally disliked by consumers: using information obtained on a third-party site rather than on the site on which an ad appears, which is akin to talking behind someone’s back; and deducing information about people (such as a pregnancy) from analytics when they haven’t declared it themselves. If marketers avoid those tactics, use data judiciously, focus on increasing trust and transparency, and offer people control over their personal data, their ads are much more likely to be accepted by consumers and help raise interest in engaging with a company and its products.

  Keywords: Online Advertising; Customization and Personalization; Information; Customers; Attitudes;

  Citation:

  John, Leslie, Tami Kim, and Kate Barasz. "Ads That Don't Overstep: How to Make Sure You Don't Take Personalization Too Far." Harvard Business Review 96, no. 1 (January–February 2018): 62–69.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Register to Read

  Related

• Article | American Journal of Health Promotion | January 2018

  The Effect of Cost Sharing on an Employee Weight Loss Program: A Randomized Trial

  Leslie K. John, Andrea Troxel, William Yancy, Joelle Y. Friedman, Jingsan Zhu, Lin Yang, Robert Galvin, Karen Miller-Kovach, Scott Halpern, George Loewenstein and Kevin Volpp

  Purpose: We tested the effects of employer subsidies on employee enrollment, attendance, and weight loss in a nationally-available weight management program. Design: A randomized trial tested the impact of employer subsidy: 100%; 80% 50% and a hybrid 50% subsidy that could become a 100% subsidy by attaining attendance targets. Trial registration: NCT01756066. Setting and Subjects: 23,023 employees of two U.S. companies. Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage of employees who enrolled in the weight management program. We also tested whether the subsidies were associated with differential attendance and weight loss over 12 months, as might be predicted by the expectation that they attract employees with differing degrees of motivation. Analysis and Results: Enrollment differed significantly by subsidy level (p<.0001). The 100% subsidy produced the highest enrollment (7.7%), significantly higher than each of the lower subsidies (vs. 80% subsidy: 6.2%, p=.002; vs. 50% subsidy: 3.9%, p<.0001; vs. hybrid: 3.7%, p<.0001). Enrollment in the 80% subsidy group was significantly higher than both lower subsidy groups (vs. 50% subsidy: 3.9%, p<.0001; vs. hybrid: 3.7%, p<.0001). Among enrollees, there were no differences among the four groups in attendance or weight loss. Conclusion: This pragmatic trial, conducted in a real-world workplace setting, suggests that higher rates of employer subsidization help individuals to enroll in weight loss programs, without a decrement in program effectiveness. Future research could explore the cost effectiveness of such subsidies or alternative designs.

  Keywords: Affordable Care Act (ACA); subsidies; weight loss; obesity; incentives; Behavioral economics; Motivation and Incentives; Behavior; Health Disorders; Health Care and Treatment; Compensation and Benefits; United States;

  Citation:

  John, Leslie K., Andrea Troxel, William Yancy, Joelle Y. Friedman, Jingsan Zhu, Lin Yang, Robert Galvin, Karen Miller-Kovach, Scott Halpern, George Loewenstein, and Kevin Volpp. "The Effect of Cost Sharing on an Employee Weight Loss Program: A Randomized Trial." American Journal of Health Promotion 32, no. 1 (January 2018): 170–176.  View Details

  CiteView DetailsFind at Harvard Read Now

  Related