Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 595–616 | Cite as

Exploring the link between payment schemes and customer fraud: a mental accounting perspective

  • Ina GarnefeldEmail author
  • Andreas Eggert
  • Markus Husemann-Kopetzky
  • Eva Böhm
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

Containing customer fraud has great economic relevance. This research proposes a fresh approach, derived from mental accounting theory and behavioral pricing research. Large-scale field data from more than 100,000 insurance customers and a follow-up experiment reveal that payment schemes influence customer fraud. Specifically, customers with annual payment schedules submit more rejected claims soon after their lump sum payments, and customers with monthly payment schedules exhibit greater customer fraud, in an effect that increases over time and decreases with greater category involvement. Customers who actively pay using money transfers submit about 40% more claims that get rejected than those who rely on more passive payment methods, such as autopay or direct debit. Marketing practitioners thus should reconsider frequent payment schedules and active payment options and monitor customer behavior after lump sum payments. For marketing research, this study opens a new research avenue, linking customer misbehavior and behavioral pricing research within a mental accounting framework.

Keywords

Customer fraud Behavioral pricing Payment scheme Mental accounting 

Notes

References

  1. Ai, J., Brockett, P. L., Golden, L. L., & Guillén, M. (2013). A robust unsupervised method for fraud rate estimation. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 80(1), 121–143.Google Scholar
  2. Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 13–68.Google Scholar
  4. Bock, T., & Kenhove, P. (2010). Consumer ethics: The role of self-regulatory focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
  5. Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72.Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, I. (2007). Chisquared and Fisher–Irwin tests of twobytwo tables with small sample recommendations. Statistics in Medicine, 26(19), 3661–3675.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Cannon, J. P., Achrol, R. S., & Grundlach, G. T. (2000). Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 180–194.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, Y., & Sun, Y. (2003). Age differences in financial decision-making: Using simple heuristics. Educational Gerontology, 29(7), 627–635.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, M.-F., Pan, C.-T., & Pan, M.-C. (2009). The joint moderating impact of moral intensity and moral judgment on consumer’s use intention of pirated software. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 361–373.Google Scholar
  12. Cho, H.-C., & Abe, S. (2013). Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1261–1266.Google Scholar
  13. Coalition Against Insurance Fraud (1997). Four faces: Why some Americans do - and do not - tolerate insurance fraud. http://www.insurancefraud.org/downloads/FourFaces.pdf. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  14. Cole, C. A. (1989). Deterrence and consumer fraud. Journal of Retailing, 65(1), 107–120.Google Scholar
  15. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 34(2), 187–220.Google Scholar
  16. Darlington, R. B., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression analysis and linear models: Concepts, application, and implementation. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Daunt, K. L., & Greer, D. A. (2017). The dark side of marketing: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(15), 1231–1235.Google Scholar
  18. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2011). Customers acting badly: Evidence from the hospitality industry. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1034–1042.Google Scholar
  19. Dawes, J. (2009). The effect of service price increases on customer retention: The moderating role of customer tenure and relationship breadth. Journal of Service Research, 11(3), 232–245.Google Scholar
  20. Dean, D. H. (2004). Perceptions of the ethicality of consumer insurance claim fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(1), 67–79.Google Scholar
  21. Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151–161.Google Scholar
  22. Derrig, R. A. (2002). Insurance fraud. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 69(3), 271–287.Google Scholar
  23. Derrig, R. A., & Ostaszewski, K. M. (1995). Fuzzy techniques of pattern recognition in risk and claim classification. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 62(3), 447–482.Google Scholar
  24. Dong, P., & Zhong, C.-B. (2017). Witnessing moral violations increases conformity in consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 778–793.Google Scholar
  25. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2018). Insurance fraud. Available at https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/insurance-fraud. Accessed 29 June 2018.
  26. Feinberg, R. A. (1986). Credit cards as spending facilitating stimuli: A conditioning interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 348–356.Google Scholar
  27. Fiederling, K., Schiller, J., & von Bieberstein, F. (2018). Can we trust consumers’ survey answers when dealing with insurance fraud? Schmalenbach Business Review, 70(2), 111–147.Google Scholar
  28. Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.Google Scholar
  29. Fisk, R., Grove, S., Harris, L. C., Keeffe, D. A., Daunt, K. L., Russell-Bennett, R., & Wirtz, J. (2010). Customers behaving badly: A state of the art review, research agenda and implications for practitioners. Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 417–429.Google Scholar
  30. Fukukawa, K. (2002). Developing a framework for ethically questionable behavior in consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(1/2), 99–119.Google Scholar
  31. Fukukawa, K., & Ennew, C. (2010). What we believe is not always what we do: An empirical investigation into ethically questionable behavior in consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
