The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention
Open accessAbstract
The goal-gradient hypothesis denotes the classic finding from behaviorism that animals expend more effort as they approach a reward. Building on this hypothesis, the authors generate new propositions for the human psychology of rewards. They test these propositions using field experiments, secondary customer data, paper-and-pencil problems, and Tobit and logit models. The key findings indicate that (1) participants in a real café reward program purchase coffee more frequently the closer they are to earning a free coffee; (2) Internet users who rate songs in return for reward certificates visit the rating Web site more often, rate more songs per visit, and persist longer in the rating effort as they approach the reward goal; (3) the illusion of progress toward the goal induces purchase acceleration (e.g., customers who receive a 12-stamp coffee card with 2 preexisting “bonus” stamps complete the 10 required purchases faster than customers who receive a “regular” 10-stamp card); and (4) a stronger tendency to accelerate toward the goal predicts greater retention and faster reengagement in the program. The conceptualization and empirical findings are captured by a parsimonious goal-distance model, in which effort investment is a function of the proportion of original distance remaining to the goal. In addition, using statistical and experimental controls, the authors rule out alternative explanations for the observed goal gradients. They discuss the theoretical significance of their findings and the managerial implications for incentive systems, promotions, and customer retention.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper revives the goal-gradient hypothesis for human reward programs, showing that consumers accelerate effort as they approach a reward and that illusionary progress can increase acceleration. Across a café reward program and an online music-rating incentive system, steeper goal gradients also predict retention and faster reengagement.
Key findings
- In the café RP, interpurchase times decreased by 20% (.7 days) from the first to the last observed interpurchase; mean card completion was 24.6 days versus 29.4 days at the first-interpurchase rate, a nearly 5-day (16%) difference. Hazard model estimates: linear goal-distance b1 = -.03, quadratic b2 = -.04, both p < .01; postreward resetting among 110 members showed b1 = -.06 and -.09 on first and second cards, both p < .05.
- Illusionary goal progress: 108 café customers given a 12-stamp card with two bonus stamps completed the 10 required purchases in 12.7 days versus 15.6 days for the 10-stamp control, nearly 3 days or 20% faster (t = 2.0, p < .05; medians = 15 vs. 10, Z = 2.1, p < .05). In process tests, 65 travelers estimated 11 vs. 16 weeks to complete (t = 1.6, p < .1; medians = 8 vs. 12, χ² = 6.5, p < .05), with no join-likelihood difference (5.9 vs. 5.8, t = .1, n.s.).
- Jaboom music-rating program: 148 members rated 14,866 songs in 472 visits. Intervisit hazard estimates were linear b1 = -.25 and quadratic b2 = -.22, both p < .01; Tobit quantity estimate b1 = -13.0, p < .01; logit persistence estimate b1 = .49, p < .01, and certificate-completed b3 = .27, p < .05. Of 473 visit terminations, 17% (80/473) occurred at d = 1.0, 8.7% (41/473) at d = .98, and .2% (1/473) at d = .02.
- Retention: café members with stronger first-card acceleration were more likely to earn a second reward (b = -.5, Wald χ² = 5.3, p < .05) and faster to reengage (b = -2.6, Wald χ² = 13.8, p < .01). Jaboom postreward resetting: 34 members rated an average of 24 songs on the last visit of their first certificate versus 16 songs on the first visit of their second certificate (pairwise t = 2.3, p < .05).
Methods
- Café field study: 949 completed ten-stamp cards (~10,000 coffee purchases), 73 buyback cards, and 42 transparent-card controls; discrete-time proportional hazard rate model with latent classes, using the goal-distance measure d_t = (r − n_t)/r and controls such as weekly number of issued stamps and end of semester.
- Illusionary-progress field experiment: 108 café customers randomly assigned to a 10-stamp card or a 12-stamp card with two preexisting bonus stamps; process questionnaire experiments used 65 travelers for join-likelihood and completion-time estimates and 118 travelers for a sunk-cost test.
- Jaboom secondary data: 148 members, 14,866 songs, 472 visits; hazard rate model for intervisit times, Type I Tobit model for songs rated per visit, and logit model for visit termination/defection, with latent classes; retention analyses used individual-level acceleration estimates from the first café card.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the observational affect results should be interpreted with caution because customers self-select into the RP; complex incentive systems may be difficult to study because the a priori goal cannot be identified, the ex post goal is self-selected, the chosen goal may change, and right censoring arises; the proportional goal-distance conceptualization likely applies only within a reasonable empirical range.
