IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v23y2021i4p835-853.html

Does Immediate Feedback Make You Not Try as Hard? A Study on Automotive Telematics

Author

Listed:
  • Vivek Choudhary

    (Information Technology and Operations Management, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798)

  • Masha Shunko

    (Information Systems and Operations Management, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195)

  • Serguei Netessine

    (Operations, Information and Decisions, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

Abstract

Problem definition : Mobile and internet-of-things (IoT) devices increasingly enable tracking of user behavior, and they often provide real-time or immediate feedback to consumers in an effort to improve their conduct. Growing adoption of such technologies leads to an important question: “Does reviewing immediate feedback improve user behavior?” We study immediate (close to real-time) feedback in the context of automotive telematics, which has been recognized as the most disruptive technology in the automotive insurance industry. Academic/practical relevance : Numerous automotive telematics providers claim unsubstantiated benefits from immediate feedback, while we still barely understand the implications of such feedback on user behavior. Given the high adoption of these technologies in automotive applications, it is important to study the effect of such feedback on behavior. This understanding is important, given that other attempts to make driving safer have led to unintended consequences in the past. Methodology : Using proprietary data on driving behavior, as measured by several parameters, such as harsh braking, speeding, and steep acceleration, we investigate the impact of the driver’s decision to review immediate feedback on driving behavior. We use instrumental variable regression to estimate the effect. Results : Contrary to the claims from multiple telematics providers, we find that, on average, users’ driving performance after they review detailed feedback is nearly 14.9% worse than that of users who do not review their detailed feedback. This impairment in performance translates to 6.9%, or a one-year reduction in interaccident time. Strong negative feedback (e.g., a sharp deterioration in performance) exerts a positive effect on short-term performance, but this only happens for very large drops in performance (3% of cases). Furthermore, we demonstrate that drivers just below the insurance-incentive thresholds exert greater effort following immediate feedback. Managerial implications : Our results provide a key message to firms employing immediate feedback—specifically, that such technology can yield unintended consequences. Furthermore, we show that drivers should receive only strong negative (but not positive) feedback to improve their performance. Finally, our results suggest that insurance incentives should be continuous rather than a step function.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivek Choudhary & Masha Shunko & Serguei Netessine, 2021. "Does Immediate Feedback Make You Not Try as Hard? A Study on Automotive Telematics," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 835-853, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:4:p:835-853
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2020.0924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0924
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2020.0924?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Hummy Song & Anita L. Tucker & Karen L. Murrell & David R. Vinsonc, 2018. "Closing the Productivity Gap: Improving Worker Productivity Through Public Relative Performance Feedback and Validation of Best Practices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2628-2649, June.
    3. Grossman, Zachary & Owens, David, 2012. "An unlucky feeling: Overconfidence and noisy feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 510-524.
    4. Kenneth L. Schultz & David C. Juran & John W. Boudreau & John O. McClain & L. Joseph Thomas, 1998. "Modeling and Worker Motivation in JIT Production Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-1), pages 1595-1607, December.
    5. Bandura, Albert, 1991. "Social cognitive theory of self-regulation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 248-287, December.
    6. Jürgen Mihm & Jochen Schlapp, 2019. "Sourcing Innovation: On Feedback in Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 559-576, February.
    7. Adams, Renée & Almeida, Heitor & Ferreira, Daniel, 2009. "Understanding the relationship between founder-CEOs and firm performance," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 136-150, January.
    8. Guillaume Roels & Xuanming Su, 2014. "Optimal Design of Social Comparison Effects: Setting Reference Groups and Reference Points," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(3), pages 606-627, March.
    9. Douglas Staiger & James H. Stock, 1997. "Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 557-586, May.
    10. Matthew T. Billett & Yiming Qian, 2008. "Are Overconfident CEOs Born or Made? Evidence of Self-Attribution Bias from Frequent Acquirers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(6), pages 1037-1051, June.
    11. Gary E. Bolton & Elena Katok, 2008. "Learning by Doing in the Newsvendor Problem: A Laboratory Investigation of the Role of Experience and Feedback," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 519-538, September.
    12. Judd Cramer & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "Disruptive Change in the Taxi Business: The Case of Uber," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 177-182, May.
    13. Ran Kivetz & Oleg Urminsky & Yuhuang Zheng, 2006. "The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention," Natural Field Experiments 00658, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Maurice E. Schweitzer & Gérard P. Cachon, 2000. "Decision Bias in the Newsvendor Problem with a Known Demand Distribution: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(3), pages 404-420, March.
