智能时代下的智慧纳建：概念、影响因素与展望
Wise Advice Taking in the Intelligent Era: Connotation, Influencing Factors, and Prospects
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2026.165249, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 康文元*：南京师范大学心理学院，江苏 南京；曲阜师范大学心理学院，山东 济宁；杜雨露：曲阜师范大学心理学院，山东 济宁；西南大学心理学部，重庆；张 欣：曲阜师范大学心理学院，山东 济宁
关键词: 智慧纳建；人工智能；知识图谱；因素；Wise Advice Taking； Artificial Intelligence； Knowledge Graph； Factors
摘要: 智能时代下，人工智能正深度介入人类决策过程，使智慧纳建成为组织管理与人机交互领域的重要议题。本文旨在系统探讨智慧纳建的概念内涵、研究脉络及其在人工智能背景下的影响因素与未来方向。首先，在厘清智慧纳建与传统建议采纳差异的基础上，借助CiteSpace对WOS核心数据库进行知识图谱分析，揭示该领域以“社会影响”“决策升级”等为核心的前沿动态。其次，从建言者、纳建者与纳建过程三个维度，系统梳理人工智能影响智慧纳建的关键促进因素，同时指出建议责任归属风险和智慧教育困境所带来的双重隐忧。最后，提出感知透明性与初始信任作为未来研究的潜在机制，以回应人工智能“黑箱”特性带来的信任与可解释性挑战。
Abstract: In the intelligent era, artificial intelligence is increasingly intervening in human decision-making, making wise advice taking an important issue in organizational management and human-AI interaction. This paper aims to systematically explore the conceptual connotation, research landscape, influencing factors in the context of AI, and future directions of wise advice taking. First, based on clarifying the differences between wise advice taking and traditional advice taking, this study conducts a knowledge graph analysis of the Web of Science Core Collection via CiteSpace, revealing frontier trends centered on “social influence” and “improving judgement”. Second, from the three dimensions of advisor characteristics, advisee characteristics, and the advice-taking process, this paper systematically identifies key facilitating factors through which AI influences wise advice taking, while also pointing out the dual concerns of advice responsibility attribution risk and the dilemma of wise education. Finally, perceived transparency and initial trust are proposed as potential mechanisms for future research to address the challenges of trust and interpretability posed by the “black-box” nature of AI.
文章引用：康文元, 杜雨露, 张欣 (2026). 智能时代下的智慧纳建：概念、影响因素与展望. 心理学进展, 16(5), 166-176. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.165249

参考文献

[1] (宋)司马光, (元)胡三省, 音注(2012). 资治通鉴(全二十册). 中华书局.
[2] 白雨欣(2024). 人类/AI建议者与初始信任对建议采纳的影响研究. 硕士学位论文, 上海: 华东师范大学.
[3] 段锦云, 古晓花, 孙露莹(2016). 外显自尊、内隐自尊及其分离对建议采纳的影响. 心理学报, 48(4), 371-384.
[4] 何克抗(1997). 建构主义的教学模式、教学方法与教学设计. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (5), 74-81.
[5] 江嵩(2025). 技术变革教育的三重驱动理论构建——基于从工业革命到人工智能时代的历史考察. 中国高校社会科学, (5), 57-70, 157.
[6] 李思贤, 陈佳昕, 宋艾珈, 王梦琳, 段锦云(2022). 人们对人工智能建议接受度的影响因素. 心理技术与应用, 10(4), 202-214.
[7] 刘小禹, 刘军, 许浚, 吴蓉蓉(2015). 职场排斥对员工主动性行为的影响机制——基于自我验证理论的视角. 心理学报, 47(6), 826-836.
[8] 任小云, 段锦云, 冯成志(2021). 个体采纳与群体采纳: 决策过程中的两类建议采纳行为. 心理科学进展, 29(3), 549-559.
[9] 舒丽芳, 王魁, 吴月燕, 陈斯允(2024). 人工智能指导对消费者长期目标追求的多阶段影响机制. 心理科学进展, 32(3), 451-464.
[10] 谭维智(2019). 人工智能教育应用的算法风险. 开放教育研究, 25(6), 20-30.