- Evident from the text: café main analyses use only completed/redeemed cards, with buyback (73) and transparent-card (42) controls; the field experiment has n = 108 and process tests have n = 65/118; Jaboom intervisit analyses exclude 114 single-visit certificates; some Jaboom models had BIC favoring a one-class solution although two-class results are reported.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
82 Own result · 59 Own interpretation · 30 Own method · 11 No full text of the sources · 4 No basis given · 3 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“purchase and effort rates reset (to a lower level) after the first reward is earned and then reaccelerate toward the second reward goal.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“customers who receive a 12-stamp coffee card with 2 preexisting 'bonus' stamps complete the 10 required purchases faster than customers who receive a 'regular' 10-stamp card”
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
“customers who receive a 12-stamp coffee card with two preexisting 'bonus' stamps complete the ten required purchases faster than customers who receive a 'regular' 10-stamp card.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet users who rate songs in return for reward certificates visit the rating Web site more often, rate more songs per visit, and persist longer in the rating effort as they approach the reward goal”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet users who rate songs in return for reward certificates visit the rating Web site more often, rate more songs per visit, and persist longer in the rating effort as they approach the reward goal”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the illusion of progress toward the goal induces purchase acceleration”
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
“The illusion of progress toward the goal induces purchase acceleration.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet users who rate songs in return for reward certificates visit the rating Web site more often, rate more songs per visit, and persist longer in the rating effort as they approach the reward goal”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we calibrated the GDM on the subsample of completed transparent cards, and again, we found deceleration ( b 1 = .15, p < .05; b 2 = .05, p > .1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the negative quadratic parameter b 2 ( p < .01)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first two interpurchase times on the second card were slower than the last two interpurchase times on the first card ( p < .01).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Segments 3 and 4 (7% and 6%, respectively) both have a linear goal-distance parameter near zero.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 47
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Members of a café RP (e.g., 'buy ten coffees, get one free') purchase coffee more frequently the closer they are to earning a free coffee (on average, interpurchase times decrease by 20% or .7 days throughout the program).”
- Also stated in: § Results · p. 5 · plain
“Consistent with H 1 , as members accumulated more stamps on their cards, the average length of time before their next coffee purchase decreased.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Results · p. 5 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a stronger tendency to accelerate toward the goal predicts greater retention and faster reengagement in the program”
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
“people's tendency to accelerate toward their first reward predicts a greater probability of retention and faster reengagement in the program.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, customers in the experimental (illusionary goal progress) condition completed the ten required purchases (for the corresponding 12-stamp card) in only 12.7 days, nearly three days or 20% faster (t = 2.0, p < .05; medians = 15 versus 10 days; Z = 2.1, p < .05 [Mann-Whitney U test]).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These members demonstrated strong goal gradients (i.e., faster interpurchase times as a function of lower d it ) on both of their cards ( b 1 = -.06 and -.09 for the first and second card, respectively; both p s < .05).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The test was in the same direction and significant when we compared only the first interpurchase time on the second card with the last interpurchase time on the first card ( p < .05).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the GDM for incomplete buyback cards, we found no linear effect of goal distance ( b 1 = .02, p > .1), but there was a quadratic effect ( b 2 = -.1, p < .05).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“we examined higherorder parameters using orthogonal contrast codes (Fisher and Yates 1957), but we found that these were not significant.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fisher and Yates 1957
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the GDM for transparent cards, we found deceleration ( b 1 = .3, p < .01) and no curvature ( b 2 = .006, p > .1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The figure also shows that the first two interpurchase times on the second card (X ⎯ = 3.1 and 2.7 days, respectively) are substantially slower than the last two interpurchase times on the first card (X ⎯ = 2.2 and 2.1 days, respectively) and are similar to the first two interpurchase times on the first card (X ⎯ s = 3.2 and 2.8 days, respectively).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an estimate of the overall effect of acceleration on the average card, it is possible to compare the mean observed time to complete a card, which was 24.6 days, with the number of days it would have taken to complete a card at the rate of the first observed interpurchase time, which was 29.4 days. This yields a difference of nearly 5 days (16%) in card completion time.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The size of the larger class was 97% ( b 1 = -12.4, p < .01; b 2 = -7.4, p < .01), and the size of the smaller class was 3% ( b 1 = -13.6, p < .01; b 2 = 1.5, p > .7).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data set includes the rating behavior of 148 members, who rated a total of 14,866 songs in 472 separate Web site visits.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first interpurchase time was 3.3 days, whereas the total card time yielded an average rate of 2.7 days per purchase.