Abstract
This study examines how language used by advice recipients and whether the peer apologized before offering advice affected advice outcomes. Participants wrote about a problem and then shared the problem through online chat with a peer (who was actually an experimental confederate). Although the participant was expecting the peer to share a problem as well and stated they did not want advice, the peer gave advice. Use of future tense verbs by the recipient in problem descriptions reduced implementation intention, perceived efficacy of advice, perceived approbation of advice, and perception of advice as confirming. This supports research that planning, operationalized through use of future tense verbs, reduces receptiveness to advice. Participants who used more I and we pronouns had lower intentions to implement advice. Contrary to hypotheses, use of apologies by the advisor for giving unwanted advice did not affect implementation intentions and increased reported negative emotions.
Advice involves “recommendations about what might be thought, said, or done to manage a problem” (MacGeorge et al., 2008, p. 150). Although research often makes a general distinction between solicited and unsolicited advice, recent research (Van Swol et al., 2017) suggests four types based on degree of solicitation by the recipient. Advice can be actively solicited by the recipient (e.g., “Can you give me advice?”) or advice can be permitted by the recipient when offered by the advisor (e.g., “Do you want some advice? Yes, please.”). Both solicited and permitted advice are wanted advice. Guaranteed advice is advice given without asking whether the recipient wants it, or waiting for it to be solicited. Therefore, it is often unclear if guaranteed advice is wanted or not because the recipient does not indicate. Generally, laboratory research on advice has examined the effects of guaranteed advice (Van Swol et al., 2018). Imposed advice is advice given after an offer of advice has been rebuffed by the advice recipient. Both guaranteed and imposed advice have been defined as unsolicited advice.
Compared with other types of advice, recipients often react most negatively to imposed advice, probably because it threatens their sense of autonomy and competence (Van Swol et al., 2017). Unsolicited and unwanted advice is less likely to be utilized and is perceived as lower quality than solicited and wanted advice (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2011; Deelstra et al., 2003; Feng & Magen, 2015; Goldsmith, 2000; MacGeorge et al., 2004; Paik, 2020; Van Swol et al., 2017). Yet teachers, parents, spouses, coworkers, and people in many other roles may have the need or desire to provide advice even when it is not wanted by the recipient and has been actively rebuffed. This makes it pragmatically relevant to examine conditions under which imposed advice may be evaluated more or less negatively, and how to craft the advice when it is imposed.
Guided by planning theory (Berger, 1997, 2015) and politeness theory as applied to advice (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Wilson et al., 1998), the current study proposes aspects of recipient language as indicators of how imposed advice will be received if given, and advisor language as a potential influence on negative reactions to imposed advice. Specifically, we examine how recipients’ use of future tense verbs and pronouns to describe their problems may signal prior planning and self-focus and corresponding receptiveness to imposed advice, and how apologetic language from the advisor affects recipients’ responses to imposed advice.
Recipient Behaviors That Impact Recipient Response to Imposed Advice
Planning and Future Tense Verbs
Planning involves thinking about future plans and solutions to resolve or manage a problem or decision (MacGeorge et al., 2019). When planning, people develop goals regarding a desired end state and cognitive representations of behaviors to achieve those goals. In essence, planning focuses on future action needed to achieve goals (Berger, 1997, 2015). Participants who engage in a greater quantity or complexity of planning generally focus more on the future and anticipate more future scenarios involving different alternative outcomes (Berger, 1997). Language use is integral to planning since “people use language to achieve goals.” (Berger, 2015, p. 90). Correspondingly, language focused on the future may represent how people are thinking about plans and future behaviors to solve problems and achieve goals.
