伦理价值观和元伦理信仰引导对专家的尊重

S. Johnson, Max Rodrigues, D. Tuckett
{"title":"伦理价值观和元伦理信仰引导对专家的尊重","authors":"S. Johnson, Max Rodrigues, D. Tuckett","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3214001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a crowded marketplace, consumers must often defer to external knowledge sources, such as user testimonials or professional reviewers. How do consumers choose which experts to rely on? Across three studies, we find that consumers are likelier to rely on product reviews written by reviewers who share their moral values. This was true for different product categories including books (Study 1A) and consumer electronics (Study 1B), and generalized across a variety of measures, including purchase intentions, product attitudes, information-seeking, willingness-to-pay, and consequential choices. This effect occurred because people often believe moral values to be objectively true or false, and thus shared moral values signaled expert competence (Study 2), especially among consumers with more objectivist meta-ethical beliefs (Study 3). This mechanism held up when competed against various alternative mediators, including trust and shared personality, preferences, and social group. We discuss implications for research on persuasion, expert detection, ideology, and moral judgment.","PeriodicalId":314850,"journal":{"name":"Biology & Cognitive Science eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Values and Meta-Ethical Beliefs Guide Deference to Experts\",\"authors\":\"S. Johnson, Max Rodrigues, D. Tuckett\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3214001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a crowded marketplace, consumers must often defer to external knowledge sources, such as user testimonials or professional reviewers. How do consumers choose which experts to rely on? Across three studies, we find that consumers are likelier to rely on product reviews written by reviewers who share their moral values. This was true for different product categories including books (Study 1A) and consumer electronics (Study 1B), and generalized across a variety of measures, including purchase intentions, product attitudes, information-seeking, willingness-to-pay, and consequential choices. This effect occurred because people often believe moral values to be objectively true or false, and thus shared moral values signaled expert competence (Study 2), especially among consumers with more objectivist meta-ethical beliefs (Study 3). This mechanism held up when competed against various alternative mediators, including trust and shared personality, preferences, and social group. We discuss implications for research on persuasion, expert detection, ideology, and moral judgment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":314850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biology & Cognitive Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biology & Cognitive Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3214001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biology & Cognitive Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3214001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在拥挤的市场中,消费者通常必须遵从外部知识来源,例如用户推荐或专业评论者。消费者如何选择值得信赖的专家?在三项研究中,我们发现消费者更可能依赖与他们有共同道德价值观的评论者所写的产品评论。这适用于不同的产品类别,包括书籍(研究1A)和消费电子产品(研究1B),并适用于各种衡量标准,包括购买意图、产品态度、信息寻求、支付意愿和相应的选择。这种效应的产生是因为人们通常认为道德价值观在客观上是正确的或错误的,因此共同的道德价值观标志着专家的能力(研究2),特别是在具有更多客观主义元伦理信仰的消费者中(研究3)。当与各种替代中介竞争时,这种机制成立,包括信任和共同的个性、偏好和社会群体。我们讨论了说服、专家检测、意识形态和道德判断的研究意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ethical Values and Meta-Ethical Beliefs Guide Deference to Experts
In a crowded marketplace, consumers must often defer to external knowledge sources, such as user testimonials or professional reviewers. How do consumers choose which experts to rely on? Across three studies, we find that consumers are likelier to rely on product reviews written by reviewers who share their moral values. This was true for different product categories including books (Study 1A) and consumer electronics (Study 1B), and generalized across a variety of measures, including purchase intentions, product attitudes, information-seeking, willingness-to-pay, and consequential choices. This effect occurred because people often believe moral values to be objectively true or false, and thus shared moral values signaled expert competence (Study 2), especially among consumers with more objectivist meta-ethical beliefs (Study 3). This mechanism held up when competed against various alternative mediators, including trust and shared personality, preferences, and social group. We discuss implications for research on persuasion, expert detection, ideology, and moral judgment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
One Plus One Equals Two: More or Less Behaviors of Professional Athletes in Terms of the Big Five Model Due to the Type of Contact of the Sport Discipline Ethical Values and Meta-Ethical Beliefs Guide Deference to Experts Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins' Social Versus Moral Preferences in the Ultimatum Game: A Theoretical Model and an Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1