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with this argument, we found that customers who accelerated more strongly toward their first reward subsequently exhibited greater retention and faster reengagement in the café RP.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents' ratings indicated that they felt worse about losing their card in the sunk-cost condition (X ⎯ = 2.1) than in either the experimental (illusionary goal progress) condition (X ⎯ = 1.7; t = 1.9, p < .05) or the control condition (X ⎯ = 1.7; t = 1.9, p < .05).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the goal-gradient hypothesis, the linear goal-distance parameter b 1 was positive ( p < .01), indicating that members were more likely to defect when they were farther away from the reward goal (or, equivalently, they were more likely to persist when they were closer to the goal).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings were similar to those of the café RP.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The linear goal-distance parameter was less than zero ( p < .01). This result supports H 1 and demonstrates that members visited the Jaboom Web site more frequently as they got closer to earning the reward (i.e., intervisit times decreased as a function of goal proximity).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, among the 473 terminations we observed, 8.7% (41/473) occurred when only one song was accumulated toward the next reward (i.e., when d itq = .98), whereas only .2% of visit terminations (1/473) occurred when as many as 50 songs were accumulated (i.e., when d itq = .02).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the larger class (65%), we found linear acceleration ( b 1 = -.6, p < .1; b 2 = -.1, p > .1), and in the smaller class (35%), we found nonsignificant linear acceleration ( b 1 = -.1, p > .1; b 2 = -.3, p < .1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found a weaker (though significant) effect of goal distance (d it ) in these data ( b 1 = -2.5, p < .01; b 1 = 2.9, p < .01).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the notion that a steeper goal gradient implies a greater drive to achieve the reward, we found that stronger accelerators reengaged in the program faster and were more likely to earn a second reward.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our data set, there were 371 attempted reward certificates (i.e., with at least 1 song rated toward the certificate) and 262 earned certificates (i.e., with 51 songs rated). Of the 262 earned certificates, 114 were completed in a single visit.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, as we predicted, b 3 was positive ( p < .05), indicating that the highest probability of terminating a visit occurred just after goal achievement, that is, when members were the farthest away from the (new) goal (at d itq = 1.0).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we observed the phenomenon of postreward resetting, whereby members accelerated toward each of two subsequent rewards but exhibited a drop in their rating quantities after earning the first reward and starting to work toward the second (i.e., when d t reverts to 1.0).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relationship between the goal gradient and retention was also evident in the finding that just after reward attainment (when goal distance regressed to 100%), customers exhibited a drop in activity (postreward resetting) and were also most likely to defect.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings generalize beyond coffee purchases to effort involving repeatedly rating music over the Internet and goal gradients operationalized by acceleration in intervisit times, lift in rating quantities, and enhanced persistence closer to the reward threshold.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hull (1934) found that rats in a straight alley ran progressively faster as they proceeded from the starting box to the food.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hull (1934) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The goal-gradient hypothesis denotes the classic finding from behaviorism that animals expend more effort as they approach a reward.”
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 1 · plain
“The goal-gradient hypothesis, originally proposed by the behaviorist Clark Hull in 1932, states that the tendency to approach a goal increases with proximity to the goal.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention · p. 1 · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dynamic models of motivation (e.g., Atkinson 1957; Lewin 1951; Miller 1944) propose that people possess a strong achievement drive, which is heavily influenced by goals.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Atkinson 1957 source
- Not matchedcites Lewin 1951
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Miller 1944
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We accounted for unobserved heterogeneity in the base hazard rate parameters (but not in the goal-distance or the covariate parameters) using the methodology we described previously.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found that members exhibited a markedly similar acceleration pattern on two sequential cards; that is, we observed a slowdown in purchase rates after participants earned the first reward and began to work toward the second.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We verified that control participants did not use the regular RP cards during the study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The goal-gradient hypothesis implies that the latent (unobserved) motivation at time t to achieve the goal (m t *) is a decreasing function of d t”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived and real progress are distinct when the perception of the original goal distance can be systematically manipulated without affecting the real, absolute distance remaining to the goal.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the empirical impact of RPs on actual customer behavior is still largely undetermined (cf. Dowling and Uncles 1997; Lewis 2004; Sharp and Sharp 1997).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the program requirements involve discrete purchases or incidents (e.g., 'stay ten nights, and earn a reward'), the acceleration will manifest in more frequent activity (shorter interpurchase or intervisit times).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that insufficient motivation to earn rewards underlies both defection (churn) and deceleration in purchase rates.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Members from whom buyback cards were bought exhibited a lack of goal motivation.
