What are "consumer friendly" deadlines?

New research by Christian Traxler shows how tight deadlines can get people to act.

Your dentist recommends a check-up twice a year, but somehow the last two times just flew by. Ever wondered why you failed to make an appointment?

Deadlines are omnipresent and govern important economic decisions in the workplace or in consumer markets. While deadlines are crucial to coordinate complex team work in organisations, they also impose clear constraints on our choice sets. Deadlines restrict, for instance, our options to redeem a time-limited coupon or to return a product we bought online. From a consumer perspective, tight deadlines might therefore appear unattractive.

In joint work with Steffen Altmann of the University of Copenhagen and Philipp Weinschenk of the University of Kaiserslautern, we explore the role of deadlines when people face cognitive limitations. Using a simple analytical framework, we show that an individual with limited memory or attention might be more likely to execute a given task under a shorter rather than a longer deadline. The intuition is that a shorter deadline “forces” the individual to act earlier, i.e., at a point in time where she is still likely to pay full attention to the task at hand.

To test this and further predictions from our model, we conducted two field experiments at a dental clinic. Our analysis draws on roughly 3,600 patient-treatment observations collected over more than three years, using records of all inbound phone calls at the clinic during this period. In addition, our data include further information on actual check-up attendance as well as a rich set of individual background characteristics.

The experiments vary patients’ deadlines and economic incentives for calling and arranging preventive check-ups. The results document that relatively tight deadlines exert strong effects on the timing of actions. Imposing a one- or three-week deadline also increase overall response rates relative to a situation in which patients face no deadline. After 100 days, cumulative response rates in the deadline conditions remain significantly above those observed under no deadline.

In a second trial that tested longer deadlines, we find more pre-deadline responses under short deadlines as opposed to much longer ones.  Under a relatively tight three-week deadline, patients were more likely to call the dentist within the short time frame, compared to their likelihood of calling under longer deadlines of six or ten weeks. Our evidence therefore suggests that tight deadlines may trigger earlier responses as well as overall higher response rates.

While it is up to further research to assess the external validity of these findings for other settings, it seems important to highlight two potential policy implications. On the one hand, there is a wide range of applications for which institutions could impose deadlines in order to increase people’s responsive­ness. For instance, when asking potential recipients to apply for support programmes (a grant, subsidy or tax advantage, etc.), adding a deadline could actually increase take-up. In the domain of consumer policy, on the other hand, one has to carefully consider whether prolonging deadlines is indeed beneficial for all consumers. For instance, if a company offered seemingly generous extensions of rights to its customers , e.g., very long deadlines for cancellations or product returns,  this offer might ultimately not be consumer friendly, at least not for individuals with cognitive limitations.

The full paper “Deadlines and Cognitive Limitations” is available as IZA Discussion Papers 11129.

More about Christian Traxler