Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs

Rachel  Gershon; Cynthia  Cryder; Leslie K. John

Article | Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) | February 2020

Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs

by Rachel Gershon, Cynthia Cryder and Leslie K. John

Abstract

While selfish incentives typically outperform prosocial incentives, in the context of customer referral rewards, prosocial incentives can be more effective. Companies frequently offer “selfish” (i.e., sender-benefiting) referral incentives, offering customers financial incentives for recruiting new customers. However, companies can alternatively offer “prosocial” (i.e., recipient-benefiting) referral incentives. In two field experiments and an incentive-compatible lab experiment, recipient-benefiting referrals recruited more new customers than sender-benefiting referrals. In five additional experiments, we test a process account that invokes two countervailing forces: reputational benefits and action costs. First, at the referral stage, senders anticipate reputational benefits for referring when recipients receive a reward. As a result, recipient-benefiting referrals are just as effective as sender-benefiting referrals at this stage. Second, at the uptake stage, recipient-benefiting referrals are more effective than sender-benefiting referrals: recipient-benefiting referrals directly incentivize uptake (i.e., signing up for a new product or service), which is a high-effort action in referral programs. The preponderance of sender-benefiting (vs. recipient-benefiting) referral offers in the marketplace suggests these effects are unanticipated by marketers who design incentive schemes.

Keywords: incentives; prosocial behavior; judgment and decision-making; referral rewards; Motivation and Incentives; Consumer Behavior; Decision Making;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Gershon, Rachel, Cynthia Cryder, and Leslie K. John. "Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs." Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 57, no. 1 (February 2020): 156–172.

In the past decade, behavioral science has undergone beneficial shifts towards greater transparency and more rigorous research. However, we wondered whether this heightened focus on confirmation might make researchers feel inhibited towards doing research, and reduce the propensity to explore. Study 1 (N=404), a descriptive survey, indicated that relative to confirmatory research, researchers found exploratory research more enjoyable, motivating, and interesting; and less anxiety-inducing, frustrating, boring, and scientific. It also introduced a scale to measure research inhibition; higher scores were linked to running fewer studies and were particularly common among women, untenured professors, and receiving one’s PhD after 2011—when reforms began. Study 2 (N=463), a pre-registered experiment, indicated that a confirmatory mindset made researchers less likely to find an interesting (non-hypothesized) interaction. A reminder to explore did not mitigate this effect. These studies suggest that work is needed to ensure that rigorous scientific reforms and exploration can coexist.

Firms typically provide assurances to consumers about data management practices in the form of privacy notices. This manuscript proposes that ironically, such assurances can fuel rather than alleviate privacy concerns. Indeed, we show that consumers react to assurances as if they were warnings – a counterintuitive phenomenon because unlike warnings, which communicate danger, assurances are designed to communicate protection. Across one field experiment and five lab experiments, we show that a salient (vs. an absent or less salient) privacy notice can lead to decreased rather than increased purchase intent. This effect is mediated by consumer trust and is robust to the language in the privacy notice—it occurs even when the notice is overtly assuring, as well as when consumers see only a link to the notice but do not view its contents. The attenuation of the effect in joint (vs. separate) evaluation suggests that consumers’ hesitation to transact with organizations that have a salient privacy notice is not likely driven by an active aversion to assurances, but rather by the arousal of dormant privacy concerns.

Increasingly, consumers are taking self-photos and marketers, eager to capitalize on this trend, have been asking consumers to take self-photos with brands (i.e., brand selfies). We suggest that consumer compliance with such requests sparks a self-inferential process that leads the consumer to feel connected to the brand (e.g., “If I took the brand selfie, I must feel connected to this brand”), increasing brand preference. Eight studies support this account. In a dataset of 283,140 user reviews from Yelp, study 1 documented a positive association between a reviewer’s propensity to take a brand selfie and the star rating he gives the restaurant. Seven experiments point to causality: participants randomized to take brand selfies felt greater self-brand connection and exhibited heightened brand preference, relative to those randomized to take: no photo at all (study 2a), a selfie (without the brand; studies 2b-6), or a photo of the brand (without the self; study 3). Two studies point to process in convergent ways, via serial mediation (study 4) and moderated mediation (study 5). A final study documented a crucial moderator: dissatisfaction with one’s appearance in the selfie triggers defensive processing, reducing self-inference and thereby, the capacity for brand selfie-taking to increase brand preference.

Faculty & Research

Why Prosocial Referral Incentives Work: The Interplay of Reputational Benefits and Action Costs

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author