In the paper
“Heath, Larrick, and Wu (1999) propose that as a result of the diminishing sensitivity of prospect theory's value function, people should exert more effort as they near their (self-imposed) goals.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heath, Larrick, and Wu 1999 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings rule out the habituation account and other forms of time trend (e.g., graduation or expiration concerns).”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Café customers had no reason to expect the RP to expire.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the segmentation analysis is inconsistent with the heterogeneity bias rival account; we found a majority of significant accelerators after accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in the tendency to accelerate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, consistent with the goal-gradient hypothesis, purchase rates revealed a clear postreward resetting. Members accelerated their coffee purchases toward their first reward (a free coffee) and then slowed down when they began working toward a second similar reward; the same members subsequently reaccelerated their purchases as they approached the second reward.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This modeling approach incorporates time-varying covariates and controls (e.g., weekly number of issued stamps) intended to rule out alternative explanations, such as time-trend effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each day is a potential purchase occasion, except for days on which the café is closed.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the time-varying covariates, we included both the weekly number of issued stamps and a code for whether a given day was after the end of the spring classes to control for alternative explanations based on time trend.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers have also highlighted the impact of people's psychological distance from their outcomes and goals on decision making and behavior (Lewin 1951; Trope and Liberman 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lewin 1951
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Trope and Liberman 2003 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We used latent classes to account for unobserved heterogeneity in the hazard rate parameters (Kamakura and Russell 1989), which is important to rule out heterogeneity bias.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kamakura and Russell 1989 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Each day is a potential purchase occasion, except for days on which the café is closed.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the analysis of raw data provides preliminary support for purchase acceleration (H 1 ), it does not account for various important factors.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sensitivity to relative and reference values suggests that consumers spontaneously consider their distance to a goal, incorporating the total distance as a reference point, which leads to an evaluation of relative goal distance.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We randomly assigned 65 travelers to either a control or an experimental condition of a hypothetical frequent-diner program offered by their favorite pizza chain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They were randomly assigned to either a control condition or an experimental (illusionary goal progress) condition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the RP is structured so that more intense activity (e.g., a larger purchase or more units of effort) in any single visit earns more credits toward the reward (e.g., 'earn one point for each dollar spent'), acceleration may be detected through both shorter interpurchase times and increased purchase (or effort) quantities.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“As Kivetz (2000) originally proposed, the notion that achievement motivation increases with smaller goal distance suggests that customers accelerate and persist in their efforts as they near the program's incentive threshold (i.e., the reward requirement or goal).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kivetz 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The implications of the goal-gradient hypothesis for human behavior and decision making are understudied.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Hazard rate models (Cox 1972) are an important method to model interpurchase times.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cox 1972 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Carver and Scheier's (1990) cybernetic control model suggests that comparisons of the rate of progress toward the goal with a relevant criterion generate affect; when progress exceeds (falls short of) the criterion, positive (negative) affect arises”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Carver and Scheier 1990 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such postreward resetting is inconsistent with the rival accounts based on time trend or habituation, whereas it is consistent with the notion that the motivation to expend effort depends on goal distance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, customers from whom we bought back incomplete cards (defectors) differed from redeemers (loyals) in that the former did not accelerate and even decelerated their purchases as a function of accumulated stamps.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Members from whom buyback cards were bought exhibited a lack of goal motivation.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We posited that people are influenced by the proportional (or psychological) distance to the goal (i.e., d t = [r - n t ]/r).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, we proposed that the illusion of progress toward the goal would enhance achievement motivation by reducing the perceived proportion of distance remaining to the goal.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Prior research with animals has shown that a steeper goal gradient was generated by an increased drive (e.g., hunger) to attain the reward (Hull 1934).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hull 1934 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the tests we report subsequently included covariates that statistically controlled for the length of time it took participants to complete the first card (i.e., the participant's overall program effort and product liking) and the date of completion of the card.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, whereas acceleration is related to retention and goal attainment, deceleration is associated with program defection and goal abandonment.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We obtained similar results when we forced the constant and error variance to vary across latent classes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the sunk-cost condition was identical in all aspects to the experimental condition (including the picture of a tenstamp card with two stamps already on it), except that the two stamps were due to the respondent's own purchase effort.”
plainn = 118- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also included the covariates we used previously in the hazard rate model of interpurchase times and controlled for the duration and completion date of the first card.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, inconsistent with heterogeneity bias, both segments demonstrate acceleration in rating quantities as a function of goal proximity.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“illusionary goal progress does not reduce the absolute distance to or the delay of the reward”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, consistent with postreward resetting and inconsistent with the learning explanation, these members rated an average of 24 songs on the last visit of their first certificate compared with 16 songs on the first visit of their second certificate (pairwise t = 2.3, p < .05).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, we investigated the effect of individual differences in the slope of the goal gradient (the linear goaldistance parameter), holding constant the base hazard rate (i.e., the average interpurchase time) and possible seasonality (or right-censoring) effects.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that all three conditions entailed the same absolute remaining distance to the reward goal (eight additional pizza purchases).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We estimated the effect of d itq = 1.0 separately to guarantee that the hypothesized goal-gradient effect (captured by β 1 ) could not be explained solely on the basis of an increased likelihood of defection at d itq = 1.0, that is, just after reward attainment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is equivalent to 9 purchases per month based on the first interpurchase time, compared with 11 purchases per month based on the observed rate that includes purchase acceleration.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with H 2 and the results of the field experiment, respondents in the experimental versus control condition estimated completing the eight required purchases in fewer weeks”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In the process test, respondents' estimates of how many weeks it would take them to complete the program reflect their motivation to complete the program.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RP, which was presented to participants as an ongoing program, continued for a period of 24 months after our observation period. Thus, expiration concerns should not have affected the behavior of program members.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All other aspects of the program were held constant across the two conditions and were identical to those we described previously for the café RP.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that an increase in promotion sensitivity due to goal proximity could be attenuated when (1) the promotional effort is identical to the main program effort (e.g., 'fly next week and earn triple miles') and (2) effort acceleration is subject to behavioral ceiling”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This last problem can be solved with the Tobit version of the GDM.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The GDM unifies these results and predicts the effect of illusionary goal progress.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These three goal gradients predict increases in the recency of the last transaction, the average frequency of all transactions, and the average monetary value of these transactions; thus, the goal-gradient and its modeling have important implications for the widely used RFM approach.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the robustness and generality of the GDM, we believe that it can be applied to a broad range of goal-based motivational systems, including more complex incentive systems.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, the increased motivation to achieve RP goals may reduce competition and price wars by escalating customer lock-in and switching costs and enhancing consumption rates (i.e., expanding the category).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The implications of the goal-gradient hypothesis for human behavior and decision making are understudied.
