Verified by 
I received an email from a reporter working on a story for Money magazine. He contacted me because of my research on social perception and the psychology of trust. He wanted to learn more about how people predict whether another person is trustworthy, and whether people use valid cues to make these predictions. As you can imagine, the story is of the "After-Madoff" variety. To help the reporter prepare for the interview, I sent him a copy of "The psychology (and economics) of trust, which Tony Evans and I published in the Social and Personality Psychology Compass in 2009.
When we started talking, I asked him what Money was prepared to pay for expert opinion. "Nothing," came the reply. The reporter said he talks to lots of people, and they are happy to receive free publicity in the pages of Money (like they should pay him for being interviewed). I must note, and I hope you believe me when I write this, that I fully expected his reply and explanation. I also note for the record that I have done, and will continue to do, plenty of free interviewing.
What's the motivational structure here? The reporter put his finger on one motivational element. Love of fame, recognition, and reputation. Many academics happily share their hard-won results with a broader public, and I am no exception. Ego joy plays a role. There is another element, though, which the reporter conveniently overlooked, and that is that a rendered opinion is actually meant to do some good. An academic opinion may be "merely" educational, though hopefully not just entertaining. Better yet, an opinion, when based of empirical evidence, may be helpful or useful to the readers or listeners in their personal projects. Now the free advice is part of a gift economy, and that is fine by me. Part of the internet-take, for example, Wikipedia-is a huge swirling gift economy.
So why ask Money for money? The lazy answer is that I just could not resist. The irony was too delicious. Perhaps the name played a role as well. Victimized by priming. You see, my question was an ideomotor action. Don't blame me for raising it! Interesting but not sufficient. I asked the reporter whether it wasn't true that his story would be read by individuals who either seek to increase their investment profits or at least to protect themselves from the risk of being deceived by the Madoffs of the world. "Well, yeah. . . "So wouldn't he agree that expert opinion creates a utility? ". . . yeah. . ." So then, why give it away for nothing?
Can't blame them for trying to get free advice, right? Who hasn't tried to get a legal or medical opinion from a friend or acquaintance in those fields? "Oh, by the way, do you happen to know. . .?" A gift economy is a powerful thing. Without it, society could not afford science, and a lack of science would slow down innovation and progress. But let's not lose sight of the gift economy's boundaries.
Oh, by the way, I will probably write up my opinion on (mis)trusting financial advisors for this blog, at which point everyone is welcome to use the gift.
