Working Paper: NBER ID: w25676
Authors: Basil Halperin; Benjamin Ho; John A. List; Ian Muir
Abstract: We use a theory of apologies to design a nationwide field experiment involving 1.5 million Uber ridesharing consumers who experienced late rides. Several insights emerge from our field experiment. First, apologies are not a panacea: the efficacy of an apology and whether it may backfire depend on how the apology is made. Second, across treatments, money speaks louder than words – the best form of apology is to include a coupon for a future trip. Third, in some cases sending an apology is worse than sending nothing at all, particularly for repeated apologies. For firms, caveat venditor should be the rule when considering apologies.
Keywords: apologies; trust; consumer behavior; field experiment; ridesharing
JEL Codes: C9; C93; D80; D91; Z13
Edges that are evidenced by causal inference methods are in orange, and the rest are in light blue.
| Cause | Effect |
|---|---|
| costly apology (K13) | future spending (D14) |
| apology without coupon (Y60) | future spending (D14) |
| severity of service failure (L87) | apology effectiveness (D91) |
| repeated apologies (Y60) | effectiveness (C52) |