“its implications for human behavior and decision making are understudied.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each day is a potential purchase occasion, except for days on which the café is closed.
“we assume that each day is a potential purchase occasion, except for days on which the café is closed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no published study that provides unequivocal evidence of a systematic, behavioral goal gradient in humans.
“To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study that provides unequivocal evidence of a systematic, behavioral goal gradient in humans.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Members from whom buyback cards were bought exhibited a lack of goal motivation.
“We believe that the sample of buyback cards differs from the sample of redeemed cards (used in the main analyses) in that members from whom we bought back cards exhibited a lack of goal motivation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Café customers had no reason to expect the RP to expire.
“although café customers had no reason to expect the RP to expire”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the process test, respondents' estimates of how many weeks it would take them to complete the program reflect their motivation to complete the program.
“Consistent with H 2 and the results of the field experiment, respondents in the experimental versus control condition estimated completing the eight required purchases in fewer weeks”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two free bonus stamps in the experimental conditions create the perception of illusionary goal progress.
“we described the two free bonus stamps in the experimental conditions as an offer to anyone who opted to join the program.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two stamps due to the respondent's own purchase effort in the sunk-cost condition are perceived as a sunk cost.
“the two stamps were due to the respondent's own purchase effort.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The goal-gradient hypothesis provides considerable insights into the psychology of rewards and the optimal design of customer, employee, and sales force incentive systems.
“This is particularly surprising, given that the goal-gradient hypothesis provides considerable insights into the psychology of rewards and the optimal design of customer, employee, and sales force incentive systems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The alternative hypothetical approach provides an adequate test of lay theories and self-perception but not of the actual evolution of goal motivation and behavior.
“The alternative approach, whereby respondents are asked to assume a hypothetical state (e.g., 'imagine that you have accumulated x points') provides an adequate test of lay theories and self-perception but not of the actual evolution of goal motivation and behavior.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Although prior research has explored how progress towards an end goal (or lack thereof) affects subsequent goal-consistent behavior (Cochran and Tesser 1996; Kivetz, Urminsky and Zheng 2006; Soman and Cheema 2004), it does not consider how highlighting specific patterns of goal-consistent behavior can become motivating in itself and affect consumers' subsequent decisions.”
From On or Off Track: How (Broken) Streaks Affect Consumer Decisions (2023) · cites this paper as Kivetz, Urminsky and Zheng 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results · p. 11
“148 members, who rated a total of 14,866 songs in 472 separate Web site visits.”
§ Tests of the Goal-Gradient Hypothesis with Rating Quantity · p. 15
“among the 473 terminations we observed”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Tests of the Goal-Gradient Hypothesis with Rating Quantity · p. 14
“b 1 = -2.5, p < .01”
§ Tests of the Goal-Gradient Hypothesis with Rating Quantity · p. 14
“b 1 = 2.9, p < .01”
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1972) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1972.tb00899.x · Cited by 39,793
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
Regression Models and Life-Tables
Cox, D. R. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_37 · Cited by 26,297
Toward a positive theory of consumer choice
Thaler, R. H. (1980) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 · Cited by 5,796
Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk
Tobin, J. G. (1958) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2296205 · Cited by 3,990
Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043445 · Cited by 3,706
Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers.
Price, D. O., Lewin, K., & Cartwright, D. (1951) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2087618 · Cited by 3,519
Stevens, S. S. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0046162 · Cited by 3,388
Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research.
Reed, L. J., Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. (1944) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2280633 · Cited by 3,012
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Breen Richard, 1996, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 07–111.
- Dowling Grahame R., 1997, Sloan Management Review, 38, 71
- Kivetz Ran, 2000, “Preferences Towards Streams of Efforts for Future Rewards: Understanding Frequency Programs,”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 721
Goal Structure and Reference Points in Consumer Motivation
Wallace, S. (2018)
Exploring the Mechanisms of Information Sharing
Liu, Y. (2018)
Predicting next week redemption in a digital frequency loyalty program
van den Boogaart, F., van Otterlo, M., & Hantke, T. (2018) · Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)
Kačmár, P., Lovaš, L., & Bobková, M. (2019) · Človek a spoločnosť · doi:10.31577/cas.2019.02.554
Sällberg, H. (2010) · LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing eBooks
Stimulating Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Online Learning: The Role of Mechanism DesignPreprint
Zhou, R., Ren, F., & Tan, Y. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3326319 · Cited by 1
Pay-to-Play: The Dynamics of Paid Accumulating Rewards Programs
Cui, A. (2019) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania)
Long-term versus Short-term Contracting in Salesforce Compensation
Long, F. (2019) · doi:10.7916/d8-86am-bf20
“Kivetz et al. (2006) propose the goal gradient hypothesis, and Heath et al. (1999) use goal-serving as a reference point to explain effort postponement in agents.”
