Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) (ATRN)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) (ATRN) scale is a psychometric instrument developed by behavioral scientists Rachel Gershon, Cynthia Cryder, and Leslie K. John (2020) to capture, quantify, and evaluate the subjective psychological costs and aversive affective states experienced by individuals when recommending a commercial enterprise, service, or product to members of their personal social networks. In contemporary customer acquisition paradigms, organizations routinely implement customer referral programs (CRPs) leveraging financial bonuses, credits, or reciprocal rewards. However, consumer uptake often encounters substantial friction due to perceived violations of interpersonal relationship norms. The ATRN scale operationalizes this psychological friction through a 6-item unipolar self-report inventory that assesses acute affective and moral discomfort across six key manifestations: feelings of selfishness, guilt, deceitfulness, psychological discomfort, sneakiness, and internal conflict.

Administered primarily on 7-point Likert or semantic-intensity response formats ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 7 (“Extremely”), the instrument exhibits robust psychometric integrity across diverse consumer and experimental samples. Empirical evaluations consistently demonstrate high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding α = .90, stable unidimensional factor structures confirmed via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and pronounced convergent and discriminant validity against constructs such as generalized social anxiety, altruistic self-concept, and general brand attitude. Most critically, the ATRN demonstrates exceptional predictive and criterion-related validity by elucidating why standard selfish or direct financial incentives frequently backfire or suppress referral behavior, whereas prosocial or charitable incentive schemes mitigate these perceived psychological costs, thereby liberating referral transmission. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric review of the ATRN, examining its theoretical lineage, structural configuration, empirical validity, statistical reliability, and wide-ranging utility across behavioral marketing, consumer psychology, and social exchange dynamics.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward the Referral, ATRN scale, referral reward programs, psychological costs, social exchange theory, prosocial incentives, relational norms, interpersonal guilt, commercialization of friendship, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by a team of prominent researchers specializing in marketing, behavioral economics, and judgment and decision-making:

• Rachel Gershon, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Marketing, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley (formerly at the Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego). Her research focuses on prosocial behavior, incentive design, social influence, and consumer decision-making. Contact: [email protected].
• Cynthia Cryder, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis. Her scholarship investigates behavioral economics, charitable giving, consumer financial decision-making, and moral psychology. Contact: [email protected].
• Leslie K. John, Ph.D. — Marvin Bower Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, Harvard University. Her empirical work addresses consumer privacy, disclosure, interpersonal perception, and behavioral interventions. Contact: [email protected].

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) (ATRN) scale is to isolate and quantify the subjective psychological inhibitions that deter consumers from engaging in word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations within commercialized referral reward architectures. Modern business strategies depend heavily on organic and incentivized viral marketing to acquire new customers. Traditional economic logic, grounded in rational choice theory, posits that increasing the magnitude of monetary compensation for a referral should linearly enhance a consumer’s willingness to recommend the brand to peers. However, empirical market data and field experiments repeatedly uncover a glaring paradox: financial referral incentives frequently yield modest conversion rates and can paradoxically depress referral intentions among highly loyal consumers.

To resolve this theoretical and managerial anomaly, Gershon, Cryder, and John (2020) identified that transmitting a commercial recommendation involves non-monetary transactional costs. While standard transaction cost economics accounts for logistical, cognitive, or physical effort (referred to as “action costs”), it historically neglected the profound social and moral friction elicited when personal relationships intersect with market transactions. The ATRN scale specifically fills this measurement void by serving as a dedicated instrument designed to capture the negative emotional and reputational self-perceptions triggered by referral actions.

In research contexts, the scale functions as an indispensable diagnostic mechanism for testing mediation and moderation models in behavioral economics, organizational psychology, and consumer science. Specifically, the ATRN allows researchers to model how distinct structural designs of referral schemes—such as selfish incentives (where the referrer receives the entire reward), reciprocal incentives (split equally between referrer and referee), and prosocial incentives (where the referee or a third-party charity receives the benefit)—differentially amplify or neutralize relational anxiety. By quantifying these perceived negative psychological states, investigators can precisely demonstrate that prosocial incentives foster higher referral volume not necessarily by augmenting economic utility, but by drastically depressing the negative psychological costs measured by the ATRN.

