Inauthenticity Aversion: Moral Reactance Toward Tainted Actors, Actions, and Objects
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Received: 5 October 2020 | Revised: 3 November 2020 | Accepted: 3 November 2020 DOI: 10.1002/arcp.1064 REVIEW Inauthenticity aversion: Moral reactance toward tainted actors, actions, and objects Ike Silver1 | George Newman2 | Deborah A. Small1 1The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA Abstract 2Yale School of Management, New Haven, Theories of authenticity usually try to explain what leads consumers to see some- CT, USA thing as authentic. Here, we address the inverse question instead: What makes a Correspondence brand, individual, or product seem inauthentic? This shift in focus reveals a distinct Ike Silver, The Wharton School, University of psychology that is more than just the absence or inverse of responses to authenticity. Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Email: [email protected] Whereas authenticity typically confers meaning and value, invoking inauthenticity typically implies the detection of a moral violation. Specifically, consumers judge an entity to be inauthentic if they perceive a mismatch between what that entity claims to be (e.g., a socially responsible apparel brand, 100% orange juice) and what it really is upon closer scrutiny. Such judgments give rise to a powerful, non-compensatory reactance we term inauthenticity aversion. We segment inauthenticity violations into three principle types: deceptions, ulterior motives, and adulterations. This conceptual- ization allows us to capture a wide variety of inauthenticity cases and outline psy- chological commonalities across them. It also helps to explain the powerful outrage consumers display at perceived inauthenticity and illuminates potential hazards in common marketing approaches. KEYWORDS authenticity, honesty, inauthenticity, morality, persuasion knowledge, persuasion reactance something seem “authentic” and the reasons why authenticity may 1 | INTRODUCTION be valuable to consumers in the first place. This paper asks the inverse question—What makes something Perceptions of authenticity are relevant to many aspects of con- inauthentic? At first blush, it might seem that this is just an issue of sumer behavior. They inform the value that people assign to a variety semantics: Perhaps the criteria that make something inauthentic of consumer goods, from luxury items to everyday household prod- are simply the absence or inverse of those that make it authen- ucts (e.g., Beverland, 2006; Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Newman & tic. We argue, however, that in many cases relevant to consumer Dhar, 2014); they affect how people evaluate brands and producers behavior, judgments of authenticity and inauthenticity differ in im- (e.g., Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014); and they are cen- portant ways. Consider an example from the domain of arts and tral to how consumers derive pleasure from their experiences (e.g., entertainment. Imagine an authentic fan of the Star Wars movie Howard, 1992; Kovács et al., 2014; Rose & Wood, 2005; Vosgerau franchise. What comes to mind? Maybe you picture someone who et al., 2006). To date, one common approach to understanding the adores the films without reservation,1 or who possesses a deep role of authenticity in consumer behavior has been to examine knowledge of Star Wars trivia and mythology, or who collects how consumers naturally think about and define the concept. This memorabilia, or who reads and posts on Star Wars fan blogs. Now, approach has sought to better understand the factors that make instead imagine an inauthentic Star Wars fan. If your intuitions are Consum Psychol Rev. 2020;00:1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arcp © 2020 Society for Consumer Psychology | 1 2 | SILVER ET AL. anything like ours, the person you imagine is not merely someone and concomitant outrage. In the third section, we discuss implica- who does not like the Star Wars’ films, who does not know very tions for marketing practice. Specifically, we argue that many stan- much about them, or who does not collect memorabilia or partici- dard marketing activities turn out to be risk factors for seeming pate in online blogs. Rather, to say that someone is an inauthentic inauthentic. Star Wars fan seems to imply something more nefarious—that this person is somehow acting with false pretenses or in bad faith. In other words, invoking inauthenticity suggests something that sim- 2 | WHY STUDY INAUTHENTICITY? ply lacking the markers of authenticity does not: that some kind of IDENTIFYING A DISTINCT JUDGMENT violation has occurred. PROCESS This paper aims to sharpen our understanding of the consumer concept of inauthenticity and to explore its antecedents and con- Several recent theory papers have drilled into judgments of au- sequences. To