Because advice involves “recommendations about what might be thought, said, or done to manage a problem” (MacGeorge et al., 2008, p. 150), advice often involves proposing plans for advice recipients to achieve problem-solving goals. However, advice recipients may also engage in planning with regard to their problem before receiving advice. Prior work indicates that when recipients plan and think about solutions, planned behaviors, or answers to problems before receiving advice, they evaluate the advice more negatively and are less likely to implement it (Sniezek & Buckley, 1995; Sniezek et al., 1990; Trouche et al., 2018). Research on egocentric discounting (Yaniv & Kleinberger, 2000) has found that advice recipients often weigh their perspective more heavily than advice from others because they have thought more about their own opinion and know more about the reasoning underlying their thinking. Thus, with more developed reasoning and certainty in their own opinions before receiving advice, recipient egocentric bias is increased, which in turn decreases perceived effectiveness of advice (Yaniv & Choshen-Hillel, 2019). Furthermore, MacGeorge et al. (2019, p. 814) note that, “In the context of greater planning . . . advice may also be viewed as more contrary or inattentive to the recipient’s expressed intentions and desires, and thus less polite.” Thus, participants may view advice given after their own planning as expressing less approbation or approval and as less confirming of their own decisions compared with advice given when less planning has occurred. For example, MacGeorge et al. (2019) found that more planning before receiving advice predicted lower perceptions of advice quality and advisor helpfulness, and intention to implement the advice. MacGeorge et al. (2019) note that verbally expressing plans is likely to increase commitment to the plans and resistance to advice.
Previous research using linguistic analysis of text has found that verb tense can be indicative of a state of mind and a focus on the present or future. For example, research on language use and mindfulness has found a relationship between mindfulness, which emphasizes being in the moment, and use of present tense verbs (Collins et al., 2009). Falkenstein et al. (2016) examined physician and patient language use and interpreted future tense (e.g., will, may, soon) as an indicator of their focus on treatment and outcomes as opposed to medical history and current symptoms. They found physicians used significantly more future tense verbs than patients during a health visit. In Handelman and Lester’s (2007) study on suicidal notes, people who died as a result of suicide used significantly more future tense verbs than suicide survivors, and used more active methods for suicide.
In this study, we therefore use the percentage of future tense verbs used to describe a problem as a proxy for planning (i.e., “I’m going to try talking to him more.”). Based on the above research, we hypothesize negative relationships between planning (as indicated by the use of future tense verbs) and advice outcomes:
Recipient Self-Focus and Pronoun Use
People with an other-focus pay attention to others and value others’ perspectives, whereas those with a self-focus pay more attention to self and value their own perspective. Correspondingly, people with an other-focus are more likely to utilize advice than people with a self-focus (Duan et al., forthcoming). Use of I pronouns reflects a self-focus, whereas use of we pronouns is indicative of other-focus. For example, research has found that group members with a more collective focus use more we pronouns, whereas members who are more focused on themselves use more I pronouns (Van Swol & Kane, 2019). Given the relationship between other-focus and advice utilization, advice recipients who use more I pronouns to describe their problems should have lower intention to implement advice, whereas those who use more we pronouns should have higher intention to implement advice. Because self- and other-focus are about attentional direction and focus and do not address the perception that advice is contrary to the wishes of the advice recipient, we only hypothesized effects for implementation intention, not effectiveness, confirmation, or approbation. Formally stated,
Advisor Apologies
Advice has substantial potential to be face-threatening for recipients (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997). It can threaten negative face, by challenging the recipients’ autonomy and freedom to decide for themselves, and positive face, by implying that recipients are not competent to make decisions on their own or that advisors do not approve of recipients’ actions (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Wilson et al., 1998). Imposed advice is particularly likely to create face threat because the act of advising ignores the recipient’s expressed wishes (threatening negative face) as well as suggesting that the advisor does not trust the recipient to act appropriately without the advice (threatening positive face). Thus, imposed advice may be perceived as “butting in” (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997, p. 461) and critical of the advice recipient’s ability (Deelstra et al., 2003; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997). When imposed advice elicits psychological reactance and negative emotions in recipients (Deelstra et al., 2003; Goldsmith, 2000; Paik, 2020), they may attempt to restore autonomy by derogating or rejecting the advice.
