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 August 2017, Commonwealth Bank of Australia was looking for ways to differentiate itself from competing banks, and was also trying to improve the financial wellbeing of its customers. One domain where this was particularly relevant was in its bank-issued credit card business, where customers routinely selected cards that although profitable for the bank could be a poor fit for customers’ needs – leading to low satisfaction scores, cancellations, and occasionally, financial distress. To that end, the company’s Behavioral Economics team had developed a provocative experiment dubbed “The Good and the Bad.” Rather than just presenting the strengths of its various credit card offerings, they proposed also promoting each credit card’s less-obvious drawbacks. Being transparent with customers might help them make better choices, but would those choices come at the expense of bank performance? Should a company choose to be in the sales prevention business?

From “Chick Beer” to “Dryer sheets for Men,” identity-based labeling is frequently deployed to appeal to people who hold the targeted identity. However, five studies demonstrate that identity appeals can backfire, alienating the very individuals they aim to attract. We begin by demonstrating backlash against identity appeals in the field during the 2016 presidential election (Study 1) and in the lab (Study 2). This (in)effectiveness of identity appeals is driven by categorization threat—feeling unwillingly reduced to a single identity—which is induced when a) the identity deployed is that of a typically marginalized group (Studies 3-4) and b) the appeal evokes a stereotype about that identity (Study 5). Ironically, identity appeals often drive identity-holders away from options they would have preferred in the absence of that appeal.

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

The Revision Bias

Ximena Garcia-Rada, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien and Michael I. Norton

Things change. Things also get changed—often. Why? The obvious reason is that revising things makes them better. In the current research, we document a less obvious reason: Revising things makes people think they are better, absent objective improvement. We refer to this phenomenon as the revision bias. Nine studies document this effect and provide insight into its psychological underpinnings. In Study 1, MBA students perceived their revised resumes to be of higher quality the more they differed from their original versions, but this perception was not justified: observers judged originals (inaccurately) labeled as revisions to be superior to revisions (inaccurately) labeled as originals. Study 2 pinpoints the direction of the effect: Revisions are appealing, as opposed to originals being unappealing. Moreover, the revision bias holds in a variety of settings in which the revision is devoid of objective improvement—when revisions are trivial (Study 3A), incidental (Study 3B), non-existent (Study 3C), and even objectively worse than the original (Study 3D). Study 4 directly tests the self-fulfilling nature of the revision bias, testing whether mere revision framing leads people to become less critical of the experience—in this study, less sensitive to possible bugs while playing an otherwise identical “revised” video game—and whether this mediates the effect of revision framing on positive evaluations. Studies 5A and 5B offer further support by testing whether the revision bias is accentuated when people engage in a holistic processing style, whether measured as an individual difference (Study 5A) or experimentally induced (Study 5B).

Keywords: Change; heuristics and biases; framing; sequences; judgment; Change; Perception;

Citation:

Garcia-Rada, Ximena, Leslie John, Ed O’Brien, and Michael I. Norton. "The Revision Bias." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-087, February 2019. View Details

Cite View Details SSRN Read Now

Faculty & Research

Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors