寻求者的注视方向对建议者建议提出的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01363

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于信号理论, 研究采用3个依次递进的实验, 分别以大学生群体和在职员工为被试, 探讨了建议寻求者的注视方向对建议者建议提出意愿的影响。结果发现：(1)当建议寻求者的注视方向为正视时, 能够促进建议者提出建议的意愿, 建议者感知到的角色期待在其中起到了中介作用。(2)当建议者的拒绝敏感性高时, 寻求者的注视方向对建议提出意愿有显著影响; 当建议者的拒绝敏感性低时, 这种影响减弱或消失; 此外, 拒绝敏感性也调节了角色期待感知的中介效应。

关键词: 注视方向, 建议提出, 角色期待感知, 拒绝敏感性, 信号理论

Abstract:

Advice, given or taken, is vital in decision-making processes and social interactions. An individual can either exert one’s influence on others with advice, or use others’ advice to enable effective decision-making. Given the importance of behaviors related to advice, it has become critical for scholars to investigate their antecedents. However, previous studies have focused largely on advice taking rather than advice giving, which is equally vital.
To fill this gap, the current study, inspired by eye effects, seeks to explore the relationship between advice-seekers’ gaze direction and advisors’ willingness to give advice, as well as the mechanism underlying this relationship. Drawing from Signaling Theory, we examined the effect of advice-seekers’ gaze direction on advisors’ advice giving, as well as the process linking them. We focused on the mediating effect of perceived role expectation and on the moderating effect of rejection sensitivity.
Three experiments with different decision making scenarios were conducted to test the hypotheses. The advice-seekers’ gaze direction (direct vs. averted) was manipulated using same images of faces (3 models, 2 males and 1 female) in three experiments. Experiment 1 employed an undergraduate’ career decision-making scenario to examine the direct effect of advice-seekers’ gaze direction on advisors’ willingness of giving advice, as well as the mediating effect of perceived role expectation. A total of 102 university students were recruited for this experiment (39 males; mean age 23.76 ± 4.39 years), and were randomly divided into two groups (direct vs. averted). The experiment 2 adopted a 2 (gaze direction: direct vs. averted) × 2 (rejection sensitivity: high vs. low) between-subject design to examine the moderating effect of rejection sensitivity with an undergraduate’ decision-making scenario in daily study life. A total of 318 undergraduates were recruited (155 males; mean age 21.74 ± 1.49 years). Using the tendency to expect rejection scale (TERS), we deployed 86 participants (35 males) who scored in the top 27% in the high rejection sensitivity group and 86 participants (36 males) who scored in the bottom 27% in the low rejection sensitivity group. The experiment 3 employed a job-related decision making scenario in an organization to examine the full model (a moderated mediation model). A total of 198 full-time employees were recruited (88 males; mean age 31.20 ± 5.06 years).
The results of the three experiments showed that: (1) advice-seeker's gaze direction directly influenced the advisors’ willingness to give advice. When the advice-seeker's gaze direction was direct rather than averted, advisors were more willing to give advice; (2) perceived role expectation mediated the relationship between advice-seeker's gaze direction and advisors’ willingness to give advice; (3) advisors’ rejection sensitivity moderated the relationship between advice-seeker's gaze direction and advisors’ willingness to give advice, as well as the indirect relationship of advice seeker's gaze direction to advisors’ willingness to give advice through perceived role expectation. When the advisor's rejection sensitivity was high, seeker's direct gaze direction had a stronger effect on the advisors’ willingness to give advice, as well as on the indirect effect mentioned above. These findings contribute to our understandings of how to help advisors to give advice, and add to the research on eye effects as well.

Key words: gaze direction, advice-giving, perceived role expectation, rejection sensitivity, signaling theory

中图分类号:

B849:C91

段锦云, 施蓓, 王啸天. (2019). 寻求者的注视方向对建议者建议提出的影响. 心理学报, 51(12), 1363-1374.

DUAN Jinyun, SHI Bei, WANG Xiaotian. (2019). The influence of advice-seeker’s gaze direction on advisor’s advice-giving. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(12), 1363-1374.

图/表 3

参考文献 71

[1]	Ajzen I . (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
[2]	Baron R. M., & Kenny D. A . (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
[3]	Bayliss A. P., Frischen A., Fenske M. J., & Tipper S. P . (2007). Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotional expression. Cognition, 104(3), 644-653.
[4]	Bjornsdottir R. T., & Rule N. O . (2017). The visibility of social class from facial cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 530-546.
[5]	Bonaccio S., & Dalal R. S . (2007). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.
[6]	Branzei O., Ursacki-Bryant T. J., Vertinsky I., & Zhang W . (2010). The formation of green strategies in Chinese firms: Matching corporate environmental responses and individual principles. Strategic Management Journal, 25(11), 1075-1095.
[7]	Breines J., & Ayduk O . (2015). Rejection sensitivity and vulnerability to self-directed hostile cognitions following rejection. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 1-13.
[8]	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.
[9]	Burnham T. C., & Hare B . (2007). Engineering human cooperation: Does involuntary neural activation increase public goods contributions? Human nature, 18(2), 88-108.
[10]	Carmeli A., & Schaubroeck J . (2007). The influence of leaders' and other referents' normative expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48.
[11]	Carnevale P. J. D., Pruitt D. G., & Carrington P. I . (1982). Effects of future dependence, liking, and repeated requests for help on helping behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1), 9-14.
[12]	Casciaro T., & Lobo M. S . (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655-684.
[13]	Chamberlin M., Newton D. W., & Lepine J. A . (2017). A meta-analysis of voice and its promotive and prohibitive forms: Identification of key associations, distinctions, and future research directions. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 11-71.
[14]	Chentsova-Dutton Y. E., & Vaughn A . (2012). Let me tell you what to do: Cultural differences in advice-giving. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 687-703.
[15]	Chow S. K., Au E. W. M., & Chiu C. Y . (2008). Predicting the psychological health of older adults: Interaction of age-based rejection sensitivity and discriminative facility. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 169-182.
[16]	Cialdini R. B., & Goldstein N. J . (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591-621.
[17]	Connelly B. L., Certo S. T., Ireland R. D., & Reutzel C. R . (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39-67.
[18]	Cropanzano R., & Mitchell M. S . (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
[19]	Deelstra J. T., Peeters M. C. W., Schaufeli W. B., Stroebe W., Zijlstra F. R. H., & van Doornen L. P . (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 324-331.
[20]	Dierdorff E. C., Rubin R. S., & Bachrach D. G . (2012). Role expectations as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating effects of work context. Journal of Management, 38(2), 573-598.
[21]	Downey, G., & Feldman S. I . (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327-1343.
[22]	Downey G., Mougios V., Ayduk O., London B. E., & Shoda Y . (2004). Rejection sensitivity and the defensive motivational system: Insights from the startle response to rejection cues. Psychological Science, 15(10), 668-673.
[23]	Duan J. Y., Li C., Xu Y., & Wu C. H . (2017). Transformational leadership and employee voice behavior: A pygmalion mechanism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(5), 650-670.
[24]	Eden D . (1984). Self-fulfilling prophecy as a management tool: Harnessing pygmalion. Academy of Management Review, 9(1), 64-73.
[25]	Eden D., Geller D., Gewirtz A., Gordon-Terner R., Inbar I., Liberman M., .. Shalit M . (2000). Implanting pygmalion leadership style through workshop training: Seven field experiments. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 171-210.
[26]	Ekström M . (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530-546.
[27]	Emery N. J . (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(6), 581-604.
[28]	Farmer S. M., Tierney P., & Kung-McIntyre K . (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.
[29]	Farroni T., Csibra G., Simion F., & Johnson M. H . (2002). Eye contact detection in humans from birth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99 (14), 9602-9605.
[30]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A . (2007). Gpower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191.
[31]	Feng B., & Magen E . (2016). Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(6), 751-767.
[32]	Gino, F., & Schweitzer M. E . (2008). Blinded by anger or feeling the love: How emotions influence advice taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1165-73.
[33]	Gino F., Shang J., & Croson R . (2009). The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 287-302.
[34]	Gleason M. E. J., Iida M., Shrout P. E., & Bolger N . (2008). Receiving support as a mixed blessing: Evidence for dual effects of support on psychological outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 824-838.
[35]	Glikson E., Cheshin A., & Kleef G. A. V . (2018). The dark side of a smiley: Effects of smiling emoticons on virtual first impressions. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 9(5), 614-625.
[36]	Goldsmith D. J., & Fitch K . (2010). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research, 23(4), 454-476.
[37]	Gulati R., & Higgins M. C . (2003). Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 127-144.
[38]	Haxby J. V., Hoffman E. A., & Gobbini M. I . (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(6), 223-233.
