Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts

We study the psychology at the intersection of two social trends. First, as markets become increasingly specialized, consumers must increasingly defer to outside experts to decide among complex products. Second, people divide themselves increasingly into moral tribes, defining themselves in terms of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of behavioral decision making 2021-01, Vol.34 (1), p.47-65
Hauptverfasser: Johnson, Samuel G.B., Rodrigues, Max, Tuckett, David
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 65
container_issue 1
container_start_page 47
container_title Journal of behavioral decision making
container_volume 34
creator Johnson, Samuel G.B.
Rodrigues, Max
Tuckett, David
description We study the psychology at the intersection of two social trends. First, as markets become increasingly specialized, consumers must increasingly defer to outside experts to decide among complex products. Second, people divide themselves increasingly into moral tribes, defining themselves in terms of shared values with their group and often seeing these values as being objectively right or wrong. We tested how and why these tribalistic tendencies affect consumers' willingness to defer to experts. We find that consumers are indeed tribalistic in which experts they find convincing, preferring products advocated by experts who share their moral values (Study 1), with this effect generalizing across product categories (books and electronics) and measures (purchase intentions, information‐seeking, willingness‐to‐pay, product attitudes, and consequential choices). We also establish the mechanisms underlying these effects: because many consumers believe moral matters to be objective facts, experts who disagree with those values are seen as less competent and therefore less believable (Studies 2 and 3), with this effect strongest among consumers who are high in their belief in objective moral truth (Study 4). Overall, these studies seek not only to establish dynamics of tribalistic deference to experts but also to identify which consumers are more or less likely to fall prey to these tribalistic tendencies.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bdm.2187
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_000543212400001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2468374487</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3657-4aa885ed23584603dd8ed1509f83f5f9ad140a597c463cabef743c00b0a1b0663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE9vFDEMxSNEJZZSiY8QiQNIaIozyUwy3Ojyp0iteinnUSZxtCm7kyXOUPrtybIVNyROtuTfs58fYy8FnAuA9t3kd-etMPoJWwkYhga0Fk_ZCsygGtl2-hl7TnQHUGcSVuz7dcp2y0uOk91G2nE7ex4LcR_JpbngXOg9v0z3PM5liSX-RF42mHJE4ilwLJvoiNPG7pFXAS07zPSaewyYcXaVThx_7TEXesFOgt0Snj3WU_bt86fb9WVzdfPl6_rDVeNk3-lGWWtMh76VnVE9SO8NetHBEIwMXRisFwpsN2ineunshEEr6QAmsGKCvpen7NVx7z6nHwtSGe_Skud6cmxVb6RWyuhKvTlSLieijGHc57iz-WEUMB6iHGuU4yHKir49ovc4pUAuHh77i9csOyVb0aragai0-X96HYstMc3rtMylSptHadziwz8NjRcfr_8Y-w1ZxZZZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2468374487</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Johnson, Samuel G.B. ; Rodrigues, Max ; Tuckett, David</creator><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Samuel G.B. ; Rodrigues, Max ; Tuckett, David</creatorcontrib><description>We study the psychology at the intersection of two social trends. First, as markets become increasingly specialized, consumers must increasingly defer to outside experts to decide among complex products. Second, people divide themselves increasingly into moral tribes, defining themselves in terms of shared values with their group and often seeing these values as being objectively right or wrong. We tested how and why these tribalistic tendencies affect consumers' willingness to defer to experts. We find that consumers are indeed tribalistic in which experts they find convincing, preferring products advocated by experts who share their moral values (Study 1), with this effect generalizing across product categories (books and electronics) and measures (purchase intentions, information‐seeking, willingness‐to‐pay, product attitudes, and consequential choices). We also establish the mechanisms underlying these effects: because many consumers believe moral matters to be objective facts, experts who disagree with those values are seen as less competent and therefore less believable (Studies 2 and 3), with this effect strongest among consumers who are high in their belief in objective moral truth (Study 4). Overall, these studies seek not only to establish dynamics of tribalistic deference to experts but also to identify which consumers are more or less likely to fall prey to these tribalistic tendencies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-3257</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2187</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Consumers ; Deference ; Ethics ; expert choice ; Experts ; moral psychology ; Morality ; Prey ; Psychology ; Psychology, Applied ; social evaluation ; Social Sciences ; Social trends ; tribalism ; Truth ; Values ; Willingness</subject><ispartof>Journal of behavioral decision making, 2021-01, Vol.34 (1), p.47-65</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>4</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000543212400001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3657-4aa885ed23584603dd8ed1509f83f5f9ad140a597c463cabef743c00b0a1b0663</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3657-4aa885ed23584603dd8ed1509f83f5f9ad140a597c463cabef743c00b0a1b0663</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1825-5979 ; 0000-0002-6275-2289</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbdm.2187$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbdm.2187$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,27931,27932,39264,45581,45582</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Samuel G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuckett, David</creatorcontrib><title>Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts</title><title>Journal of behavioral decision making</title><addtitle>J BEHAV DECIS MAKING</addtitle><description>We study the psychology at the intersection of two social trends. First, as markets become increasingly specialized, consumers must increasingly defer to outside experts to decide among complex products. Second, people divide themselves increasingly into moral tribes, defining themselves in terms of shared values with their group and often seeing these values as being objectively right or wrong. We tested how and why these tribalistic tendencies affect consumers' willingness to defer to experts. We find that consumers are indeed tribalistic in which experts they find convincing, preferring products advocated by experts who share their moral values (Study 1), with this effect generalizing across product categories (books and electronics) and measures (purchase intentions, information‐seeking, willingness‐to‐pay, product attitudes, and consequential choices). We also establish the mechanisms underlying these effects: because many consumers believe moral matters to be objective facts, experts who disagree with those values are seen as less competent and therefore less believable (Studies 2 and 3), with this effect strongest among consumers who are high in their belief in objective moral truth (Study 4). Overall, these studies seek not only to establish dynamics of tribalistic deference to experts but also to identify which consumers are more or less likely to fall prey to these tribalistic tendencies.</description><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Deference</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>expert choice</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>moral psychology</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Prey</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology, Applied</subject><subject>social evaluation</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Social trends</subject><subject>tribalism</subject><subject>Truth</subject><subject>Values</subject><subject>Willingness</subject><issn>0894-3257</issn><issn>1099-0771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>GIZIO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkE9vFDEMxSNEJZZSiY8QiQNIaIozyUwy3Ojyp0iteinnUSZxtCm7kyXOUPrtybIVNyROtuTfs58fYy8FnAuA9t3kd-etMPoJWwkYhga0Fk_ZCsygGtl2-hl7TnQHUGcSVuz7dcp2y0uOk91G2nE7ex4LcR_JpbngXOg9v0z3PM5liSX-RF42mHJE4ilwLJvoiNPG7pFXAS07zPSaewyYcXaVThx_7TEXesFOgt0Snj3WU_bt86fb9WVzdfPl6_rDVeNk3-lGWWtMh76VnVE9SO8NetHBEIwMXRisFwpsN2ineunshEEr6QAmsGKCvpen7NVx7z6nHwtSGe_Skud6cmxVb6RWyuhKvTlSLieijGHc57iz-WEUMB6iHGuU4yHKir49ovc4pUAuHh77i9csOyVb0aragai0-X96HYstMc3rtMylSptHadziwz8NjRcfr_8Y-w1ZxZZZ</recordid><startdate>202101</startdate><enddate>202101</enddate><creator>Johnson, Samuel G.B.</creator><creator>Rodrigues, Max</creator><creator>Tuckett, David</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>17B</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>GIZIO</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1825-5979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6275-2289</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202101</creationdate><title>Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts</title><author>Johnson, Samuel G.B. ; Rodrigues, Max ; Tuckett, David</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3657-4aa885ed23584603dd8ed1509f83f5f9ad140a597c463cabef743c00b0a1b0663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Deference</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>expert choice</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>moral psychology</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Prey</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology, Applied</topic><topic>social evaluation</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Social trends</topic><topic>tribalism</topic><topic>Truth</topic><topic>Values</topic><topic>Willingness</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Samuel G.B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodrigues, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tuckett, David</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI &amp; AHCI)</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Journal of behavioral decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Johnson, Samuel G.B.</au><au>Rodrigues, Max</au><au>Tuckett, David</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts</atitle><jtitle>Journal of behavioral decision making</jtitle><stitle>J BEHAV DECIS MAKING</stitle><date>2021-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>47</spage><epage>65</epage><pages>47-65</pages><issn>0894-3257</issn><eissn>1099-0771</eissn><abstract>We study the psychology at the intersection of two social trends. First, as markets become increasingly specialized, consumers must increasingly defer to outside experts to decide among complex products. Second, people divide themselves increasingly into moral tribes, defining themselves in terms of shared values with their group and often seeing these values as being objectively right or wrong. We tested how and why these tribalistic tendencies affect consumers' willingness to defer to experts. We find that consumers are indeed tribalistic in which experts they find convincing, preferring products advocated by experts who share their moral values (Study 1), with this effect generalizing across product categories (books and electronics) and measures (purchase intentions, information‐seeking, willingness‐to‐pay, product attitudes, and consequential choices). We also establish the mechanisms underlying these effects: because many consumers believe moral matters to be objective facts, experts who disagree with those values are seen as less competent and therefore less believable (Studies 2 and 3), with this effect strongest among consumers who are high in their belief in objective moral truth (Study 4). Overall, these studies seek not only to establish dynamics of tribalistic deference to experts but also to identify which consumers are more or less likely to fall prey to these tribalistic tendencies.</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1002/bdm.2187</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1825-5979</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6275-2289</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0894-3257
ispartof Journal of behavioral decision making, 2021-01, Vol.34 (1), p.47-65
issn 0894-3257
1099-0771
language eng
recordid cdi_webofscience_primary_000543212400001
source EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Wiley Online Library; Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Consumers
Deference
Ethics
expert choice
Experts
moral psychology
Morality
Prey
Psychology
Psychology, Applied
social evaluation
Social Sciences
Social trends
tribalism
Truth
Values
Willingness
title Moral tribalism and its discontents: How intuitive theories of ethics shape consumers' deference to experts
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T19%3A48%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Moral%20tribalism%20and%20its%20discontents:%20How%20intuitive%20theories%20of%20ethics%20shape%20consumers'%20deference%20to%20experts&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20behavioral%20decision%20making&rft.au=Johnson,%20Samuel%20G.B.&rft.date=2021-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=47&rft.epage=65&rft.pages=47-65&rft.issn=0894-3257&rft.eissn=1099-0771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bdm.2187&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_webof%3E2468374487%3C/proquest_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2468374487&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true