One way to mitigate a threat to face is to apologize. This can restore face to the recipient by acknowledging that a violation of face has been committed. Apologies help convey deference—they are, in essence, remedial work to affirm recipient face by admitting transgression and conducting self-effacement on the part of the speaker (Goffman, 1967). Because apologies help restore face, they may be especially important for increasing utilization when advice is more face threatening, including when it is imposed. Although largely unexplored in advice research, evidence of face restoration resulting from an apology has been noted in several research areas. For example, Goei et al. (2007) found that altruistic compliance-seeking messages gained more compliance from recipients when they were prefaced with an apology because liking toward the sender increased. Apologies can also reduce anger toward a harm doer (Ohbuchi et al., 1989) and thus reduce desire for retribution (Leonard et al., 2011). Relatedly, the absence of an apology after a transgression decreases the victim’s respect for the transgressor and intention to forgive (Leonard et al., 2011). Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Imposed advice on problems that are more serious, personal, and private may elicit more face threat, psychological reactance, and negative emotions than unwanted advice on less serious problems (Van Swol et al., 2019). Indeed, Van Swol et al. (2017) found that participants rating imposed advice in fictitious advice scenarios perceived imposed advice more negatively in scenarios that involved problems that were perceived as more serious, personal, and private. Similarly, recipients reacted more negatively to imposed advice when the problems they shared were more serious and private (Van Swol et al., 2019). At the same time, politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) suggests that overt strategies to reduce face threat of advice (such as apologies) may be viewed as more appropriate when the level of face threat is heightened due to the nature of the problem. Furthermore, when problems are more serious, advice recipients may be more motivated to engage in systematic processing of messages and therefore be more influenced by message content (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010). Collectively, this evidence suggests that the capacity of an apology to mitigate negative outcomes for imposed advice will be stronger when the problem is more serious, so we hypothesized:
Method
Participants and Design
Participants (n = 169) were recruited at a large, public Midwestern university in the United States. Through the online portal that announces ongoing studies in a communication department, undergraduate students voluntarily signed up for and participated in the study in exchange for extra credit in their communication class. Seven participants failed a manipulation check question asking if they received a piece of advice from the peer, and 16 participants actually stated they wanted advice, leaving data from 146 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to either an apology (n = 75) or no apology condition (n = 71).
Procedure
On arrival, participants completed informed consent. In a private room on a computer, participants first read a fake CNN news article (created by an experimenter) explaining the emotional benefits of reading about a peer’s problem. As a preface to the article participants were told that reading other people’s problems could make people feel better about their own problems (i.e., “make you feel better about your own worries and improve your outlook”). They were then told that in the experiment, they could “experience these emotional benefits as well by writing about a problem and sharing the problem with a peer and then reading the peer’s problem via electronic chat.” It was emphasized that “people who read about a peer’s problems experienced even more emotional benefits than people who read about solutions to their own problems or received advice about their problems.” Then participants read the full article about the emotional benefits of reading others’ problems.
After reading the article, participants were then asked to write about a problem they were facing that they would not mind sharing with a peer, who could then read the problem. They were instructed as follows: In the chat window, pretend that you are writing a blog entry. Please write about a problem or a dilemma that you are currently facing in your life and what you plan to do in order to fix the problem or get through the dilemma. . . . After writing your blog entry press send [you should send your message first]. Your writing will be shared with another participant in the experiment and they will share their entry with you. This will be done anonymously in chat, and you will not interact face-to-face when sharing the blog entries. You can take 5 to 10 minutes to write.
