IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v132y2022i641p273-298..html

Toward An Understanding of the Economics of Apologies: Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • 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. 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 and apologies that promise to do better. For firms, caveat venditor should be the rule when considering apologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Basil Halperin & Benjamin Ho & John A List & Ian Muir, 2022. "Toward An Understanding of the Economics of Apologies: Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(641), pages 273-298.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:132:y:2022:i:641:p:273-298.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueab062
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. How Should You Ask for Forgiveness? (NSQ Ep. 27)
      by Rebecca Lee Douglas in Freakonomics on 2020-11-15 10:00:22

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. John List, 2026. "A Summary of Artefactual Field Experiments on FieldExperiments.com in 2025: The Who's, What's, Where's, and When's," Artefactual Field Experiments 00831, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Bharat Chandar & Uri Gneezy & John List & Ian Muir, 2019. "The Drivers of Social Preferences: Evidence from a Nationwide Tipping Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00680, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Kyeong Sam Min & Jae Min Jung & Kisang Ryu & Curtis Haugtvedt & Sathiadev Mahesh & John Overton, 2020. "Timing of apology after service failure: the moderating role of future interaction expectation on customer satisfaction," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 217-230, September.
    4. Fan, Sijia & Ge, Qi & Ho, Benjamin & Ma, Lirong, 2023. "Sorry Doesn't Cut It, or Does It? Insights from Stock Market Responses to Corporate Apologies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 68-86.
    5. Baier, Alexandra & Jaber-Lopez, Tarek, 2025. "Just saying sorry—The effect of apologies on reintegration after social exclusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    6. Huang, Lidingrong, 2021. "Do not apologise too early," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. John List, 2026. "A Summary of Framed Field Experiments Published in 2025 on FieldExperiments.com," Framed Field Experiments 00832, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    9. Hill Cummings, Krista & Seitchik, Allison E., 2020. "The differential treatment of women during service recovery: How perceived social power affects consumers’ postfailure compensation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 647-658.
    10. Maxime C. Cohen & Michael D. Fiszer & Baek Jung Kim, 2022. "Frustration-Based Promotions: Field Experiments in Ride-Sharing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2432-2464, April.
    11. Wang, Hai & Yang, Hai, 2019. "Ridesourcing systems: A framework and review," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 122-155.
    12. John List, 2026. "Natural Field Experiments Published in 2025 on FieldExperiments.com," Natural Field Experiments 00833, The Field Experiments Website.
    13. Moshe A. Barach & Joseph M. Golden & John J. Horton, 2020. "Steering in Online Markets: The Role of Platform Incentives and Credibility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4047-4070, September.
    14. Moshe A. Barach & Joseph M. Golden & John J. Horton, 2019. "Steering in Online Markets: The Role of Platform Incentives and Credibility," NBER Working Papers 25917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Li, Xiaonan & Li, Xiangyong & Wang, Hai & Shi, Junxin & Aneja, Y.P., 2022. "Supply regulation under the exclusion policy in a ride-sourcing market," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 69-94.
    16. Yuka Okada & Mitsuhiko Kimoto & Takamasa Iio & Katsunori Shimohara & Masahiro Shiomi, 2023. "Two is better than one: Apologies from two robots are preferred," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-17, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    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:oup:econjl:v:132:y:2022:i:641:p:273-298.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.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.