I have never suffered from allergies. But lately, I have had a few sniffles that I
can’t explain any other way. Being new
to the allergy game, I have no idea what med to try, or even what criteria I
should use to choose.
Wonder of wonders, BzzAgent and Claritin came to the
rescue. In exchange for reviewing their
Claritin-D product, they were nice enough to send me a free supply. Since it goes through BzzAgent and not directly
from Claritin, there is not even a hint of a quid pro quo. If you are familiar with BzzAgent you will
know that they have a very peppy and positive brand image, but they are careful
not to suggest that positive reviews get you more rewards or samples. It is purely based on volume. Posting the review on my blog, on BzzAgent’s
site, on Claritin’s site, tweeting it, facebooking it, etc all earn me points. And they “remind” me quite frequently to do
so.
So here is my question today. Even though there are no extrinsic benefits
of skewing my review positive, is there an unconscious bias? Many studies have shown that we have an
instinctive social need to reciprocate when we get a spontaneous,
no-strings-attached reward. This has
been shown in pure economic contexts such as the Ultimatum Game and more
nuanced contexts such as anonymously walking down the street. In fact, many studies have shown a stronger
need to reciprocate when the reward has no strings attached than when it
requires payback.
Just this weekend, there was a pay-it-forward chain of 378
people at a Starbucks in Florida (in Florida!) until a woman from out of town
broke it. The fact that the chain was
broken by someone from out of town is actually important. The closer we feel to someone, the more powerfully
we feel the urge to reciprocate. This
has been found with similarities in career (“Hey, you’re a physicist too? Let me buy you a beer!), education (“You went
to Michigan too? Let me buy you a beer!),
race, religion, and where you live. Even
very subtle things like being assigned to the same team in a 15-minute
psychology experiment that is ostensible about something else can induce it.
A fantastic study by Dan Ariely (or at least I read about it
in his book) found that when you admit your potential bias, you are even more
likely to be biased. In this study,
financial advisors who revealed that they were being paid to promote an
investment were more likely to promote it.
The hypothesis is that the admission frees you from any guilt about it,
so your urge to reciprocate gets unleashed.
So will my review of Claritin-D be skewed positively because
I got the free sample, even though it was through a third party and there is no
quid pro quo? Since the effect is
largely unconscious, I won’t ever really know for sure. The only way to really know would be a double
blind study with some carefully constructed control groups. Especially since relief from allergy symptoms
is highly subjective.
Thoughts?