Participants then shared their problem in a chat window. Participants generally wrote a short paragraph. For example, one participant wrote as follows: My problem is this: I have lived in my hometown of [smaller city] all my life, but my family just moved to [larger city] due to my father’s new job. I think I have handled the idea of leaving my hometown and childhood behind rather well, even better than my family. However, now whenever I go “home” to [larger city], I stay on a pullout couch at my family’s tiny apartment. I have no job, no friends, no possessions, and no personal space (bedroom, etc.) in [larger city], so it not only feels not like home, but out of place. It’s a strange feeling. So that is the back story, my actual problem is even though all those disadvantages lie in my visiting my family, my family wants me to visit them a lot, particularly stay with them during the month long winter break and summer break. I don’t really like my time in [larger city] for the reasons I listed previously, like no friends, socialization opportunities, or job, but my family took this personally when I told them. Should I consider sticking it through during breaks and stay with them and try to find a job, or stay in [college town] and let them feel neglected by me? I plan to try to express more clearly to my family why I feel staying in [college town] would be more beneficial, but I don’t know if they’ll be understanding, so it’s still kind of a problem.
Participants were then asked, “We can tell your peer to do something different than write about a problem if you do not want to read their problem. Please let us know what you would like to do” They were given two options: “I want to experience the emotional benefits of reading my peer’s problem or dilemma.” or “I want my peer to offer me advice about my problem.” This response led participants to believe that that a peer would share a problem as well or that the peer would offer advice. In reality, the peer was an experimenter, and regardless of how the participant answered the question, the experimenter responded with a piece of scripted advice. The experimenter read the problem and selected relevant advice from an advice “encyclopedia.” This encyclopedia was derived from a prior study (MacGeorge et al., 2016) in which 718 undergraduate participants discussed problems and offered advice. Typical problems were identified and categorized, and research assistants created advice similar to what recipients in this study reported receiving (MacGeorge et al., 2016). The encyclopedia allowed the experimenter to find topically appropriate advice quickly. Following procedures utilized in prior research (Van Swol et al., 2017), this advice was inserted into a standardized script that explicitly offered an advised action and followed up with an assertion of efficacy: “I really think that you should [INSERT ADVICE]. It seems like something that would help. I really think that [BRIEF PARAPHRASE OF ADVICE] is a good idea.” Strong claims of advice efficacy improve evaluations of advice (Feng & Burleson, 2008), and were included to increase the likelihood that the advice would be perceived as high quality. In the apology condition, the advice was prefaced with “I am really sorry to impose. I really apologize, but I am going to offer you advice.” No preface was used in the no apology condition. Immediately after receiving advice, the participant was told by the experimenter that it was time to close the chat window and proceed to the postadvice survey.
The first question after the chat asked what the peer did in the chat session (e.g., my peer shared a problem they are facing with me, my peer gave me advice and did not send me their problem, my peer just wanted to chit-chat with me). This was a manipulation check to see if the experimenter’s message was perceived as advice by participants but was also included so that it would not arouse suspicion that the subsequent survey focused on advice. Participants then filled out the survey questionnaires assessing advice outcomes. Finally, they were thanked and debriefed.
Measures
Negative Emotions
Participants were asked, “Please tell us how you felt when you received the advice,” and rated 10 negative emotions (Mad, Annoyed, Angry, Aggravated, Ashamed, Disgusted, Regretful, Embarrassed, Guilty, Mistreated) from not at all (1) to extremely (5). The mean provided a measure of negative emotions (Cronbach’s α = .89).
Intention to Implement Advice
Four questions (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010) measured intention to implement advice (e.g., “I plan to do what I was advised”) on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The mean was used as a measure of implementation intention (Cronbach’s α = .92).
Efficacy of Advice
Three questions (e.g., “I believe that the advice can help improve my situation”) measured perceived efficacy of advice (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010) on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Cronbach’s α = .78).
Approbation
Three items were intended to assess approbation (e.g., “The advice suggested I was lacking in ability [reverse coded]” (MacGeorge et al., 2004) on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Cronbach’s α = .83.
Confirmation
Four items (e.g., “I had already anticipated doing what the advice told me to do”; Feng & MacGeorge, 2010) on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Cronbach’s α = .89.
Language Variables
Transcripts of participants’ problems were analyzed with Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) software (Pennebaker et al., 2015). LIWC is text analysis software first developed by Pennebaker et al. (2015) to explore language variables in text samples. The software calculates the frequencies and/or the percentages of more than 70 language variables defined in the LIWC dictionary. In this study, it was used to obtain the percentage of future tense verbs and we and I pronouns relative to total words in each transcript. A value of 2.5, therefore, would mean that 2.5% of the total words in the transcript were future tense verbs, and so on.
Coding
Two coders, blind to the research hypotheses, read each problem written by participants and coded the level of problem seriousness. Coders rated problems on three items: How much is this problem going to affect the person’s life or impair them in the future? How private is this problem? How serious do they perceive this problem? Items were measured on scales from 1 (not at all severe) to 7 (very severe). Each rating was averaged between the two coders (intraclass correlation = .50 to .61, p < .001), and the mean of the three ratings was used (Cronbach’s α = .66) to create an index of problem seriousness. We used coders instead of having participants rate their own problems so that participants’ problem evaluations would not bias advice outcome measures (or vice versa). The coders were undergraduate students; therefore, they were likely to have a perspective similar to that of the participants. In addition, both coders had experience of coding peers’ problems for a prior study based on similar criteria.
Results
Planning (Future Tense Verbs)
To test Hypotheses 1 to 4, we examined bivariate correlations between the percentage of future tense verbs and advice outcomes. The use of future tense verbs was correlated with implementation intention (r = −0.16, p = .053), advice efficacy (r = −0.18, p = .028), confirmation (r = −0.17, p = .039), and approbation (r = −0.17, p = .042). Therefore, when participants used a higher percentage of future tense verbs, they were less likely to intend to implement the advice (Hypothesis 1), viewed the advice as less effective (Hypothesis 2) or confirming (Hypothesis 3), and felt the advice expressed less approbation (Hypothesis 4).
Self- and Other-Focus (Pronoun Use)
To test Hypothesis 5, we regressed implementation intentions on the percentage of use of I pronouns and we pronouns. The model was significant, R2 = .07, standard error (SE) = 1.25, F(2,142) = 5.42, p = .005. The use of I pronouns (Β = −.09, SE = .03, t = −2.72, p = .007) and we pronouns (Β = −.32, SE = .11, t = −2.83, p = .005) predicted implementation intention. Participants who used more I and we pronouns when describing their problem were less likely to implement advice. Thus, Hypothesis 5a, which predicted a negative relationship between the use of I pronouns and implementation intention, was supported, but Hypothesis 5b, which predicted a positive relationship between use of we pronouns and implementation intention, was not supported, as the results were significant in the opposite direction.
Advisor Apologies
To test Hypotheses 6 and 8, we regressed implementation intention on apology (presence or absence) and problem severity and their interaction. A hierarchical regression was used to see if adding the interaction improves the model. The model without the interaction term was not significant, R2 = .01, SE = 1.30, F(2,143) = 0.22, p = .98. The effect of apology (Β = −.05, SE = .22, t = −.21, p = .83) was not significant, nor was the effect of problem severity (Β = .01, SE = .17, t = .03, p = .98). Adding the interaction did not significantly increase R2 (p > .05). The model with interactions was not significant, either, R2 = .01, SE = 1.30, F(3,142) = 0.61, p = .60. Apology did not significantly interact with problem seriousness (Β = −0.46, SE = .34, t = −1.34, p = .18). Thus, Hypotheses 6a and 6b received no support and apologies did not increase implementation intention for imposed advice.
