Yossi Tobol, Erez Siniver, Gideon Yaniv

Groceries delivered by mistake: an experimental study of customers’ honesty

Introduction

Groceries delivered by mistake: an experimental study of customers’ honesty . An experimental study reveals how supermarket customers react to mistaken grocery deliveries. Discover factors like loyalty and order method influencing honesty in reporting undeserved products.

Abstract

The present paper reports the results of a field experiment destined to examine to what extent supermarket customers who find an unordered and not paid-for product in their delivery crate call up the supermarket to report the mistakenly delivered product. A majority of customers (517 out of 622) failed to report the undeserved product. Several factors appeared to have affected the decision of whether or not to report the extra product. Customers who placed a delivery order after selecting the groceries in person reported the undeserved product five times more often than customers who placed an order via the supermarket app. Customers with stronger loyalty to the supermarket, as manifested by their length of engagement with the supermarket and frequency of delivery orders, were more likely to report the extra product, whereas customers who placed a more expensive order were less likely to do so. It took honest customers 10.53 hours, on average, to report the undeserved product. Customers with stronger loyalty to the supermarket reported more quickly than others.

Review

This paper presents a compelling field experiment investigating the prevalence and predictors of customer honesty when receiving an un-ordered and unpaid-for grocery item in their delivery. The study's premise addresses a highly relevant, everyday scenario for both consumers and businesses, providing valuable empirical insights into ethical consumer behavior. The core finding—that a significant majority (517 out of 622) of customers failed to report the mistakenly delivered product—is striking and immediately highlights a substantial challenge for retailers. The use of a field experiment design is a particular strength, offering high ecological validity and capturing genuine customer responses in a naturalistic setting. Beyond the stark prevalence of non-reporting, the research effectively identifies several key factors influencing customer honesty. The finding that the order method significantly impacts reporting rates, with in-person selectors being five times more likely to report than app users, offers critical practical implications for how retailers structure their ordering processes. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates the positive correlation between customer loyalty (length of engagement, frequency of orders) and the likelihood and speed of reporting, while also noting that more expensive orders paradoxically correlate with a *lower* propensity for honesty. These findings contribute meaningfully to our understanding of the situational and relational dynamics that shape ethical decision-making in a consumer context. While the abstract provides a strong overview of the study's findings, a full paper would benefit from deeper exploration of the underlying psychological mechanisms driving these observed behaviors. For instance, understanding the perceived value of the mistakenly delivered item, the perceived cost of reporting (time/effort), or potential justifications for non-reporting could offer richer insights. Future research might also consider investigating interventions to increase reporting rates, such as personalized communication or varying the perceived 'cost' of the mistake. Nevertheless, this study makes an important contribution to the literature on consumer ethics and provides actionable insights for grocery retailers seeking to understand and potentially mitigate losses from delivery errors.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.