[11] 汪凤炎(2024). 人工智能的多视角审视(上下册). 陕西师范大学出版总社.
[12] 汪凤炎, 郑红, 编著(2022). 智慧心理学. 上海教育出版社.
[13] 王伊萌, 王振东, 汪凤炎(2024). “当局者迷”破解之道: 智慧的正念干预研究——个人成长主动性与反思的作用. 心理发展与教育, 40(1), 142-152.
[14] 肖明, 陈嘉勇, 李国俊(2011). 基于CiteSpace研究科学知识图谱的可视化分析. 图书情报工作, 55(6), 91-95.
[15] 徐惊蛰, 谢晓非(2009). 决策过程中的建议采纳. 心理科学进展, 17(5), 1016-1025.
[16] 赵一骏, 许丽颖, 喻丰, 金旺龙(2024). 感知不透明性增加职场中的算法厌恶. 心理学报, 56(4), 497-514.
[17] 宗树伟, 杨付, 龙立荣, 韩翼(2025). 促进还是抑制? 生成式人工智能建议采纳对创造力的双刃剑效应. 心理科学进展, 33(6), 905-915.
[18] Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The Effects of Top Management Team Size and Interaction Norms on Cognitive and Affective Conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495-516.[CrossRef] 
[19] Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street‐Level to System‐Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62, 174-184.[CrossRef] 
[20] Britt, S. H. (1945). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 9, 268-268.[CrossRef] 
[21] Cecil, J., Lermer, E., Hudecek, M. F. C., Sauer, J., & Gaube, S. (2024). Explainability Does Not Mitigate the Negative Impact of Incorrect AI Advice in a Personnel Selection Task. Scientific Reports, 14, Article No. 9736.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 359-377.[CrossRef] 
[23] Chen, G., Dang, J., & Liu, L. (2024). After Opening the Black Box: Meta-Dehumanization Matters in Algorithm Recommendation Aversion. Computers in Human Behavior, 161, Article ID: 108411.[CrossRef] 
[24] Dodge, J., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R. K. E., & Dugan, C. (2019). Explaining Models: An Empirical Study of How Explanations Impact Fairness Judgment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 275-285). ACM.[CrossRef] 
[25] Dubey, R., Hardy, M. D., Griffiths, T. L., & Bhui, R. (2024). AI-Generated Visuals of Car-Free US Cities Help Improve Support for Sustainable Policies. Nature Sustainability, 7, 399-403.[CrossRef] 
[26] Duffourc, M. N., & Gerke, S. (2023). The Proposed EU Directives for AI Liability Leave Worrying Gaps Likely to Impact Medical Ai. npj Digital Medicine, 6, Article No. 77.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Gino, F., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2008). Blinded by Anger or Feeling the Love: How Emotions Influence Advice Taking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1165-1173.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Gino, F., Brooks, A. W., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). Anxiety, Advice, and the Ability to Discern: Feeling Anxious Motivates Individuals to Seek and Use Advice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 497-512.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29] Harries, C., Yaniv, I., & Harvey, N. (2004). Combining Advice: The Weight of a Dissenting Opinion in the Consensus. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 333-348.[CrossRef] 
[30] Hertz, N., & Wiese, E. (2019). Good Advice Is Beyond All Price, but What If It Comes from a Machine? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25, 386-395.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Huo, W., Zheng, G., Yan, J., Sun, L., & Han, L. (2022). Interacting with Medical Artificial Intelligence: Integrating Self-Responsibility Attribution, Human–computer Trust, and Personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 132, Article ID: 107253.[CrossRef] 
[32] Johansen, S. T., Selart, M., & Grønhaug, K. (2013). The Effects of Risk on Initial Trust Formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1185-1199.[CrossRef] 
[33] Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899-913.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-making. MIS Quarterly, 48, 1575-1590.[CrossRef] 
[35] Karimova, G. Z. (2022). A Personality-Grounded Framework for Designing Artificial Intelligence-Based Product Appearance. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 1689-1701.[CrossRef] 
[36] Khan, M., & Ewuoso, C. (2024). Epistemic (in)justice, Social Identity and the Black Box Problem in Patient Care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 27, 227-240.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Kim, T. W., & Duhachek, A. (2020). Artificial Intelligence and Persuasion: A Construal-Level Account. Psychological Science, 31, 363-380.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Lu, L., Tormala, Z. L., & Duhachek, A. (2025). How AI Sources Can Increase Openness to Opposing Views. Scientific Reports, 15, Article No. 17170.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Mahmud, H., Islam, A. K. M. N., Ahmed, S. I., & Smolander, K. (2022). What Influences Algorithmic Decision-Making? A Systematic Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, Article ID: 121390.[CrossRef] 