[39]	Hayes A. F . (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
[40]	Highhouse S., Thornbury E. E., & Little I. S . (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 134-146.
[41]	Jonas E., & Frey D . (2003). Information search and presentation in advisor-client interactions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 91(2), 154-168.
[42]	Kleinke C. L . (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78-100.
[43]	Kray L. J . (2000). Contingent weighting in self-other decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 82-106.
[44]	Lepper H. S., Martin L. R., & Dimatteo M. R . (1995). A model of nonverbal exchange in physician-patient expectations for patient involvement. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19(4), 207-222.
[45]	Liu S., Zhao Y. L., & Zhang L . (2016). Rejection sensitivity: Research and prospect. China Journal of Health Psychology, 24(1), 148-151.
	[ 刘燊, 赵艳林, 张林 . (2016). 拒绝敏感:研究与展望. 中国健康心理学杂志, 24(1), 148-151.]
[46]	London B., Downey G., Bonica C., & Paltin I . (2010). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 481-506.
[47]	Manesi Z., van Lange P. A. M., & Pollet T. V . (2015). Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes. Plos One, 10(11), e0141433.
[48]	Mason M. F., Tatkow E. P., & Macrae C. N . (2005). The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16(3), 236-239.
[49]	Michniewicz K. S., & Vandello J. A . (2014). The attractive underdog: When disadvantage bolsters attractiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(7), 942-952.
[50]	Milliken F. J., Morrison E. W., & Hewlin P. F . (2010). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453-1476.
[51]	Morrison E. W . (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173-197.
[52]	Peluso A. M., Bonezzi A., Angelis M. D., & Rucker D. D . (2017). Compensatory word of mouth: Advice as a device to restore control. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 499-515.
[53]	Pfattheicher S., & Keller J . (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 560-566.
[54]	Rader C. A., Larrick R. P., & Soll J. B . (2017). Advice as a form of social influence: Informational motives and the consequences for accuracy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(8), e12329.
[55]	Rebecca L. J . (2003) Emotional and physiological reactions to social rejection:The development and aalidation of the tendency to expect rejection scale and the relationship between rejection expectancy and responses to exclusion. (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
[56]	Reinhardt J. P., Boerner K., & Horowitz A . (2006). Good to have but not to use: Differential impact of perceived and received support on well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 117-129.
[57]	Ristic J., & Kingstone A . (2005). Taking control of reflexive social attention. Cognition, 94(3), B55-B65.
[58]	Romero-Canyas R., Downey G., Berenson K., Ayduk O., & Kang N. J . (2010). Rejection sensitivity and the rejection- hostility link in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 119-148.
[59]	Sato S., & Kawahara J. I . (2015). Attentional capture by completely task-irrelevant faces. Psychological Research, 79(4), 523-533.
[60]	Schaerer M., Tost L. P., Huang L., Gino F., & Larrick R . (2018). Advice giving: A subtle pathway to power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 746-761.
[61]	Senju A., & Hasegawa T . (2005). Direct gaze captures visuospatial attention. Visual Cognition, 12(1), 127-144.
[62]	Sniezek J. A., Schrah G. E., & Dalal R. S . (2004). Improving judgement with prepaid expert advice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(3), 173-219.
[63]	Spence A. M . (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434-459.
[64]	Sun L. Y., Chen L., & Duan J. Y . (2017). Advice taking in decision-making: Strategies, influences and feature research. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(1), 169-179.
	[ 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.]
[65]	Tost L. P., Gino F., & Larrick R. P . (2012). Power, competitiveness, and advice taking: Why the powerful don’t listen. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 53-65.
[66]	Vardaman J. M., Amis J. M., Dyson B. P., Wright P. M., & Randolph R. V. G . (2012). Interpreting change as controllable: The role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65(7), 835-859.
[67]	Wang X. J., Wang N., Han S. F., Liu S., & Zhang L . (2018). The influence of facial trustworthiness on helping behavior: The role of attachment type. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(11), 1292-1302.
	[ 王秀娟, 王娜, 韩尚锋, 刘燊, 张林 . (2018). 面孔可信度对助人行为的影响:依恋安全的调节作用. 心理学报, 50(11), 1292-1302]
[68]	Wen Y. J., Gong X., Sun J. J., & Li D. B . (2015). Research on the effect of college female teacher facial attractiveness on students’ implicit behavioral mimicry. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(4), 528-533.
	[ 温义媛, 龚茜, 孙君洁, 李东斌 . (2015). 高校女教师面孔吸引力对大学生内隐模仿行为的影响. 心理与行为研究, 13(4), 528-533.]
[69]	Zhang K. L., Zhou P., & Wang P . (2018). The affects of facial expression and gaze direction on face processing: Based on perceptual load theory. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(6), 984-993.
	[ 张凯莉, 周霈, 王沛 . (2018). 面孔表情及注视方向对面孔加工特异性的影响——基于知觉负荷理论的视角. 心理科学进展, 26(6), 984-993.]
[70]	Zhang X. J., & Liu C. H . (2017). The watching eyes effect on prosociality. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(3), 475-485.
	[ 张雪姣, 刘聪慧 . (2017). 亲社会行为中的“眼睛效应”. 心理科学进展, 25(3), 475-485.]
[71]	Zhang Y. R., & Xiao Y. X . (2018). The psychological mechanism of rejection sensitivity and its research progress. China Journal of Health Psychology, 26(8), 1273-1277.
	[ 张莹瑞, 肖英霞 . (2018). 拒绝敏感的心理机制及其相关研究进展. 中国健康心理学杂志26(8), 1273-1277.]