For Hypotheses 7 and 9, we conducted a similar regression but with negative emotions as the dependent variable. The model without interaction terms was significant, R2 = .06, SE = .45, F(2, 143) = 4.81, p = .01. There was a main effect of apology (Β = .19, SE = .08, t = 2.51, p = .013) but not for severity of problem (Β = .10, SE = .06, t = 1.66, p = .10). Adding the interaction did not significantly (p = .17) improve the model, R2 = .08, SE = .45, F(3,142) = 3.84, p = .01; Apology did not significantly interact with problem seriousness (Β = .16, SE = .12, t = 1.36, p = .18). Participants reported more negative emotions when they received an apology when getting advice (r = .21, p = .01). Thus, Hypothesis 7 was not supported, because apologies actually increased negative emotions, and use of apologies did not interact with problem seriousness (Hypothesis 9).
Discussion
Holtgraves and Kashima (2008, p. 73) note that “many of the processes that are most central to social cognition . . . involve language in some manner . . . the study of language can contribute greatly to the understanding of social thought and action.” This study examined how language used in framing a problem, examined with verb tense and pronouns, and language used when giving advice, examined with apologies, affected receptiveness to imposed advice in a dyadic exchange. Because people are especially likely to reject imposed advice (Van Swol et al., 2019), gauging the receptiveness of the recipient by the language they use or using language as the advisor to reduce face threat and increase receptiveness are potentially useful tactics for improving advice outcomes. In this study, recipients’ use of future tense verbs was negatively associated with advice outcomes, and use of both I and we pronouns was negatively related to implementation intention. However, advisors’ apologies had no effect on implementation intention, and contrary to what was hypothesized, increased negative emotions. Problem seriousness did not interact with apology to affect advice outcomes. We discuss these results in more detail and integrate them within theory on advice.
Planning
Previous research has found that recipient planning before receiving advice reduces perceived advice quality and likelihood of implementation (MacGeorge et al., 2019; Sniezek & Buckley, 1995; Sniezek et al., 1990; Trouche et al., 2018). These studies measured planning either by giving the recipient the problem and advice simultaneously so the recipient could not make an independent decision (e.g., Sniezek & Buckley, 1995; Sniezek et al., 1990) or by coding recipients’ planning behavior in interaction with advisors (MacGeorge et al., 2019). Consistent with these findings, the current study showed negative relationships between recipients’ planning behavior and multiple advice outcomes, but measured planning through computer-assisted linguistic analysis of verb tense in recipient’s descriptions of their problems, illustrating the utility of this approach for future research on advice. Usage of computer-assisted software programs, like LIWC, has found that language use in interactions is useful toward examining behavioral outcomes and processes like influence (Van Swol & Carlson, 2017) and group cohesion (Kane & Rink, 2015), but research has not focused on language use and advice. Specifically, we examined if participants had a future focus when writing about a problem and used this future focus as a proxy for planning. For example, participants used phrases like: “I will continue to do that.” Verb tense is often used as a measure for focus and time orientation (e.g., Pennebaker & Stone, 2003) and in discussion of a problem, is a plausible indicator of how much focus is being given to future behaviors to meet problem-solving goals (i.e., planning). Research could try to manipulate state of mind (i.e., planning vs. retrospection) more directly by asking participants to write about what happened in the past leading to a problem or write about what they intended to do in the future to resolve a problem, and then test if this manipulation affects advice outcomes.
Self-Focus and Other-Focus
Prior research indicates that people with a self-focus tend to use more I pronouns and people with an other-focus tend to use more we pronouns (Van Swol & Kane, 2019), and advice recipients with an other-focus are more likely to implement advice (Duan et al., forthcoming). On this basis, we proposed that the use of I pronouns would be negatively related to implementation intention, and the use of we pronouns positively related. However, results showed that use of both I and we pronouns use was related to weaker implementation intention. Thus, it is unlikely that the relationship between self- and other-focus is driving the negative relationship between use of pronouns and implementation intention. Rather, it might be use of personal pronouns in general. Personal pronouns are often used in social situations as opposed to situations more focused on task (Karan et al., 2016; Van Swol & Kane, 2019) and may indicate a more personal investment in the problem description (Pennebaker, 2011). Consistent with this possibility, post hoc analysis revealed that use of personal pronouns in our data was positively related to how personal, private, and serious the problem was rated (r = .23, p = .005). Future research should further examine the relationship between personal pronoun use and advice outcomes.
