IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v147y2018icp127-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict of interest disclosure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to automatic versus deliberative processing

Author

Listed:
  • Sah, Sunita
  • Malaviya, Prashant
  • Thompson, Debora

Abstract

Disclosure—informing advice recipients of the potential bias of an advisor—is a popular tool to manage conflicts of interest. However, conflict of interest disclosures usually compete with a host of other information that is important, relevant or interesting to the advisee. Across one field study and five experiments, we examine the effect of conflict of interest disclosures in a realistic and context-rich setting (online blogs) in which the disclosure is short, clear and conspicuous (as desired by many regulatory bodies) but embedded in the context of other competing information. Our findings show that, in contrast to much of the prior research on conflict of interest disclosures, recipients who read a blog post containing a conflict of interest disclosure report increased trust in the blogger and evaluate the blogger, the blogger’s recommendation, and the sponsoring organization more favorably than recipients who read a post with no disclosure. The effect is driven by disclosure acting as a heuristic cue to infer greater trust in the blogger’s expertise and consequently greater persuasion. The inference of greater expertise and its effect on persuasion are mitigated when recipients deliberate on the disclosure. We discuss implications of these findings for organizations, advisors, consumers and policy makers.

Suggested Citation

  • Sah, Sunita & Malaviya, Prashant & Thompson, Debora, 2018. "Conflict of interest disclosure as an expertise cue: Differential effects due to automatic versus deliberative processing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 127-146.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:127-146
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597817301516
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.05.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johar, Gita Venkataramani & Simmons, Carolyn J, 2000. "The Use of Concurrent Disclosures to Correct Invalid Inferences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 307-322, March.
    2. Sah, Sunita, 2017. "Policy solutions to conflicts of interest: the value of professional norms," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 177-189, November.
    3. David P. Mackinnon & James H. Dwyer, 1993. "Estimating Mediated Effects in Prevention Studies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 17(2), pages 144-158, April.
    4. Campbell, Margaret C & Kirmani, Amna, 2000. "Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(1), pages 69-83, June.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:37-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Daylian M. Cain & George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore, 2011. "When Sunlight Fails to Disinfect: Understanding the Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(5), pages 836-857.
    7. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Crawford, Vincent P & Sobel, Joel, 1982. "Strategic Information Transmission," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1431-1451, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rose, Susannah L. & Sah, Sunita & Dweik, Raed & Schmidt, Cory & Mercer, MaryBeth & Mitchum, Ariane & Kattan, Michael & Karafa, Matthew & Robertson, Christopher, 2021. "Patient responses to physician disclosures of industry conflicts of interest: A randomized field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 27-38.
    2. Joanna Macalik, 2021. "Take me Down to the Vaccine City? Nano – and Micro Influencers Engagement in the Pro-Vaccination Campaign During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 838-852.
    3. Sah, Sunita, 2019. "Understanding the (perverse) effects of disclosing conflicts of interest: A direct replication study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    4. Cui, Geng & Chung, Yuho & Peng, Ling & Zheng, Wanyi, 2022. "The importance of being earnest: Mandatory vs. voluntary disclosure of incentives for online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 633-645.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rose, Susannah L. & Sah, Sunita & Dweik, Raed & Schmidt, Cory & Mercer, MaryBeth & Mitchum, Ariane & Kattan, Michael & Karafa, Matthew & Robertson, Christopher, 2021. "Patient responses to physician disclosures of industry conflicts of interest: A randomized field experiment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 27-38.
    2. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    3. Tessitore, Tina & Geuens, Maggie, 2019. "Arming consumers against product placement: A comparison of factual and evaluative educational interventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-48.
    4. Namin Kim & Youri Sung & Moonkyu Lee, 2012. "Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived Fit Between Companies and Non-Profit Organizations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 163-174, August.
    5. Andrew E. Wilson & Peter R. Darke & Jaideep Sengupta, 2022. "Winning the Battle but Losing the War: Ironic Effects of Training Consumers to Detect Deceptive Advertising Tactics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 997-1013, December.
    6. Tuk, M.A. & Verlegh, P.W.J. & Smidts, A. & Wigboldus, D.H.J., 2008. "Sales and Sincerity: The Role of Relational Framing in Word-of-Mouth Marketing," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-056-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    7. Lisa Koonce & Zheng Leitter & Brian White, 2023. "The effect of a warning on investors’ reactions to disclosure readability," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 769-791, June.
    8. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    9. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    10. Effron, Daniel A. & Raj, Medha, 2021. "Disclosing interpersonal conflicts of interest: Revealing whom we like, but not whom we dislike," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 68-85.
    11. Joëlle Vanhamme & Valérie Swaen & Guido Berens & Catherine Janssen, 2015. "Playing with fire: aggravating and buffering effects of ex ante CSR communication campaigns for companies facing allegations of social irresponsibility," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 565-578, December.
    12. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    13. Mehdi Hossain & Ritesh Saini, 2014. "Suckers in the morning, skeptics in the evening: Time-of-Day effects on consumers’ vigilance against manipulation," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 109-121, June.
    14. Jones, Michael A. & Taylor, Valerie A., 2018. "Marketer requests for positive post-purchase satisfaction evaluations: Consumer depth interview findings," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 218-226.
    15. Avramova, Yana R. & Dens, Nathalie & De Pelsmacker, Patrick, 2021. "Brand placement across media: The interaction of placement modality and frequency in film versus text," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 20-30.
    16. Golovacheva, E., 2016. "When consumers activate persuasion knowledge: Review of antecedents and consequences," Working Papers 6440, Graduate School of Management, St. Petersburg State University.
    17. J?rg Tropp & Corinna Beuthner, 2018. "Customers¡¯ Understanding of Engagement Advertising," Studies in Media and Communication, Redfame publishing, vol. 6(2), pages 57-76, December.
    18. James J. Zboja & Ronald A. Clark & Diana L. Haytko, 2016. "An offer you can’t refuse: consumer perceptions of sales pressure," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 806-821, November.
    19. Yann Verhellen & Caroline Oates & Patrick Pelsmacker & Nathalie Dens, 2014. "Children’s Responses to Traditional Versus Hybrid Advertising Formats: The Moderating Role of Persuasion Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 235-255, June.
    20. Hamby, Anne & Daniloski, Kim & Brinberg, David, 2015. "How consumer reviews persuade through narratives," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1242-1250.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:147:y:2018:i:c:p:127-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.