Employee Reactions to Preservice Tips and Compliments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservice tips are becoming increasingly common in the marketplace (e.g., online food delivery, quick-service restaurants). While prior research has investigated how the practice of preservice tipping is perceived by customers, how preservice tipping impacts the perceptions and behaviors of employees remains unexplored. Does tipping early actually elicit better service? Through a series of four studies, our research compares the effectiveness of tips—a financial incentive, with compliments—a nonfinancial incentive. The results indicate that early tips and compliments are both effective in obtaining better service, but the relative effectiveness of a tip versus a compliment depends on the service context. In closed service contexts—which involve a continuous, relatively short interaction—tips are superior. For example, when getting a drink at a bar, buying a sandwich at a quick-service restaurant, or dropping off a car for valet parking, tipping early should lead to better customer service. In contrast, in open service contexts—which involve multiple interactions over a more extended period and provide an opportunity for a social connection—compliments become more effective. The results have practical implications for customers wishing to enhance their service experiences and for managers in motivating their employees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".