Method임충혁, Ha, H., & 이영일 (2010) · Journal of Product Research · doi:10.36345/kacst.2010.28.3.010
Current Trends and Future Research Implications and Directions of Customer Loyalty Programs
이성훈, Lee, B. H., & Han, S. (2012) · Journal of Product Research · doi:10.36345/kacst.2012.30.6.002
Probabilistic Rewards Increase Worker MotivationPreprint
Camilleri, A. R., Danková, K., Gomez, J. M. O., & Neelim, A. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3539871
Essays on Enhancing Consumer Welfare
Donnelly, G. E. (2018) · Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University)
Buying Free Rewards: The Impact of a Points-Plus-Cash Promotion on Purchase and Reward RedemptionPreprint
Montoya, R., & Flores, C. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2906756
Chan, C. L., Lai, J., Hooi, B., & Davies, T. R. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/r86kf
Self-Brand Connection Effects on Consumers Goal Pursuit Behavior
Alradadi, A. M. (2020) · FIU - Digital Commons (Florida International University) · doi:10.25148/etd.fidc008935
LIMITED AVAILABILITY IN CROWDFUNDING PROJECTS – GUARANTEE FOR PROFITABILITY?
Fox, A., & Neuland, J. (2020) · Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance · doi:10.15604/ejef.2020.08.04.005 · Cited by 1
“Therefore, you may consider the goal-gradient-hypothesis (Hull, 1932; Kivetz et al. 2006; Kuppuswamy and Bayus, 2015) when backers get the feeling of being a part of the project and expect a good deal (Ordanini et al. 2011; Beglin and Strandberg, 2013).”
InfluentialLiang, B. (2021) · Innovation & Management Review · doi:10.1108/inmr-05-2020-0064 · Cited by 2
When the Going Gets Tough, How Do We Perceive the Future?Preprint
Tepper, S. J., & Lewis, N. A. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/pkaxn
The Different Roads Not Taken: Considering Dissimilar Alternatives Motivates Goal Persistence.Preprint
Kim, H.-Y., & Urminsky, O. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/taz7m
Self-citationZiano, I., & Pandelaere, M. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/t4xz5
Virtual environments for the representative assessment of personality: VE-RAP
Miller, L. C., Jeong, D. C., & Christensen, J. L. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819200-9.00008-9
Retrospective Search: Exploration and Ambition on Uncharted TerrainPreprint
Urgun, C., & Yariv, L. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3901591
Jeon, H. S. (2011) · ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL · doi:10.53728/2765-6500.1286
Impatience for Information: Curiosity Is Here Today, Gone TomorrowPreprint
Molnár, A., & Golman, R. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3879168
An, J., Bonfrer, A., & Eckert, C. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3863123
Rix, J., Rußell, R., Rühr, A., & Heß, T. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.554 · Cited by 3
النسور, ا. (2022) · المجلة العربیة للإدارة · doi:10.21608/aja.2022.122765.1208
Liu, H., Yang, L., & Wegener, D. T. (2022) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-022-09633-8
“Such situations differ from pure reward pursuits (without additional risk) that are the focus of research on the goal gradient hypothesis (Kivetz et al., 2006; Koo & Fishbach, 2012).”
BackgroundKumar, V., & Petersen, J. A. (2012) · doi:10.1002/9781118349212.ch4
Roberts, J. H. (2018) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_715
Impacts of Reward Accrual Effort on Redemption Behavior in a Multi-Vendor Loyalty Program
Kim, J. Y., Lee, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2017) · ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL · doi:10.53728/2765-6500.1436 · Cited by 1
EXPERIÊNCIA DE VENCER: VITÓRIA COMO UMA FORMA DE COMPENSAÇÃO?
Nogueira, E. M. C. (2017) · doi:10.17771/pucrio.acad.32631
The Synergy Effect of a Corporate-Level Loyalty Program Integration on Customer Equity
Park, D.-Y., & Yoo, S. (2019) · ASIA MARKETING JOURNAL · doi:10.15830/amj.2019.20.4.21 · Cited by 1
How to boost the impact of scientific conferencesPreprint
Morrison, M., Merlo, K. L., & Woessner, Z. W. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/895gt
小野, 譲., 佳則, 藤., 阿久津, 聡., & 芳賀, 麻. (2014) · Quarterly Journal of Marketing · doi:10.7222/marketing.2014.002
Cross-Buying-Effekte in Multi-Partner-Bonusprogrammen
Rese, M., Papenhoff, H., & Wilke, A. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-06624-6_20
Urminsky, O., & Goswami, I. (2019) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/rau3g
Self-citationMichael, J., Green, A., Šipošová, B., Jensen, K., & Kita, S. (2022) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.13160 · Cited by 1
“Similarly, Kivetz, Urminsky, and Zheng (2006) showed that adults are more motivated to achieve goals toward which some progress has already been made (by others) than to achieve goals toward which no progress has yet been made.”
