Extending advice response theory to the advisor: Similarities, differences, and partner-effects in advisor and recipient advice evaluations

The Effect of Gender on Investors’ Judgments and Decision-Making

“…As ingroup favoritism is stronger among females than males (Cadinu & Galdi, 2012;Rudman & Goodwin, 2004), we predict that female-female analyst-investor pair would generate the biggest reaction to an otherwise identical analyst report, compared to other pairs (e.g., female-male, male-male, male-female analyst-investor pairs). 4 Our prediction that ingroup favoritism is more likely to arise in a judge-advisor setting (Guntzviller et al, 2020;Yaniv, 2004) is consistent with survey evidence from Baeckstrom et al (2019) where they conclude that "female investors advised by women report the highest risk tolerance and make the lowest portfolio allocation to risk free assets across the full sample. "…”

“…Consistent with Messick's (2009) statement that "making personnel decisions on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or other 'irrelevant' factors is unethical" (p. 73, emphasis added), the existing literature largely examines gender and ethical issues in the performance evaluations context, including evaluating leadership (Hoyt et al, 2009;Koenig et al, 2011), assignment of audit client portfolio (Hardies et al, 2020), as well as evaluating sell-side equity analysts for promotion (Bloomfield et al, 2020) and compensation (Lin & Neely, 2017) among others (see meta-analysis by Koch et al, 2015). Our study extends prior gender and ethics literature beyond the evaluation setting to a judge-advisor setting (Yaniv, 2004;Zaleskiewicz et al, 2016;Baeckstrom et al, 2018; for a review of the judge-advisor paradigm, see Guntzviller et al, 2020), where individual investors rely on and process the advice provided by an expert (i.e., an equity analyst) to make investment decisions.…”

“…We examine this interactive effect in the judge-advisor theoretical framework (e.g., Guntzviller et al, 2020;Yaniv, 2004), which is distinct from the evaluative setting applicable to performance evaluation and promotion decisions examined in prior analyst studies (e.g., Bloomfield et al, 2020). 3 We suggest that these two settings are different such that the findings from the evaluative setting may not be generalizable.…”

Considering Communication Theory in Health Education and Behavior: Applying the Integrated Model of Advice-Giving in Friendship Sex Talks

“…Substantial research on the connection between VPC and NVI messages as the source of emotional support suggests that both are strong indicators of supportive listening (Bodie & Jones, 2012). Similar to recipients’ evaluation of advice messages for advice giver characteristics, advice givers also evaluate the effectiveness of their own supportive messages for recipients (Guntzviller, Liao, et al, 2020). VPC messages explicitly acknowledge, elaborate, legitimize, and contextualize the recipient’s feelings and perspectives, while NVI messages are communicated through forward leaning, head nods, and direct eye contact to signal responsiveness and closeness (Bodie & Jones, 2012).…”

“…Prior advice research contends that threats to the advice giver’s face can occur if they perceive that their advice was not taken seriously by the recipient (Guntzviller, Liao, et al, 2020). For recipients, receiving sexual advice can threaten their face if it calls attention to their sexual decision-making skills (Tardy & Dindia, 2006).…”