Exploring Expertise Creep: An examination of the factors that moderate the relationship between willingness to give advice and knowledge

探索专业知识蔓延：对调节提供建议意愿与知识之间关系的因素的研究

• 批准号: 1258766
• 负责人: Robin Dillon-Merrill
• 金额: $ 38.84万
• 依托单位: Georgetown University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Continuing Grant
• 财政年份: 2013
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2013-06-01 至 2020-05-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1258766&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Exploring; Expertise; Creep; examination; factors

Expertise creep (hereafter creep) occurs when an advisor gives advice on a topic that extends beyond his or her knowledge. Creep is a problem because the same lack of expertise that causes decision makers to seek advice, limits their ability to evaluate advice quality. Since sound decision making depends on good advice, this requires that prospective advisors who know very little about a topic should be unwilling to give advice, while prospective advisors who know a lot about the topic should give advice. Unfortunately, since people do not generally know the true extent of their knowledge, the best that can be hoped for is that prospective advisors will consult their subjective knowledge before deciding whether or not to give advice. Based on this reasoning, the current research will explore the factors that moderate the relationship between a prospective advisor's subjective knowledge and their willingness to give advice (WTGA). Viable factors for examination are surfaced from prior work on social compliance/resistance and Judge-Advisor Systems (JAS). Research on resistance suggests that to resist a request, such as one for advice, one must be motivated to care about the accuracy of his/her advice. This idea gives rise to a number of different factors that should influence WTGA. Likewise, the JAS literature has identified a number of factors that influence willingness to use advice. The proposed research is unique, in that for most of the past JAS studies, the advisor's knowledge level is not considered or measured. Additionally, no prior studies have examined an advisor?s WTGA and its relation to their subjective knowledge. The main objective of this research is to fill this gap. A secondary objective is to develop a normative standard for identifying when advisors creep beyond their expertise.

当一位顾问就一个超出他或她知识范围的话题提供建议时，就会发生专业知识蔓延(以下简称蔓延)。爬行是一个问题，因为缺乏专业知识导致决策者寻求建议，限制了他们评估建议质量的能力。由于合理的决策有赖于好的建议，这就要求对某个主题知之甚少的准顾问不应该给出建议，而对该主题了解很多的准顾问应该给出建议。不幸的是，由于人们通常不知道自己了解的真实程度，最好的希望是，未来的顾问在决定是否提供建议之前，会参考他们的主观知识。基于这一推理，本研究将探索调节未来顾问的主观知识和他们提供建议的意愿(WTGA)之间的关系的因素。关于社会顺从性/抵抗力和法官-顾问制度(JAS)的先前工作中出现了可行的审查因素。关于抵抗的研究表明，要抵制一个请求，比如寻求建议，一个人必须有动力去关心他/她的建议的准确性。这一想法产生了一些不同的因素，这些因素应该影响WTGA。同样，《美国医学会杂志》的文献也指出了一些影响使用建议意愿的因素。拟议的研究是独一无二的，因为在过去的大多数JAS研究中，没有考虑或衡量顾问的知识水平。此外，此前还没有研究考察导师S及其与主观知识的关系。本研究的主要目的就是填补这一空白。第二个目标是制定一个标准标准，以确定顾问何时超越其专业知识。