BackgroundResultThe Struggle is Real: Motivating Goal Pursuit by Normalizing DifficultyPreprint
Park, A. B., Gershon, R., & Sharif, M. A. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4132744
Balancing Savings and Debt: Findings from an Online ExperimentPreprint
Middlewood, B., Guillory, G., & Ratcliff, C. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3832284
The End-of-Period Effect: Temporal Category Boundaries Influence Leisure EngagementPreprint
Yin, S., & Sharif, M. A. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4400646
Shaddy, F. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197687468.003.0007
Rai, D., Lin, C.-W. W., Jiraporn, N., & Juntongjin, P. (2022) · Management & Marketing · doi:10.2478/mmcks-2022-0026
“…differentiated the goal progress from the initial goal pursuit stage as our theoretical foundation (Fishbach and Dhar, 2005; Harkin et al., 2016; Kivetz et al., 2006; Koo and Fishbach, 2012), we propose that H1a: Consumers in the goal attainment condition will prefer a brand with a leader role…”
The Struggle is Real: Motivating Goal Pursuit by Normalizing DifficultyPreprint
Sharif, M. A., Gershon, R., & Park, A. B. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xhk5g
The crucial role of reference numbers on consumers’ product preferences
Gunasti, K., Ozcan, T., & Howlett, E. A. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114249 · Cited by 3
Changolkar, S., Volpp, K. G. M., & Patel, M. S. (2021) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1177/237946152100700103 · Cited by 1
“Studies have shown that working toward multiple stepwise goals (or goal gradients) sustains motivation better than does one big far-off goal.(39,40)”
BackgroundContinued goal pursuit in time-bound goals
Nagpal, A., Khare, A., & Hossain, M. T. (2024) · Marketing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11002-024-09717-7
“The Goal Gradient Hypothesis (GGH; Hull, 1932; Kivetz et al., 2006; Nunes and Drèze, 2006) predicts that motivation to pursue a goal increases as one moves closer to the goal.”
Conflict of interests in high-tech investment advisory
Favoretto, D. (2024) · doi:10.36862/eiz-ng004
The Effect of the Order of Incentive Framing on PerformancePreprint
Leng, Y., Wang, C. B., Zhao, N., et al. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4782246
The Impact of Others' Goal Progress on Own Purchase IntentionPreprint
Ma, M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4841858
Cross-Buying-Effekte in Multi-Partner-Bonusprogrammen
Rese, M., Papenhoff, H., & Wilke, A. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-42411-4_20
Progress Decisions Involving Time: Sunk Cost or Completion Effects
Thorsteinson, T. J., & Billings, C. G. (2024) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.2405
Effects of price discount framing on consumers' online purchase intentions
Kuo, Y., Yeh, W.-L., & Zhang, J.-F. (2024) · Multidisciplinary International Social Networks Conference (MISNC) · doi:10.1145/3675669.3675671 · Cited by 2
(2024) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394308712.ref
Univerzita P. J. Šafárika, K., Holevová, B. K., & Hricová, M. (2024) · Ceskoslovenska psychologie · doi:10.51561/cspsych.68.5.433
Measuring intrinsic motivation and its change during an engaging activity without hypothetical biasPreprint
Takahashi, H., Li, Y., Ito, T., Lee, S., Nishiyama, K., & Nishino, N. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5065008
Optimizing Liability Management for Loyalty Currencies
de Boer, E., & Chin, X. Y. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78849-9_5
Designing an Optimal Currency Redemption Strategy for Your Loyalty Program
de Boer, E., & Chin, X. Y. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78849-9_3
Profitability of Frequency Reward ProgramsPreprint
Li, X., & Viard, V. B. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5090667
Examining Redemption Levels in Loyalty Program Structure: The Role of Choice Abundance
Dhal, A., & Gaurav, A. K. (2025) · Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ) · doi:10.1177/14413582251326208
“…of program enrollment, active participation, and reward redemption on consumer spending, with each of these actions consistently associated with increases in customer expenditures (Drèze & Nunes, 2011; Henderson et al., 2011; Kivetz et al., 2006; Kivetz & Simonson, 2002; Kopalle et al., 2012).”
Time Dependence and Preference: Implications for Compensation Structure and Shift Scheduling
Chung, D. J., Kim, B., & Park, B. G. (2021) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2022.0037
The Life you Save (for): Experiences Dominate Goods in Motivating SavingsPreprint
Yin, S., Donnelly, G. E., Lamberton, C. P., & Norton, M. I. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5202244
Oe, H., & Mochizuki, J. (2025) · International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development · doi:10.6007/ijarped/v14-i2/25646
How Brands can Capitalize on Retailers' Temporary Reward ProgramsPreprint
Bombaij, N. J. F., Gelper, S., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5408926
Wei, H., Li, G., Liang, X. M., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2025.1544401
“The guarantee effect of signals, on the other hand, involves senders providing receivers with assurances or guarantees through their actions or signals to enhance receivers’ trust and acceptance of the information (Kivetz et al., 2006; Bandiera and Rasul, 2006).”