Apologies
Besides examining language used by the advice recipient, we also examined how language used by the advisor could affect receptiveness to imposed advice. Contrary to our hypotheses, use of apologies had no effect on implementation intentions and actually increased reported negative emotions. Furthermore, apologies did not interact with perceived seriousness of the problem to affect advice outcomes. Our results did not replicate some previous research on apologies, such as Goei et al. (2007), finding that apologies increased liking, even when there was no transgression to apologize for. However, Goei et al. (2007) had participants interact face-to-face and requests were prosocial, which may have increased initial liking between participants. There is some previous research indicating apologies are not always helpful (e.g., De Cremer et al., 2010; Skarlicki et al., 2004) and this work offers some insights into our findings.
In this study, apologies preceded the advice. Apologies are often given ex post as remedial work, but the apology in this study was given ex ante, almost as a forewarning (Skarlicki et al., 2004). An ex ante apology may be perceived as more manipulative and insincere. Skarlicki et al. (2004, p, 326) noted that ex ante apologies can “backfire and increase the negativity of reactions, rather than diminishing them.” By preceding the offense with an apology, the recipient might wonder why their partner decides to engage in a behavior that they think the recipient might find objectionable. An ex ante apology may heighten the perception that the advisor is aware they are doing something they should not, and this could increase the perception of blame, intentionality, and premeditation which could heighten attributions of responsibility and manipulativeness (Miller & Vidmar, 1981; Skarlicki et al., 2004). An apology admits a transgression and, according to Scher and Darley (1997), conveys that the sender knows that one should avoid offense in the future. The implication for our findings are that an ex ante apology may convey a knowledge that the behavior should be avoided, but then the sender commits the offense anyway. In essence, without an ex ante apology, the recipient simply does not notice the offense as much. Skarlicki et al. (2004, p. 337) note, “the irony, of course, is that asking for consideration might make more salient how inconsiderate such a request was.” This could explain the effect of apologies actually increasing reported negative emotion. Future research could be designed to manipulate the timing of the apology and measure the perceived sincerity and manipulativeness of the apology.
Limitations
This study had several limitations. First, we used undergraduates as a sample of convenience. This limited the types of problems that were commonly discussed (e.g., getting jobs, dealing with parents and roommates, internships). Second, participants did not interact face-to-face given the research design, and because we thought that participants would be polite and accept advice if directly asked by the advisor, we had the experimenter ask if they wanted advice. Therefore, in our design the overture of advice was not coming directly from the advisor. Studying imposed advice in the lab without using fictitious scenarios is a difficult process, and we encourage future research to continue to develop methodology to examine how solicitation affects advice outcomes. Third, we had coders code the seriousness of the problem and not the participant themselves, and it is possible that problems rated as serious by an outsider may not have been perceived as such by the participant. Finally, one limitation of using LIWC to understand speakers’ state of mind is that LIWC categorization does not take contextual information into consideration. For example, there were examples of use of future tense verbs that may not have been focused on planning (e.g., “she will understand her mistake” or “don’t think the stress will end soon”).
Conclusion
What advice can we offer to people considering giving imposed advice? First, we suggest that apologizing before offering advice is not a good idea. Ex ante apologies did not affect implementation intentions and rather increased negative emotions overall. If people share their own plans about their problem, or their problem sounds more personal and private, then potential advisors should take this as an indicator of lower receptiveness to advice; acknowledge that people may want to focus more on themselves and their own plans rather than being told what others think about their problem.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Annie Hwang and Zoe Collins with coding help and to Brandon Caplin and Sarah Hevrdejs for help with experimental procedure.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded with a grant by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.
