In almost any profession, selecting a good advisor is crucial for success. The current research examines the discrepancy between predicted versus actual advisor selection decisions. We found that individuals make consistent predictions that they would rely primarily on competence-based characteristics (e.g., expertise, experience) when selecting an advisor (Studies 1, 2, and 4). This predicted preference remained even when all potential advisors had relatively similar levels of expertise (Study 4). Using data from the reality competition , we examined whether this prediction translates into actual, high-stakes decision-making (Study 3). The results showed that, contrary to predictions, individuals were more likely to select advisors who expressed high amounts of positivity toward them. We then extended our investigation by testing predicted versus actual advisor selections in a single experiment, again finding evidence that people failed to anticipate the influence that expressed positivity would exert on their selection of an advisor (Study 5). Finally, we examined the performance consequences of this pattern of advisor selection, demonstrating that reliance on expressed positivity over expertise when selecting an advisor can inhibit advisees' performance improvements (Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000756 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!