What Goes Down When Advice Goes Up: Younger Advisers Underestimate Their Impact

Ting  Zhang; Michael S. North

Article | Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | October 2020

What Goes Down When Advice Goes Up: Younger Advisers Underestimate Their Impact

by Ting Zhang and Michael S. North

Abstract

Common wisdom suggests that older is wiser. Consequently, people rarely give advice to older individuals—even when they are relatively more expert—leading to missed learning opportunities. Across six studies (N=3,445), we explore the psychology of advisers when they are younger (reverse advising), the same age (peer advising), or older (traditional advising) than their advisees. Study 1 shows that advisers avoid reverse advising interactions because they perceive that their relative youth makes them less effective. However, when compared to advisees’ actual perceptions, reverse advisers are misguided as they underestimate their effectiveness when giving general life advice (Study 2a-2b) as well as tactical advice (Studies 3-4). This misperception is in part driven by advisers’ beliefs about their own competence and others’ receptivity. Finally, we demonstrate an intervention that mitigates advisers’ misguided beliefs (Study 5). Contrary to advisers’ own perceptions, these findings illustrate that being relatively young can also mean being an impactful adviser.

Keywords: advice; expertise; Knowledge Sharing; Experience and Expertise; Age; Perception;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Zhang, Ting, and Michael S. North. "What Goes Down When Advice Goes Up: Younger Advisers Underestimate Their Impact." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 10 (October 2020): 1444–1460.

We identify and document a novel construct—pettiness, or intentional attentiveness to trivial details—and examine its (negative) implications in interpersonal relationships and social exchange. Seven studies show that pettiness manifests across different types of resources (both money and time), across cultures with differing tolerance for ambiguity in relationships (the United States, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria), and is distinct from related constructs such as generosity, conscientiousness, fastidious, and counter-normativity. Indeed, people dislike petty exchanges even when the (petty) amount given is more generous (e.g., a gift card for $5.15 rather than $5), suggesting that pettiness may in some instances serve as a stronger relationship signal than actual benefits exchanged. Attentiveness to trivial details of resource exchanges harms communal-sharing relationships by making (even objectively generous) exchanges feel transactional. When exchanging resources, people should be wary of both how much they exchange and the manner in which they exchange.

Dilemmas featuring competing moral imperatives are prevalent in organizations and are difficult to resolve. Whereas prior research has focused on how individuals adjudicate among these moral imperatives, we study the factors that influence when individuals find solutions that fall outside of the salient options presented. In particular, we study moral insight, or the discovery of solutions, other than selecting one of the competing moral imperatives over another, that honor both competing imperatives or resolve the tension among them. Although individuals intuitively consider the question “What should I do?” when contemplating moral dilemmas, we find that prompting people to consider “What could I do?” helps them generate moral insight. Together, these studies point toward the conditions that enable moral insight and important practical implications.

Faculty & Research

What Goes Down When Advice Goes Up: Younger Advisers Underestimate Their Impact

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author