2021- Reprints: Marketing
Nonmaleficence in shaming: The ethical dilemma underlying participation in online public shaming, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(3), 415-630, 2021
C. Pundak, Y. Steinhart and J. Goldenberg
(Reprint no. 377)
Research no. : 01520100
We show that a decision of potential shamers to take part in (“share” and “retweet”) an online shaming campaign against alleged wrongdoers is shaped by two factors: the potential shamer’s level of adherence to the nonmaleficence principle (i.e., do no harm) and the wrongdoer identifiability (the extent to which a wrongdoer’s details are exposed). Each shaming campaign may promote social norms and prevention of similar harm (i.e., positive consequences) and yet at the same time create harm for the individual wrongdoer being shamed (i.e., negative consequences). We suggest that potential shamers with high adherence to the nonmaleficence principle are more likely to join a shaming campaign with a low-identifiability wrongdoer compared to potential shamers with a low endorsement of the nonmaleficence principle. We term this phenomenon the Nonmaleficence in Shaming effect. Five studies consistently demonstrate this effect and its attenuation in the case of a shaming campaign with a high-identifiability wrongdoer. We further show that what drives the effect is advancing the positive over the negative consequences of a shaming campaign. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of norm-enforcement behavior in digital communications and the social media space.
Motivated interpretations of deceptive information, Brain Sciences, 11, 297, 2021
S. Vainapel, Y. Shani and S. Shalvi
(Reprint no. 389)
Research no.: 00380100
We examine whether people seek information that might help them make sense of others’ dishonest behavior. Participants were told that a hypothetical partner (either a friend or a stranger) had engaged in a task in which the partner could lie to boost their earnings at the expense of the participant’s earnings. Participants were less likely to search for information that can justify potential dishonest behavior conducted by a friend than by a stranger (Experiment 1). When participants knew for certain that their partners had lied to them, they were less likely to assume that that the lie was justified when told that the partner was a friend rather than a stranger (Experiment 2). The results imply that people are more likely to search for information that may reduce the severity of possible dishonest behavior when a stranger, rather than a friend, is responsible for the behavior.