    15. Nickell, Stephen J, 1981. "Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(6), pages 1417-1426, November.
    16. M. Kit Delgado & Kathryn J. Wanner & Catherine McDonald, 2016. "Adolescent Cellphone Use While Driving: An Overview of the Literature and Promising Future Directions for Prevention," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 79-89.
    17. Jonah Berger & Devin Pope, 2011. "Can Losing Lead to Winning?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 817-827, May.
    18. Peltzman, Sam, 1975. "The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 677-725, August.
    19. M. Kit Delgado & Kathryn J. Wanner & Catherine McDonald, 2016. "Adolescent Cellphone Use While Driving: An Overview of the Literature and Promising Future Directions for Prevention," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 79-89.
    20. Ashton, Rh, 1990. "Pressure And Performance In Accounting Decision Settings - Paradoxical Effects Of Incentives, Feedback, And Justification," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28, pages 148-180.
    21. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    22. Lurie, Nicholas H. & Swaminathan, Jayashankar M., 2009. "Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 315-329, March.
    23. Gjedrem, William Gilje, 2018. "Relative performance feedback: Effective or dismaying?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-16.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Si Xie & Siddhartha Sharma & Amit Mehra & Arslan Aziz, 2024. "Strategic Expectation Setting of Delivery Time on Marketplaces," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 1965-1980, December.
    2. Jacob Z. Zeng & Ashish Agarwal & Ioannis Stamatopoulos, 2024. "Promotional Inventory Displays: An Empirical Analysis Using IoT Data," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1826-1841, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karen Donohue & Özalp Özer, 2020. "Behavioral Operations: Past, Present, and Future," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 191-202, January.
    2. Vivek Choudhary & Masha Shunko & Serguei Netessine & Seongjoon Koo, 2022. "Nudging Drivers to Safety: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4196-4214, June.
    3. Miyeon Jung & Daegon Cho & Euncheol Shin, 2021. "Repairing a Cracked Mirror: The Heterogeneous Effect of Personalized Digital Nudges Driven by Misperception," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(8), pages 2586-2607, August.
    4. XiaoLi Zhang & Jelle de Vries & René de Koster & ChenGuang Liu, 2022. "Fast and Faultless? Quantity and Quality Feedback in Order Picking," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(4), pages 1536-1559, April.
    5. Srinagesh Gavirneni & Yusen Xia, 2009. "Anchor Selection and Group Dynamics in Newsvendor Decisions---A Note," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 87-97, June.
    6. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    7. Mirko Kremer & Francis de Véricourt, 2022. "Mismanaging diagnostic accuracy under congestion," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-22-01, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    8. Mauersberger, Felix & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2025. "Modeling noisy learning in a dynamic oligopoly experiment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. Anna‐Lena Sachs & Michael Becker‐Peth & Stefan Minner & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2022. "Empirical newsvendor biases: Are target service levels achieved effectively and efficiently?," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(4), pages 1839-1855, April.
    10. Elahi, Ehsan & Lamba, Narasimha & Ramaswamy, Chinthana, 2013. "How can we improve the performance of supply chain contracts? An experimental study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 146-157.
    11. Ockenfels, Axel & Selten, Reinhard, 2014. "Impulse balance in the newsvendor game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-247.
    12. Bai, Tian & Feng, Gengzhong & Wu, Meng & Zhu, Stuart X., 2025. "A newsvendor model with multiple reference points: Target-setting for aspirational newsvendors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 320(3), pages 655-669.
    13. Schiffels, Sebastian & Fügener, Andreas & Kolisch, Rainer & Jens Brunner, O., 2014. "On the assessment of costs in a newsvendor environment: Insights from an experimental study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-8.
    14. John W. Gardner*, 2020. "Managing Production Yields and Rework through Feedback on Speed, Quality, and Quantity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2182-2209, September.
    15. Nils Rudi & David Drake, 2009. "Observation bias: The impact of demand censoring on newsvendor level and adjustment behavior," Harvard Business School Working Papers 12-042, Harvard Business School, revised Dec 2011.
    16. Đặng, Rey & Houanti, L’Hocine & Reddy, Krishna & Simioni, Michel, 2020. "Does board gender diversity influence firm profitability? A control function approach," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 168-181.
    17. Jialu Liu & Keehyung Kim, 2023. "Designing contests for data science competitions: Number of stages and the prize structures," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(11), pages 3752-3772, November.
    18. Özalp Özer & Yanchong Zheng & Yufei Ren, 2014. "Trust, Trustworthiness, and Information Sharing in Supply Chains Bridging China and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(10), pages 2435-2460, October.
    19. Gary E. Bolton & Axel Ockenfels & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2012. "Managers and Students as Newsvendors," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(12), pages 2225-2233, December.
    20. Henry Eyring & Patrick J. Ferguson & Sebastian Koppers, 2021. "Less Information, More Comparison, and Better Performance: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 59(2), pages 657-711, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:4:p:835-853. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.