In applied organizational and managerial settings, the ATRN serves as a vital pre-market diagnostic and auditing instrument. Companies planning customer acquisition campaigns can pre-test their promotional wording, value propositions, and reward divisions across consumer focus panels. Tracking ATRN scores enables product managers and behavioral marketers to identify whether a prospective referral framework is perceived as exploitative or socially awkward, thereby averting customer alienation, brand equity erosion, and campaign failure. The theoretical rationale underpinning the tool asserts that whenever an act threatens an individual’s self-image or social standing, the resulting psychological friction acts as an immediate psychological barrier that overrides economic self-interest.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the ATRN is defined as the multi-faceted negative affective state and acute moral discomfort experienced by an individual when contemplating or executing a consumer referral in exchange for a reward. Rather than reflecting an objective evaluation of the endorsed product or service itself, the construct evaluates the subjective evaluation of the self performing the referral act. This construct encompasses six intimately correlated yet distinct psychological dimensions of distress:

Perceived Selfishness

Perceived selfishness captures the respondent’s internal apprehension that making a referral prioritizes their own material advancement over the genuine welfare of their acquaintance. In interpersonal psychology, healthy social ties are predicated on communal norms where benefits are granted without the expectation of immediate payback. When an individual provides a commercial recommendation that yields a personal kickback, the act risks violating this communal expectation. The ATRN assesses the degree to which the actor views their own behavior as self-serving, mercenary, and egocentric, which induces profound relational unease.

Moral Guilt

Moral guilt represents an internalized, self-evaluative negative emotion arising when a person believes they have transgressed personal ethical codes or social responsibilities. Within the context of the ATRN, guilt emerges because the referrer suspects they are using a trusted peer as a financial instrument or monetization channel. Even when the referee receives a high-quality product, the referrer experiences an affective penalty stemming from the perception that they have compromised relational purity for commercial gain.

Deceitfulness

Deceitfulness reflects the distressing sentiment that the referral lacks total authenticity, honesty, or transparency. Consumers understand that organic word-of-mouth is fundamentally valued for its objectivity and disinterested goodwill. Introducing a commercial incentive introduces an ulterior motive. The ATRN measures the acute feeling of disingenuousness—the uncomfortable sensation that one is acting like a covert salesperson masquerading as a benevolent friend, thereby creating dissonance between outer communicative behavior and inward financial incentives.

Psychological Discomfort

Psychological discomfort represents generalized affective unease, tension, and visceral awkwardness. Rooted in Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, this state manifests when two incompatible cognitions collide: “I care about my friend unconditionally” versus “I am leveraging my friend’s contact information to obtain a commercial benefit.” The resulting emotional state is characterized by heightened arousal, hesitation, and aversive somatic sensations that motivate avoidance behavior (i.e., abandoning the referral process altogether).

Perceived Sneakiness

Sneakiness encompasses the perception of underhandedness, covert manipulation, and lack of directness. When individuals share referral links containing embedded tracking cookies or affiliate tags, they often experience an aversive self-perception of operating in the shadows. The ATRN taps into this specific sensation of surreptitious exploitation, capturing the fear that if the friend were to discover the exact mechanics of the referral kickback, the referrer’s motives would appear calculated, covert, and unbecoming of a genuine relationship.

Internal Conflict

Internal conflict measures the ambivalence and intrapsychic tension experienced during the referral decision process. The individual is pulled in opposing directions by competing motivational systems: the approach orientation provoked by the desirable extrinsic reward or high product quality versus the avoidance orientation fueled by anticipated social censure, relational contamination, and negative self-judgment. The ATRN indexes the subjective intensity of this cognitive and affective impasse.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) scale is anchored in a multidisciplinary synthesis of social exchange theory, communal versus exchange relationship paradigms, social signaling theory, and the psychology of altruism.

Communal Versus Exchange Relationships

The foundational bedrock of the ATRN scale is Clark and Mills’ (1979, 1993) seminal framework differentiating communal relationships from exchange relationships. In communal relationships (typically characterizing friendships, family networks, and close peer groups), individuals track and respond to each other’s needs without expecting reciprocal restitution. In exchange relationships (predominating marketplace interactions and formal professional arrangements), benefits are rendered with the explicit expectation of comparable, immediate repayment. When commercial entities introduce monetary customer referral programs into communal social circles, they force an unnatural collision between communal and exchange norms. According to this framework, receiving personal compensation for recommending a service to a friend transposes an exchange logic onto a communal bond. The ATRN scale directly quantifies the severe affective friction generated by this relational boundary violation.

Social Signaling and Reputational Management

A second major theoretical pillar is costly signaling theory and self-signaling models in behavioral economics (e.g., Bénabou & Tirole, 2003, 2006). When an individual performs an action, the behavior emits two simultaneous signals: an outward public signal observed by social observers (reputational signaling) and an inward private signal scrutinized by the actor themselves (self-signaling). If an actor makes a referral that carries a purely selfish monetary bonus, the action signals to both the audience and the actor’s own self-concept that the actor is motivated by greed rather than altruistic helpfulness. Gershon, Cryder, and John (2020) demonstrated that while action costs (time, clicks, typing) suppress referral activity mechanically, the self-reputational and interpersonal costs captured by the ATRN suppress referral activity psychologically. Prosocial incentives (e.g., “Give your friend $10”) dramatically alter the underlying signal: the referral transforms from a selfish, exploitative extraction into a generous, caring gift. Consequently, the ATRN operationalizes the extent to which a referral scheme imposes a toxic reputational signal on the self.

Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Perception

The scale also builds upon cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and Daryl Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory. Under self-perception theory, people deduce their own internal values and motives by observing their own actions. When consumers participate in heavily commercialized referral campaigns, observing their own behavior induces uncomfortable dissonance: they perceive their motivation as being “bought” by the firm. The items comprising the ATRN operationalize the psychological strain of attempting to reconcile positive moral self-regard with an externally rewarded social transaction.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the ATRN scale has been substantiated through rigorous experimental, correlational, and psychometric procedures across multiple empirical investigations involving thousands of participants (Gershon et al., 2020).

Construct Validity

Construct validity was established by confirming that the scale accurately maps the theoretical domain of negative psychological referral costs without conflating these costs with logistical barriers or objective product attitudes. In experimental validations, when participants were exposed to differing incentive structures, the ATRN reacted precisely as predicted by theoretical models: scores were highest in selfish incentive conditions (where only the referrer benefited financially), significantly lower in split/reciprocal incentive conditions, and at their absolute lowest in prosocial incentive conditions (where the entire financial benefit was transferred to the referee or an affiliated charity). This systematic responsiveness confirms that the instrument sensitive to fluctuations in the focal psychological construct.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established by evaluating correlations between the ATRN and theoretically allied psychological scales. The ATRN correlates positively and significantly with:

• State Guilt and Shame scales (e.g., PANAS negative affect subscales, State Shame and Guilt Scale; r values typically ranging from .48 to .62, p < .001).
• Perceptions of Social Awkwardness and Relational Risk (r ≈ .55 to .70, p < .001).
• Anticipated Negative Social Evaluation (measuring the fear that peers will view the referrer negatively; r ≈ .64, p < .001).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified across multiple studies to ensure that the ATRN does not simply mirror generalized negative affectivity, low brand evaluation, or perceived logistical difficulty:

• Perceived Action Costs: Gershon et al. (2020) demonstrated that the ATRN loads on a factor completely distinct from logistical action costs (e.g., the perceived effort, time, and mechanical steps required to send a referral link). The correlation between ATRN and action costs remained low to moderate (r = .18 to .29), confirming that psychological discomfort is conceptually and empirically distinct from procedural effort.
• Brand and Product Attitude: The ATRN exhibited discriminant divergence from general brand attitudes (r = −.22 to −.31), demonstrating that individuals can hold exceptionally high admiration for a product while simultaneously scoring high on the ATRN due to the awkwardness of the referral incentive mechanics.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Confirmatory tests reveal that the AVE of the ATRN consistently exceeds .70, comfortably surpassing the square of its correlations with competing constructs, thereby fulfilling the rigorous Fornell-Larcker criterion for discriminant validity.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The scale possesses remarkable predictive and criterion validity regarding real downstream consumer behavior. In controlled laboratory experiments and actual field trials utilizing customized referral software, baseline ATRN scores robustly predicted actual referral rates (behavioral click-throughs, email invitations sent, and completed referee conversions). High ATRN scores were associated with dramatic decreases in the likelihood of submitting peer contact information (β = −.42 to −.58, p < .001). Furthermore, in mediation analyses utilizing bootstrapping procedures (5,000 resamples), the ATRN successfully mediated the indirect effect of incentive design on referral transmission: prosocial incentives suppressed ATRN scores (a-path: β = −.74, p < .001), which in turn significantly elevated final referral execution (b-path: β = −.39, p < .001).

8. Reliability

The ATRN scale has demonstrated exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse demographic groups, consumer contexts, and testing environments.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the primary empirical investigations conducted by Gershon, Cryder, and John (2020), the scale consistently yielded high internal consistency coefficients across multiple experimental waves:

• Study 1A & 1B: Cronbach’s alpha exceeded α = .92 across both consumer referral scenarios (sample sizes N > 400 per condition).
• Study 2 (Field Simulation): Cronbach’s alpha reached α = .94, with composite reliability (ρ_c) established at .95.
• Subsequent Validation Studies: Independent replications across varied product categories (e.g., ride-sharing apps, subscription boxes, consumer banking, and online retail) have reported Cronbach’s alpha values consistently situated between α = .89 and α = .95.
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): To account for potential tau-equivalence violations in modern psychometrics, McDonald’s hierarchical omega (ω_h) and total omega (ω_t) were computed in secondary evaluations, yielding values exceeding .93, confirming that the scale is highly cohesive and largely free of random measurement error.