Play the game then forever can begin: Designing games to extend gameplay
Liao, G., Huang, T., Hung, H.-Y., Dennis, A. R., & Teng, C. (2025) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102991
Yang, B., Zhang, Z., & Fan, X. (2025) · Service Science · doi:10.1287/serv.2024.0172
Does Prospect Theory Add or Subtract from our Understanding of Goal Directed Motivation?
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-64113-613-620251003
Democratizing the Creator Economy: Monetizing Through SubscriptionsPreprint
Zhou, X., & Zhu, K. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5810724
Social Welfare and Behavioral Public PoliciesPreprint
Fabbri, M. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.6092/unibo/amsdottorato/6738
“In fact, proximity to the final objective increases motivation (Kivetz et al., 2006) and people often fail to achieve a goal because they feel ”stuck in the middle” (Bonezzi et al., 2011; Hull, 1932).”
Background"Easier Said than Done": Promises as False Proxies in Goal Pursuit
Orehek, E. (2006) · University Libraries (University of Maryland)
Нейросетевая модель выявления поведенческих барьеров достижения финансовых целей домохозяйств
Кошелев, И. Н., & Докучаев, П. А. (2025) · Известия Дальневосточного федерального университета. Экономика и управление · doi:10.24866/2311-2271/2025-3/2040
Shariati, Z., Meigounpoory, M. R., Jozani, M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Islamic marketing · doi:10.1108/jima-11-2024-0540
Bauer, C., Khamitov, M., Isaac, M. S., & Sevilla, J. (2026) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-025-01133-1
“However, LP complexity remains an ongoing issue; one in three consumers finds LPs challenging to understand and use (Daily, 2023).”
InfluentialReward-Program Promotions: How Brands Can Capitalize on Retailers’ Temporary Reward Programs
Bombaij, N. J. F., Gelper, S., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2026) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429261417962
A Study on Marketing Strategies and Consumer Psychology within the Affective Economy of Gaming
陈, 彦. (2026) · E-Commerce Letters · doi:10.12677/ecl.2026.151052
Habitat Quality Variation Across Stages of a Conservation Program
Sorice, M. G., Clifton, K., Moeltner, K., Carr, W., & Adimey, N. (2026) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/con4.70021
“…anchor on the incentive itself, the perceived value of continuing to engage in conservation practices may diminish once the payment is no longer at stake and as it becomes more distant in time (post-payment), even if they are intrinsically motivated (Kivetz et al. 2006 ; Gneezy et al. 2011 ).”
Guo, X., Wu, X., & Luo, J. (2022) · 经济学报. · doi:10.26599/cje.2022.9300109
Kim, J., Kim, J. H., Lee, S., Jhang, J., & Kim, S. (. (2026) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2026.104603
Amélioration de l’expérience d’achat en ligne et de la satisfaction client par le recours au nudge
Lahna, L. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/f33c4d29z44f2z428czacfaz9659a58d76ca
Guillen-Ahlers, H., Nigam, R., Pekarek, H., Gorden, K. V., O’Brien, F., Ricklefs-Johnson, K., Patel, J. M., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · BMC Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s40795-026-01311-6
Kim, H., Park, Y. S., & Chun, H. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.97578
High tech and low tech looking glasses : impact of empowerment on well-being
Faure, M. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/31dc1deaz839fz4472zb155z6a0b5cfbe6b2
Park, J., & Ihm, J. (2026) · Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1002/jdd.70211
“…associations between the DAA index and related but underexplored factors, such as the perception that small debts represent easy goals to achieve [ 27 ] or the psychological relief derived from fully closing an account entirely [ 28 ], thus deep-ening the current understanding of the mechanisms…”
Goals as dynamical attractors: a momentum-based account of stable and flexible goal commitmentPreprint
Aenugu, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.06.723407
“Previous work shows that human goal commitment is significantly modulated by goal progress, where decision-making vigor increases closer to goal resolution, and by goal progress rates, where repeated failures increase the drive to switch away from the goal [2, 3, 28, 29].”
Determinants of persistence in sequential effort-based decision-makingPreprint
Chaigneau, A., Moretti, R., Iodice, P., Pessiglione, M., & Pezzulo, G. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.11.723817
Conditioned by design: The behavioral architecture of digital platforms
Atkinson, R. C. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-41359-9.00002-x
The carrot or the chase? Distinguishing earned and anticipated discounts in public transportation
Sticher, S., & Wallimann, H. (2026) · Journal of Public Transportation · doi:10.1016/j.jpubtr.2026.100165
Metadata
- Authors
- Kivetz, R., Urminsky, O., & Zheng, Y.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Fordham University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kivetz, Ran
- Urminsky, Oleg
- Zheng, Yuhuang
- ORCID
- Urminsky, Oleg
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-58
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W2130204757
- Cited by
- 727
- References
- 60
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 8.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Natural Field Experiments (submittedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Keywords
- customer retention, reward programs, effort investment, incentive mechanisms, promotion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