  32. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: Consumer misbehavior. Journal of Business Research, 57(11), 1239–1249.Google Scholar
  33. Gibbs, J. P. (1965). Norms: The problem of definition and classification. American Journal of Sociology, 70(5), 586–594.Google Scholar
  34. Gong, T., Yi, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Helping employees deal with dysfunctional customers: The underlying employee perceived justice mechanism. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 102–116.Google Scholar
  35. Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-day: The effect of temporal reframing on transaction evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 395–408.Google Scholar
  36. Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (1998). Payment depreciation: The behavioral effects of temporally separating payments from consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 160–174.Google Scholar
  37. Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (2002). Pricing and the psychology of consumption. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 90–96.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, R. L. (2008). 2.06 - repetition and spacing effects. In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 65–78). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  39. Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect revenge: Understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758.Google Scholar
  40. Harris, L. C. (2008). Fraudulent return proclivity: An empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 461–476.Google Scholar
  41. Harris, L. C., & Reynolds, K. L. (2003). The consequences of dysfunctional customer behavior. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 144–161.Google Scholar
  42. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  43. Heath, C., & Fennema, M. G. (1996). Mental depreciation and marginal decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 95–108.Google Scholar
  44. Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(1), 40–52.Google Scholar
  45. Henderson, P. W., & Peterson, R. A. (1992). Mental accounting and categorization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  46. Hirschman, E. C. (1979). Differences in consumer purchase behavior by credit card payment system. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 58–66.Google Scholar
  47. Hirst, D. E., Joyce, E. J., & Schadewald, M. S. (1994). Mental accounting and outcome contiguity in consumer-borrowing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(1), 136–152.Google Scholar
  48. Hogreve, J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Twenty years of service guarantee research: A synthesis. Journal of Service Research, 11(4), 322–343.Google Scholar
  49. Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D., & Koschate, N. (2005). Customers' reactions to price increases: Do customer satisfaction and perceived motive fairness matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 36–49.Google Scholar
  50. Hupfer, N. T., & Gardner, D. M. (1971). Differential involvement with products and issues: An exploratory study. In ACR Special Volumes (pp. 262–270).Google Scholar
  51. Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2012). Extension of the cox proportional hazards model for time-dependent variables. In Survival analysis (pp. 241–288). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99(3), 507–521.Google Scholar
  53. Krishna, A. (2009). Behavioral pricing. In V. R. Rao (Ed.), Handbook of pricing research in marketing (pp. 76–90). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Leischnig, A., & Woodside, A. G. (2017). Who approves fraudulence? Configurational causes of consumers’ unethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–14.Google Scholar
  55. Lesch, W., & Brinkmann, J. (2011). Consumer insurance fraud/abuse as co-creation and co-responsibility: A new paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(1), 17–32.Google Scholar
  56. Lesch, W. C., & Byars, B. (2008). Consumer insurance fraud in the US property-casualty industry. Journal of Financial Crime, 15(4), 411–431.Google Scholar
  57. Lovelock, C., & Wright, L. (2002). Principles of service marketing and management (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Lydersen, S., Fagerland, M. W., & Laake, P. (2009). Recommended tests for association in 2 x 2 tables. Statistics in Medicine, 28(7), 1159–1175.Google Scholar
  59. Mitchell, V., Balabanis, G., Schlegelmilch, B., & Cornwell, T. (2009). Measuring unethical consumer behavior across four countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 395–412.Google Scholar
  60. Miyazaki, A. (2009). Perceived ethicality of insurance claim fraud: Do higher deductibles lead to lower ethical standards? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(4), 589–598.Google Scholar
  61. Morwitz, V. G., Greenleaf, E. A., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Divide and prosper: Consumers' reactions to partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 453–463.Google Scholar
  62. Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence: A review of the evidence by a criminologist for economists. Annual Review of Economics, 5(1), 83–105.Google Scholar
  63. National Retail Federation (2018). National Retail Security Survey 2018.Google Scholar
  64. NICB (2018). Prevent fraud & theft. National insurance crime bureau (NICB). Available at https://www.nicb.org/prevent-fraud-theft. Accessed 24 May 2018.
  65. Okada, E. M. (2001). Trade-ins, mental accounting, and product replacement decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 433–446.Google Scholar
  66. Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 294–311.Google Scholar
  67. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419.Google Scholar
  68. Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1981). Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(2), 223–230.Google Scholar
  69. Pinquet, J., Ayuso, M., & Guillén, M. (2007). Selection bias and auditing policies for insurance claims. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 74(2), 425–440.Google Scholar