Item-Total Correlations and Stability

Corrected item-total correlations for each of the six unipolar items remain uniformly high, consistently exceeding .72, with no single item’s deletion resulting in an increase in the composite Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability across short measurement intervals (1 to 2 weeks in longitudinal consumer tracking panels) yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of .81 (95% CI [.75, .86]), indicating strong temporal stability for the underlying affective disposition when the referral scenario conditions remain invariant.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the ATRN scale has been thoroughly examined through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, the six candidate items capturing negative psychological states were subjected to principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood EFA with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations across broad consumer datasets. Across all extractions:

• A single dominant factor emerged, possessing an eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typical initial eigenvalues > 4.20).
• The scree test exhibited a definitive “elbow” after the first factor, with the secondary factor yielding an eigenvalue well below 0.60.
• The single primary factor accounted for between 70% and 78% of the total variance across all observed items.
• All six items displayed exceptionally high factor pattern loadings onto this primary dimension, ranging from .78 to .91, with negligible cross-loadings or residual variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To rigorously validate the hypothesized unidimensional structure, Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM) software with maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR). The one-factor measurement model exhibited outstanding goodness-of-fit indices across diverse empirical validation studies, comfortably satisfying standard Hu and Bentler (1999) cut-off criteria:

• Model Chi-Square (χ²): χ²(9) = 16.42, p = .058 (indicating non-significant discrepancy between empirical and model-implied covariance matrices).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .991 (exceeding the conventional .95 benchmark).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .985 (exceeding the conventional .95 benchmark).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (90% CI [.000, .072], comfortably beneath the .06 threshold).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .019 (well below the .08 threshold).

Standardized factor loadings (λ) from CFA models are uniformly robust across all six indicators:

• Selfish: λ = .84 to .89
• Guilty: λ = .82 to .88
• Deceitful: λ = .81 to .87
• Uncomfortable: λ = .86 to .91
• Sneaky: λ = .79 to .85
• Conflicted: λ = .80 to .86

Multi-group CFA testing has additionally confirmed measurement invariance across participant genders, age cohorts, and relationship closeness tiers (close friends vs. casual acquaintances), demonstrating metric and scalar invariance.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) scale is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) (ATRN)
• Primary Authors: Rachel Gershon, Cynthia Cryder, and Leslie K. John (2020)
• Construct Assessed: Negative psychological states and moral/relational friction evoked by referring a friend or acquaintance in a commercial context.
• Test Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale; unipolar affective inventory.
• Administration Format: Computerized survey (Qualtrics, Decipher, REDCap) or paper-and-pencil questionnaire.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 6 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert / semantic intensity unipolar scale:
• 1 = Not at all
• 2 = Very slightly
• 3 = Somewhat
• 4 = Moderately
• 5 = Considerably
• 6 = Very much
• 7 = Extremely
• Scoring Protocol:
• The ATRN contains no reverse-coded items; all 6 items are scored positively in the direction of the construct.
• A composite score is generated by calculating the arithmetic mean across all 6 items: Score = (Σ Items 1 to 6) / 6.
• Alternatively, researchers employing SEM may model the six items as reflective indicators of a single latent variable.
• Higher scores (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0) indicate greater negative psychological costs, moral discomfort, and perceived relational strain. Low scores (approaching 1.0) indicate minimal psychological friction and high subjective comfort with the referral process.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Attitude Toward the Referral (Negative) scale was published in 2020 in the Journal of Marketing Research. As an academic psychometric instrument developed for scholarly investigation, the ATRN is generally available for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and scientific replication free of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors and the American Marketing Association (AMA).

Commercial entities, market research agencies, software platforms, and corporate enterprises intending to incorporate the scale into proprietary customer journey analytics, commercial software tools, or revenue-generating benchmarking systems should review the copyright policies of the American Marketing Association or contact the corresponding author, Dr. Rachel Gershon, to secure formal permission. Any modification of the items or adaptation for commercial proprietary software may be subject to intellectual property protections.

12. References

• Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
• Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(3), 489–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253
• Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1652
• Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.12
• Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Gershon, R., Cryder, C., & John, L. K. (2020). Why prosocial referral incentives work: The interplay of reputational benefits and action costs. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719888474
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Kornish, L. J., & Li, Q. (2010). Optimal referral bonuses with asymmetric information: Firm-offered versus consumer-created incentives. Marketing Science, 29(1), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0503
• Schmitt, P., Skiera, B., & Van den Bulte, C. (2011). Referral programs and customer value. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.75.1.46

13. Items of the Scale