5.4.1 Method, procedure, and participants
The second study again applies the between-subjects design (treatment: reward vs. control: no reward). The experiment took place from September 7th to 19th 2015 (two weeks), daily at peak times between 7:30 a.m - 9.30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. in Darmstadt (Germany) in the same local car dealership as in the first study.
For the treatment group the car dealership offered again 5€ coupons for its products and services.
During the first week the customers did not get a coupon (control), but in the second week (treatment). The paper-based questionnaire was again developed together with the car dealership.
A student research assistant16 asked to fill out the questionnaires. The customers were asked to give an overall evaluation for the car dealership service, their intention to refer the service and to share positive word of mouth. Further, we asked for customers’ gender, age, education, and income levels. In contrast to Study 1, price consciousness was excluded and extraversion was included. Additionally, several manipulation checks were included. Table 28 presents the final questionnaire.
The customers were not informed about the research question and were only told to participate in the survey of the car dealership to improve the service. The student research assistant contacted 96 customers; 26 customers denied participating in the experiment, resulting in 72.92% response rate. The customers were randomly distributed to two conditions with respect to gender (χ2(1) = 0.94, p < .33), education levels (χ2(3) = 4.82, p < .19), to income levels (χ2(5) = 3.86, p < .57) and age (χ2(9) = 13.49, p < .14). Also, the customers in both conditions were similar with respect to extraversion (control: 3.57 vs. treatment: 3.17, p < .07) and altruism (control: 1.99 vs. treatment:
2.20, p < .18).
5.4.2 Results
Under the paid treatment condition, 33 customers filled out the questionnaire, whereas 37 customers participated in the non-paid control condition. Similar to the first study, more people in the treatment group (14, about 30%) refused to participate in the study compared to the control group (12, about 25%). This contradicts again the hypothesis that under the paid condition people would be more willing to engage in social sharing. From the resulting 70 responses three were discarded due to sparsely filled questions (one from the control group, two in the treatment group).
With respect to the overall evaluation of the car dealership, there is no significant difference between the two groups (M = 1.26, p < .50). With respect to the overall satisfaction, the paid group give worse evaluation (M = 1.54) which is weakly significant, compared to the non-paid
16 I thank again Mr. Moya for giving another opportunity to conduct this field experiment and Christian Tran for his great assistance by the data collection.
condition (M = 1.35, p < .10). Also, they were less willing to refer the services to their friends (treatment: M = 1.70 vs. control: M = 1.47, p < .05).
Construct Items/ Scale
How is your overall satisfaction with our services? 1 = very good; 6 = very bad How is your overall evaluation of the car dealership? 1 = very good; 6 = very bad How likely would you recommend our service to others? 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all Service evaluation
I always get service without delays. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all I have a feeling that the car dealership meets my interests at
best.
1 = very good; 7 = not at all By problems, the causes are found and managed quickly. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all I did know in advance which services should be done at my
car.
1 = very good; 7 = not at all The car dealership is always available. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all I can always rely on the car dealership. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all Time schedules and appointments were kept. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all Employees evaluation
The service was professional. 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all The service employees were kind. 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all The employees are always willing to help. 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all I trust the employees of the car dealership 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all I get personal, individual attention from the employees 1 = very likely; 7 = not at all Relationship with the car dealership
If I have a problem, I come to the car dealership. 1 = very good; 7 = not at all If the service quality remains unchanged, I would not change
the car dealership.
I inform myself about the services/ sales on 1 = website; 2 = platforms; 3 = on Google; from newspaper announcements; 4 = word of mouth; 5 = from mailing lists
Extraversion (Costa and McCrae 1992) Feel comfortable around people.
Make friends easily.
Keep in the background
Don't like to draw attention to myself.
1 = very likely; 6 = not at all Altruism (Costa and McCrae 1992) I love to help others.
I am concerned about others.
Income level 7 groups, with “non-disclosure” option
Table 29. Questionnaire Study 2
Review dimensions Measure
Volume Number of posted reviews
Valence The difference between the positive and negative words in the review text;
calculated using LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2007)
Length Number of words
Calculated using LIWC software Pennebaker et al. (2007)
Readability Calculated using Flesh index; 100 = very easy, -20 very difficult (Study 2) Sidedness Manually coded: 1 = two-sided, 0 = one-sided
Emotionality The share of all emotional words in the review text; calculated using LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2007)
Review type Manually coded, 1 = factual; 0 = experiential (Study 2) Manually coded; 7 = readable, 1 = not at all (Study 3)
Table 30. Measurement of consumer review dimensions in studies 2 and 3
With respect to the willingness to write a consumer review, 44% (14 out of 32) of customers under the paid condition wrote a review; in contrast, under the unpaid condition, only 23% (8 out of 35) (p < .04) wrote one. This provides support for the hypothesis that paying incentives facilitates the writing of consumer reviews. Further, I analyze the consumer review texts with respect to the dimensions valence, valence variance, emotionality, length, readability, sidedness and review type. Table 30 provides the overview how the different dimensions are measured.
With respect to the valence and emotionality, paid customers wrote more positive (treatment: M
= 19.81 vs. control: M = 11.58, p < .10) and more emotional reviews (treatment: M = 20.82 vs.
control: M = 13.57, p < .10), albeit only weakly significant. With respect to the review length, readability, sidedness and review type, there were no significant differences.
Review dimension Control Treatment P-value
Volume 44% 23% .04
Valence 11.58 19.81 .10
Emotionality 13.57 20.82 .10
Length 19.25 22.29 .33
Readability 24.12 17.14 .33
Sidedness .25 .22 .43
Review type .63 .50 .30
Table 31. Review dimensions, group differences, Study 2