[40] Mallick, R., Flathmann, C., Duan, W., Schelble, B. G., & McNeese, N. J. (2024). What You Say vs What You Do: Utilizing Positive Emotional Expressions to Relay AI Teammate Intent within Human-AI Teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 192, Article ID: 103355.[CrossRef] 
[41] Martin, A., & Jenkins, K. (2024). Speaking Your Language: The Psychological Impact of Dialect Integration in Artificial Intelligence Systems. Current Opinion in Psychology, 58, Article ID: 101840.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42] McKee, K. R., & Botvinick, M. M. (2023). AI Learns to Encourage Group Cooperation by Making New Connections. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 1618-1619.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43] Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in Groups: A Cross-Level Study of Group Voice Climate and Voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 183-191.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[44] O’Reilly, R. C. (2020). Unraveling the Mysteries of Motivation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 425-434.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[45] Said, N., Potinteu, A. E., Brich, I., Buder, J., Schumm, H., & Huff, M. (2023). An Artificial Intelligence Perspective: How Knowledge and Confidence Shape Risk and Benefit Perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, Article ID: 107855.[CrossRef] 
[46] Salwin, M., Kocot, M., Kwasek, A., Trzaskowska-Dmoch, A., Pałęga, M., & Kopytowski, A. (2026). Assessing the Determinants of Trust in AI Algorithms in the Conditions of Sustainable Development of the Organization. Sustainability, 18, Article 776.[CrossRef] 
[47] Senoner, J., Schallmoser, S., Kratzwald, B., Feuerriegel, S., & Netland, T. (2024). Explainable AI Improves Task Performance in Human-AI Collaboration. Scientific Reports, 14, Article No. 31150.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[48] Suppes, P., Han, B., Epelboim, J., & Lu, Z. (1999). Invariance between Subjects of Brain Wave Representations of Language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 12953-12958.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[49] Vuong, Q., La, V., Nguyen, M., Jin, R., La, M., & Le, T. (2023). AI’s Humanoid Appearance Can Affect Human Perceptions of Its Emotional Capability: Evidence from Self-Reported Data in the U.S. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40, 4906-4917.[CrossRef] 
[50] Wang, L., & Li, W. (2024). The Impact of AI Usage on University Students’ Willingness for Autonomous Learning. Behavioral Sciences, 14, Article 956.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[51] Westphal, M., Vössing, M., Satzger, G., Yom-Tov, G. B., & Rafaeli, A. (2023). Decision Control and Explanations in Human-Ai Collaboration: Improving User Perceptions and Compliance. Computers in Human Behavior, 144, Article ID: 107714.[CrossRef] 
[52] Yanit, M., Yanit, M., & Wan, F. (2023). Right Agent, Wrong Level of Hedonism: How High (vs Low) Hedonic Values in Ai-Performed Tasks Lead to Decreased Perceptions of Humanlikeness, Warmth, and Less Consumer Support. Computers in Human Behavior, 147, Article ID: 107870.[CrossRef] 
[53] Yaniv, I. (2004). Receiving Other People’s Advice: Influence and Benefit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 1-13.[CrossRef] 
[54] Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 260-281.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[55] Zaatri, S., Aderka, I. M., & Hertz, U. (2022). Blend in or Stand Out: Social Anxiety Levels Shape Information-Sharing Strategies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 289, Article ID: 20220476.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[56] Zhou, M. X., Mark, G., Li, J., & Yang, H. (2019). Trusting Virtual Agents. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 9, 1-36.[CrossRef] 
[57] Schmidt, P., Biessmann, F., & Teubner, T. (2020). Transparency and Trust in Artificial Intelligence Systems. Journal of Decision Systems, 29, 260-278.[CrossRef]