Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

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

Article | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

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

Abstract

Prior advice research has focused on why people rely on (or ignore) advice and its impact on judgment accuracy. We expand the consideration of advice-seeking outcomes by investigating the interpersonal consequences of advice seekers’ decisions. Across nine studies, we show that advisors interpersonally penalize seekers who disregard their advice, and that these reactions are especially strong among expert advisors. This penalty also drives advisor reactions to a widely-recommended advice-seeking strategy: soliciting multiple advisors to leverage the wisdom of crowds. Advisors denigrate and distance themselves from seekers who they learn consulted others, an effect mediated by perceptions that their own advice will be disregarded. Underlying these effects is an asymmetry between advisors’ and seekers’ beliefs about the purpose of the advice exchange: whereas advisors believe giving advice is more about narrowing the option set by providing direction, seekers believe soliciting advice is more about widening the option set by gathering information.

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

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Blunden, Hayley, Jennifer M. Logg, Alison Wood Brooks, Leslie John, and Francesca Gino. "Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 150 (January 2019): 83–100.

In six studies, we show that after experiencing a threat to their abilities, individuals who misrepresent their performance as better than it actually is boost their feelings of competence. We situate these findings in the literature on self-protection. We show that this “counterfeit competence” effect holds when threat is measured (Study 1), manipulated (Study 2), and when the opportunity to cheat is randomly assigned (Study 3). We extend our findings to a workplace context, showing that threatened individuals who lie on a job application feel more capable than those who report them honestly (Study 4). Finally, consistent with the argument that counterfeit competence is driven by self-protection, we find individuals do not predict they would experience such a boost (Study 5) and that cheating after threat offers benefits similar to those provided by other established methods of self-protection (Study 6). Together, our findings suggest that, after threat, misrepresenting one’s performance can function as a mechanism that helps to restore positive self-evaluations about one’s capabilities.

Faculty & Research

Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors