Being True and Good: Categorical Ambiguity and Experts as Authenticators

Abstract

This study aims at joining the literatures on categories and on social evaluations to study the consequences of ambiguity in both meaning (“what one is”) and valence (“what one is worth”) on market audiences’ valuations. It offers a conceptual framework in which authenticity mediates the effects of meaning and valence ambiguities on valuation. Importantly, the paper argues that the demand for authenticity – and thus the sanction of meaning and valence ambiguities – varies with audience members’ expertise. We then explore the cognitive and social determinants of the experts’ judgments of ambiguity and authenticity. In doing so, this study offers contributions by combining the literatures of categorical ambiguity, authenticity and expertise.