  70. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.Google Scholar
  71. Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4–28.Google Scholar
  72. Prelec, D., & Simester, D. (2001). Always leave home without it: A further investigation of the credit-card effect on willingness to pay. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  73. Rawwas, M. Y. A., Swaidan, Z., & Qyman, M. (2005). Consumer ethics: A cross-cultural study of the ethical beliefs of Turkish and American consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 183–195.Google Scholar
  74. Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life customers in a noncontractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 17–35.Google Scholar
  75. Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321–335.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
  77. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38.Google Scholar
  78. Rubin, D. B. (1973). Matching to remove bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 29(1), 159–183.Google Scholar
  79. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Multivariate matching methods that are equal percent bias reducing, II: Maximums on bias reduction for fixed sample sizes. Biometrics, 32(2), 121–132.Google Scholar
  80. Rubin, D. B. (1980). Bias reduction using Mahalanobis-metric matching. Biometrics, 36(2), 293–298.Google Scholar
  81. Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52(1), 249–264.Google Scholar
  82. Samaha, S. A., Palmatier, R. W., & Dant, R. P. (2011). Poisoning relationships: Perceived unfairness in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 99–117.Google Scholar
  83. Schaefers, T., Wittkowski, K., Benoit, S., & Ferraro, R. (2016). Contagious effects of customer misbehavior in access-based services. Journal of Service Research, 19(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  84. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  85. Sheley, J. F., & Bailey, K. D. (1985). New directions for anti-theft policy: Reductions in stolen goods buyers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13(5), 399–415.Google Scholar
  86. Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016). A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data quality: Comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk samples. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3139–3148.Google Scholar
  87. Soman, D. (2001a). Effects of payment mechanism on spending behavior: The role of rehearsal and immediacy of payments. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 460–474.Google Scholar
  88. Soman, D. (2001b). The mental accounting of sunk time costs: Why time is not like money. Joumal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(3), 169–185.Google Scholar
  89. Soman, D. (2003). The effect of payment transparency on consumption: Quasi-experiments from the field. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 173–183.Google Scholar
  90. Soman, D., & Lam, V. M. W. (2002). The effects of prior spending on future spending decisions: The role of acquisition liabilities and payments. Marketing Letters, 13(4), 359–372.Google Scholar
  91. Steenhaut, S., & van Kenhove, P. (2005). Relationship commitment and ethical consumer behavior in a retail setting: The case of receiving too much change at the checkout. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(4), 335–353.Google Scholar
  92. Stuart, E. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Best practices in quasi-experimental designs. In Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 155–176).Google Scholar
  93. Suh, J.-C., & Yi, Y. (2006). When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: The moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(2), 145–155.Google Scholar
  94. Taillard, É. D., Waelti, P., & Zuber, J. (2008). Few statistical tests for proportions comparison. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(3), 1335–1350.Google Scholar
  95. Tennyson, S. (2011). Consumers' insurance literacy: Evidence from survey data. Financial Services Review, 20(3), 165–179.Google Scholar
  96. Tennyson, S., & Salsas-Forn, P. (2002). Claims auditing in automobile insurance: Fraud detection and deterrence objectives. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 69(3), 289–308.Google Scholar
  97. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60.Google Scholar
  98. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  99. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
  100. Tonglet, M. (2002). Consumer misbehaviour: An exploratory study of shoplifting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1(4), 336–354.Google Scholar
  101. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.Google Scholar
  102. Verhoef, P. C., Franses, P. H., & Hoekstra, J. C. (2002). The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 202–216.Google Scholar
  103. Viaene, S., Derrig, R. A., Baesens, B., & Dedene, G. (2002). A comparison of state-of-the-art classification techniques for expert automobile insurance claim fraud detection. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 69(3), 373–421.Google Scholar
  104. Wangenheim, F. v., & Bayón, T. (2007). Behavioral consequences of overbooking service capacity. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 36–47.Google Scholar
  105. Wirtz, J., & Kum, D. (2004). Consumer cheating on service guarantees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(2), 159–175.Google Scholar
  106. Wirtz, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. (2010). Opportunistic customer claiming during service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 654–675.Google Scholar
  107. Zabriskie, N. B. (1972). Fraud by consumers. Journal of Retailing, 48(4), 22–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ina Garnefeld
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Eggert
    • 2
  • Markus Husemann-Kopetzky
    • 2
  • Eva Böhm
    • 2
  1. 1.Marketing DepartmentUniversity of WuppertalWuppertalGermany
  2. 2.Marketing DepartmentUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations