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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of behavioral decision making 2021-01, Vol.34 (1), p.47-65 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></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 & 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 & 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 |