The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Smart Agents: When Lower Search Costs for Quality Information Increase Price Sensitivity
Open accessAbstract
Recent consumer research suggests that lowering search costs for quality information reduces consumer price sensitivity by creating greater perceived differentiation among brands (e.g., Kaul and Wittink 1995; Lynch and Ariely 2000). We argue that lowering quality search costs by smart agents can have the opposite effect on differentiation and price sensitivity. Smart agents screen through a universe of alternatives, recommending only a handful well-matched to the customer's quality preferences. In this research, we ask and answer the following questions: In markets in which price and quality are uncorrelated, will the use of screening agents increase or decrease prices paid compared to searching from an unordered list of options? Will increasing the size of the store's underlying assortment increase or decrease prices paid when options have been screened on quality? In markets where higher priced goods have higher quality, will the use of screening agents increase or decrease prices paid and quality selected? Experiments 1 and 2 test the effect of quality screening when price and quality are uncorrelated. We then present an analytic model for markets in which price and quality are correlated. We deduce that ordering can cause price and quality to increase or decrease depending on the slope of the price-quality relationship in comparison with the relative importance of price in the utility function. We find support for this model in experiment 3.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Financial Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors
Fernandes, D., Lynch, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2014) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1849 · Cited by 2,152
Self-citationLamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415 · Cited by 1,127
E-Commerce Product Recommendation Agents: Use, Characteristics, and Impact1
Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148784 · Cited by 1,081
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651235 · Cited by 1,070
Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis
Chernev, A., Böckenholt, U., & Goodman, J. (2015) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002 · Cited by 858
Metadata
- Authors
- Diehl, K., Kornish, L. J., & Lynch, J. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-71
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W3124392197
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Smart Agents: When Lower Search Costs for Quality Information Increase Price Sensitivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/374698
- The paper
- Diehl, K., Kornish, L. J., & Lynch, J. G. (2003). Smart Agents: When Lower Search Costs for Quality Information Increase Price Sensitivity. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/374698
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.