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

“专家蠕变”（以下简称“蠕变”）发生在导师就超出其知识范围的话题提出建议时。蠕变是一个问题，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。由于合理的决策取决于好的建议，这就要求对某个主题知之甚少的潜在顾问不应该提供建议，而对该主题了解很多的潜在顾问应该提供建议。不幸的是，由于人们通常不知道自己知识的真实程度，所以最好的希望是未来的顾问在决定是否提供建议之前会咨询他们的主观知识。基于这一推理，本研究将探索调节未来咨询师主观知识与建议意愿（WTGA）关系的因素。可行的审查因素是从之前关于社会合规/抵抗和法官顾问系统（JAS）的工作中浮出水面的。对阻力的研究表明，要抵制别人的请求，比如请求建议，一个人必须有动机去关心他/她的建议的准确性。这个想法产生了许多不同的因素，这些因素应该影响WTGA。同样，JAS文献已经确定了一些影响接受建议意愿的因素。提议的研究是独特的，因为在过去的大多数JAS研究中，指导老师的知识水平没有被考虑或衡量。此外，之前没有研究检查过顾问吗？WTGA及其与主观知识的关系。本研究的主要目的是填补这一空白。第二个目标是制定一个规范标准，以确定顾问何时超出了他们的专业知识。

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.