Online Evaluators: Ethics of Conviction versus Ethics of Responsibility in Building Evaluations

Abstract

Purpose

In this study, we seek to understand which types of evaluators build their evaluations based on the ethics of conviction and which ones build them based on the ethics of responsibility.

Theoretical framework

The concepts of the public sphere from Habermas (1991) and ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility from Weber (1978; 2004) are used to understand the public responsibility of online evaluations by the types of evaluators who produce them (whether real or false).

Design/methodology/approach

A cluster analysis with 6,344 evaluations identified four groups of evaluators (speculators, pseudo experts, amateur critics, and real experts). A Spearman correlation matrix is ​​used to verify the correlation between some variables and these groups. Using the quantitative text analysis technique, bigrams (word associations) were identified.

Findings

(i) Speculators and pseudo experts tend to present only one score, exercising the act of evaluating using clear ethics of conviction; and (ii) amateurs critics and real experts associate responsibility and experience in the dynamics of translating the gastronomic experience, emphasizing the ethics of responsibility.

Practical & social implications of research

As the study by Cruz et al. (2021) presented the types of online evaluators, we characterized them by understanding (i) whether they act based on the ethics of conviction or ethics of responsibility and (ii) the form and content of fake online reviews.

Originality/value

We discuss the public responsibility of online reviews – particularly of people who acted as diners.

Keywords:
Types of online evaluators; ethics of conviction; ethics of responsibility