在顶层提供亲社会的激励措施:它们是让交易变得更美好,还是适得其反?

Sven Beisecker, Christian Schlereth
{"title":"在顶层提供亲社会的激励措施:它们是让交易变得更美好,还是适得其反?","authors":"Sven Beisecker, Christian Schlereth","doi":"10.1002/mar.21941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Companies often rely on customer feedback to build and improve their business. Customers, in turn, are expected to (i) fill in customer feedback surveys (participation) and (ii) provide accurate responses (performance). To encourage active participation and ensure accurate responses, companies traditionally offer either self-benefiting incentives, like lottery prizes, or prosocial incentives, like charity donations. More recently, some companies have started offering prosocial incentives on top of self-benefiting incentives in the hope to “sweeten the deal,” that is, to improve participation and performance even further. With this research, we challenge whether the on-top prosocial incentives are effective. The evidence from two field experiments and one incentive-aligned online experiment does not confirm any such advantage. In contrast, performance can decrease when a low-amount on-top prosocial incentive is offered relative to a pure self-benefiting setting. This trend is only reversed once the on-top incentive amount increases. Furthermore, for participation, we find that on-top prosocial incentives are ineffective and, at higher amounts, even detrimental. Therefore, our empirical insights rather suggest that on-top prosocial incentives “poison the well.”","PeriodicalId":501349,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Offering prosocial incentives on-top: Do they sweeten the deal or poison the well?\",\"authors\":\"Sven Beisecker, Christian Schlereth\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mar.21941\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Companies often rely on customer feedback to build and improve their business. Customers, in turn, are expected to (i) fill in customer feedback surveys (participation) and (ii) provide accurate responses (performance). To encourage active participation and ensure accurate responses, companies traditionally offer either self-benefiting incentives, like lottery prizes, or prosocial incentives, like charity donations. More recently, some companies have started offering prosocial incentives on top of self-benefiting incentives in the hope to “sweeten the deal,” that is, to improve participation and performance even further. With this research, we challenge whether the on-top prosocial incentives are effective. The evidence from two field experiments and one incentive-aligned online experiment does not confirm any such advantage. In contrast, performance can decrease when a low-amount on-top prosocial incentive is offered relative to a pure self-benefiting setting. This trend is only reversed once the on-top incentive amount increases. Furthermore, for participation, we find that on-top prosocial incentives are ineffective and, at higher amounts, even detrimental. Therefore, our empirical insights rather suggest that on-top prosocial incentives “poison the well.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":501349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology and Marketing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology and Marketing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21941\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公司经常依靠客户的反馈来建立和改善他们的业务。顾客,反过来,被期望(i)填写顾客反馈调查(参与)和(ii)提供准确的回应(绩效)。为了鼓励积极参与并确保准确的回应,公司传统上要么提供自利激励,如彩票奖金,要么提供亲社会激励,如慈善捐赠。最近,一些公司开始在自我利益的激励措施之上提供亲社会的激励措施,希望“让交易更甜蜜”,也就是说,进一步提高参与度和绩效。在这项研究中,我们对上层亲社会激励是否有效提出了质疑。来自两个实地实验和一个与激励相关的在线实验的证据并没有证实任何这样的优势。相比之下,相对于纯粹的自我利益设置,提供少量的上层亲社会激励时,绩效会下降。只有当顶层激励金额增加时,这种趋势才会逆转。此外,对于参与,我们发现顶部的亲社会激励是无效的,在更高的数额,甚至有害。因此,我们的实证见解表明,上层的亲社会激励“毒化了这口井”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Offering prosocial incentives on-top: Do they sweeten the deal or poison the well?
Companies often rely on customer feedback to build and improve their business. Customers, in turn, are expected to (i) fill in customer feedback surveys (participation) and (ii) provide accurate responses (performance). To encourage active participation and ensure accurate responses, companies traditionally offer either self-benefiting incentives, like lottery prizes, or prosocial incentives, like charity donations. More recently, some companies have started offering prosocial incentives on top of self-benefiting incentives in the hope to “sweeten the deal,” that is, to improve participation and performance even further. With this research, we challenge whether the on-top prosocial incentives are effective. The evidence from two field experiments and one incentive-aligned online experiment does not confirm any such advantage. In contrast, performance can decrease when a low-amount on-top prosocial incentive is offered relative to a pure self-benefiting setting. This trend is only reversed once the on-top incentive amount increases. Furthermore, for participation, we find that on-top prosocial incentives are ineffective and, at higher amounts, even detrimental. Therefore, our empirical insights rather suggest that on-top prosocial incentives “poison the well.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信