You would probably be rather surprised at what you would learn if you asked your agent to run the sales performance within your relevant market for listings with 2%, 2.5%, 3%, and higher commission rates to the selling broker. I ran these numbers for a top producer in a South Orange County, California market, and saw that within the prior three years, this agent's sales performance increased between 50% and 283% depending on the year for his 3% versus his 2.5% listings. This means that he sold up to nearly three times more of his 3% listings proportionally than he did his 2.5% listings.
Perhaps even more importantly, his 3% listings had an average of almost $94,000 less in price reductions compared with his 2.5% listings. (His sold prices during this three year period averaged between $1.6M and $2.4M.) After taking into account both the $12,000 in savings from the 0.5% lower commission as well as the $94,000 in higher price reductions needed to sell the properties, the 2.5% commission rate effectively cost these sellers just over $82,000, on average. In other words, the sellers walked away from the transaction with a net of $82,000 less money, and these were the lucky ones who found a buyer given that so many of the 2.5% listings ended up not selling at all. These data are readily available to your agent and can be calculated for your relevant market to help you affirmatively answer this question specific to your property.
Furthermore, offering a premium incentive to the agents working with buyers represents perhaps one of the most cost-effective marketing dollars that could possibly be spent on a listing. Let's say a seller were to offer a 4% commission to the selling broker. At a 4% commission, a buyer's agent could be financially motivated actively to seek a buyer such as by going through their rolodex, open house visitor lists, sphere of influence, etc., and cold-calling to find a buyer for such a property. And, when many agents act in like fashion to find a buyer for a well-incentivized property, the beauty is that while the seller is motivating "an army of buyer's agents" to find a buyer for their home, the seller only has to compensate just one of them -- and only if the seller gets an offer they find acceptable. These agents often represent the best and most cost-effective source for finding a buyer compared with other potential marketing activities or expenditures. Incentives can and do influence agent behavior positively, not just negatively. Buyer's agents often have well more homes that are good candidates for their clients than they have time (or client willingness) to show. And, many of them will show the highest commission properties first. As a seller, I would rather be on a buyer's agent's Top 5 list rather on their Bottom 5.
Keep in mind that the selling price of your home will depend on the level of demand (among other things), and anything a seller can do to increase the level of demand (including frequency of showings) for their property cost-effectively will be worthy of serious consideration.