do this, we provide a framework for typifying a wide thenticity, seeking to explain and predict when consumers will see array of inauthenticity cases, and we discuss their common features a product or brand as authentic (e.g., Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; as a class of evaluations distinct from judgments of authenticity. In Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Lehman et al., 2019; Newman, 2019; brief, judgments of authenticity, we argue, primarily reflect percep- Newman & Smith, 2016; Wang, 1999). Generally speaking, such tions of value and meaning—that is, perceiving that something is au- approaches all implicitly assume that being or becoming authen- thentic provides some real or imagined form of utility (e.g., Kovács tic confers some additional source of intangible value, and their et al., 2014). In turn, the emotions that consumers feel when they goal has been to understand and categorize the various factors encounter something authentic are associated with pleasure and that underlie authenticity judgments. But such theories have lit- reward. People collect, desire, celebrate, covet, and savor authen- tle to say about the powerfully negative consumer responses we tic things. By contrast, perceptions of inauthenticity typically entail observe to inauthentic politicians, inauthentic social responsibility moral condemnation. campaigns, or inauthentic cuisines, to name just a few examples. We argue that judgments of inauthenticity arise when con- In contrast to that approach, this section outlines three ways in sumers detect a mismatch between what an entity claims to be which inauthenticity judgments are distinct. They arise in response and what that entity really is upon closer scrutiny. Such mis- to norm-violations, are non-compensatory, and provoke moral matches can arise in a multitude of ways, from misleading ad- outrage. vertising to unnatural modes of production; and when they do, Central to our analysis is the observation that an entity's au- consumers often feel and express outrage, disgust, scorn, and thentic form is often its initial, baseline, default, or prototypical contempt. In other words, inauthenticity is treated as a moral form. Originals are seen as more authentic than replicas (Newman transgression. Thus, inauthenticity is not the mere removal of & Bloom, 2012). First movers are seen as more authentic than the positive characteristics associated with authenticity; rather, followers and copycats (Silver et al., 2020). Natural products are it gives rise to its own morally based reactance (Brehm, 1989, authentic because they have not been altered or tampered with 1993)—a characteristic pattern of non-compensatory outrage (Rozin, 2005). This insight—that authenticity is frequently the ref- that often transcends a rational, outcomes-based accounting of erence or baseline against which inauthenticity departs—has im- the situation. We refer to this judgment process by which con- portant psychological consequences. For example, it suggests that sumer perceive and condemn inauthenticity as inauthenticity while there are but a few ways to become more authentic, there aversion. are myriad ways to violate expectations and appear inauthentic Understanding consumers’ aversion to inauthenticity is of cen- as a result. Moreover, it suggests that inauthenticity is likelier to tral interest to theory and practice. From a theoretical perspective, capture consumers’ attention than authenticity, because inauthen- we argue that judgments of inauthenticity per se represent a dis- ticity is about violating norms and expectations. To the extent that tinct psychological process with important effects on downstream (in)authenticity becomes relevant in consumer contexts, it is often judgments and decisions. From a practical perspective, the costs of because a brand, individual, or product has departed from what is seeming inauthentic for brands and individuals are steep. They arise expected of them at baseline. across a wide variety of contexts, and they provoke moral outrage Consider, for example, Dove's Real Beauty campaign, which and lasting public disapproval. celebrated the beauty of “real” women and cast a critical eye to- The remainder of the paper is organized into three sections: In ward the beauty industry as a whole. The campaign was initially the first section, we examine specific ways in which judgments of praised as deeply authentic and regarded as highly impactful authenticity and inauthenticity diverge, and we elucidate the link (Bahadur, 2017). However, in later years, Dove's “Real Beauty” between perceptions of inauthenticity and moral judgment. In the campaign came under fire for seeming inauthentic as additional in- second section, we identify different ways in which an entity can formation about the campaign (and its parent company, Unilever) seem inauthentic and provide