注视方向	高拒绝敏感性	低拒绝敏感性
正视	3.58 ± 0.98 (n = 43)	3.34 ± 0.94 (n = 41)
斜视	2.37 ± 0.79 (n = 43)	2.82 ± 0.83 (n = 45)

注视方向	高拒绝敏感性	低拒绝敏感性
正视	3.58 ± 0.98 (n = 43)	3.34 ± 0.94 (n = 41)
斜视	2.37 ± 0.79 (n = 43)	2.82 ± 0.83 (n = 45)

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1 性别	1.56	0.50
2 年龄	28.94	5.73	-0.01
3 教育程度	1.56	0.88	-0.01	-0.02
4 面孔吸引力	3.96	1.36	0.05	0.01	-0.06
5 注视方向	1.49	0.50	0.12	0.13	-0.02	0.01
6 角色期待感知	2.96	0.83	-0.06	-0.07	-0.02	0.02	-0.66^***	(0.67)
7 拒绝敏感性	1.50	0.50	0.02	-0.19^**	0.08	-0.11	-0.03	-0.14^*	(0.89)
8 建议提出	2.70	0.74	-0.09	-0.13	0.05	0.02	-0.22^**	0.48^***	0.01

变量	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1 性别	1.56	0.50
2 年龄	28.94	5.73	-0.01
3 教育程度	1.56	0.88	-0.01	-0.02
4 面孔吸引力	3.96	1.36	0.05	0.01	-0.06
5 注视方向	1.49	0.50	0.12	0.13	-0.02	0.01
6 角色期待感知	2.96	0.83	-0.06	-0.07	-0.02	0.02	-0.66^***	(0.67)
7 拒绝敏感性	1.50	0.50	0.02	-0.19^**	0.08	-0.11	-0.03	-0.14^*	(0.89)
8 建议提出	2.70	0.74	-0.09	-0.13	0.05	0.02	-0.22^**	0.48^***	0.01