Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The influence of price fairness on customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases

Herrmann, Andreas, Xia, Lan, Monroe, Kent B., Huber, Frank·2007·Journal of Product & Brand Management
DOI 10.1108/10610420710731151
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This paper aims to link conceptually the concepts of price fairness and customer satisfaction and empirically demonstrate the influence of perceived price fairness on satisfaction judgments. Further, it seeks to examine specific factors that influence fairness perceptions including price perception and consumer vulnerability. Design/methodology/approach: The study is conducted in the context of automobile purchases in major German car dealerships. Based on a theoretical conceptualization of the constructs and an empirical pretest, 246 car buyers were surveyed and their fairness perceptions and satisfaction judgments with the car buying process measured. Findings: The research shows that price perceptions directly influence satisfaction judgments as well as indirectly through perceptions of price fairness. Results also indicated that consumers' vulnerability, which is induced by a perceived demand‐supply relationship and the urgency of need from the consumers' side, had a negative effect on perceived price offer fairness. Research limitations/implications: The research demonstrated the influence of perceived price fairness on satisfaction judgments empirically. The study was conducted in the context of car purchases and the generalizability of the model should be further tested. Practical implications: The effect of consumer vulnerability implies that sellers should not only avoid exploiting their customers but should also anticipate consumers' potential feelings of being exploited. Being sensitive to the buyers’ psychological state and assuring buyers of fair treatment will enhance perceptions of price fairness without changing the price offer. Originality/value: Both the direct and indirect effects of price perception on satisfaction judgment were examined in the paper. Specifically, the influences of consumer vulnerability and price procedure fairness on satisfaction judgments are new and contribute to the dual‐entitlement principle and our existing knowledge in price fairness.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/10610420710731151

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Bechwati, N.N. and Xia, L. (2003), “Do consumers sweat? The impact of perceived effort of online decision aids on consumers' satisfaction with the decision process”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1 and 2, pp. 139‐48. · DOI
  2. Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness‐of‐fit in the analysis of covariance structure”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588‐606. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L. and Alba, J.W. (2003), “Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, March, pp. 474‐91. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bowman, D. and Narayandas, D. (2001), “Managing customer‐initiated contacts with manufacturers: the impact on share of category requirements and word‐of‐mouth behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, August, pp. 281‐97. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Burmann, C. (1991), “Konsumentenzufriedenheit als Determinante der Marken‐ und Händlerloyalität”, Marketing ZFP, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 249‐58. · DOI
  6. Campbell, M.C. (1999), “Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, May, pp. 187‐99. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Cook, K.S. and Emerson, R.M. (1978), “Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 43, October, pp. 721‐39. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.L. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, February, pp. 39‐50. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fornell, C., Tellis, G.J. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1982), “Validity assessment: a structural equations approach using partial least squares”, in Walker, B.J. (Ed.), An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 405‐9.
  10. Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 7‐18. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D. and Koschate, N. (2005), “Customers' reactions to price increases: do customer satisfaction and perceived motive fairness matter?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, Winter, pp. 36‐49. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Huffman, C. and Cain, L.B. (2001), “Adjustments in performance measures: distributive and procedural justice effects on outcome satisfaction”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 593‐615. · DOI
  13. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1986), “Fairness and the assumptions of economics”, Journal of Business, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. S285‐S300. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kalapurakal, R., Dickson, P.R. and Urbany, J.E. (1991), “Perceived price fairness and dual entitlement”, in Holman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 788‐93.
  15. Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (1996), “Procedural justice and managers' in‐role and extra‐role behavior: the case of the multinational”, Management Science, Vol. 42, April, pp. 499‐515. · DOI
  16. Maxwell, S. (1995), “What makes a price increase seem ‘fair’?”, Pricing Strategy & Practice, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 21‐7.
  17. Monroe, K.B. (2003), Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 3rd ed., McGraw‐Hill/Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL.
  18. Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw‐Hill, Boston, MA.
  19. Oliver, R.L. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1988), “Response determinations in satisfaction judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, March, pp. 495‐507. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989a), “Equity and disconfirmation perceptions as influence on merchant and product satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, December, pp. 372‐83. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ordóñez, L.D., Connolly, T. and Coughlan, R. (2000), “Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 329‐44. · DOI
  22. Shankar, V.S., Smith, A.K. and Rangaswamy, A. (2003), “Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 153‐75. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Singh, J. and Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000), “Agency and trust mechanism in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, pp. 150‐67. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Spreng, R.A., Dixon, A.L. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1993), “The impact of perceived value on consumer satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 50‐5.
  25. Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996), “A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, July, pp. 15‐32. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Urbany, J.E., Bearden, W.O., Kaicker, A. and Smith‐de‐Borrero, M. (1997), “Transaction utility effects when quality is uncertain”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 45‐55. · DOI
  27. Vaidyanathan, R. and Aggarwal, P. (2003), “Who is the fairest of them all? An attributional approach to price fairness perceptions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 453‐63. · DOI · Paper page
  28. van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R. and Wilke, H.A.M. (1997), “Procedural and distributive justice: what is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 95‐104. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Voss, G.B., Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (1998), “The role of price, performance and expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, October, pp. 46‐61. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Xia, L., Monroe, K.B. and Cox, J.L. (2004), “The price is unfair! a conceptual framework of price unfairness perceptions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, October, pp. 1‐15. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F.
Venue
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2007-03-06
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
49-58
ISSN
1061-0421 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/10610420710731151
OpenAlex
W2081939572
Cited by
356
References
6
FWCI
21.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

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: The influence of price fairness on customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/10610420710731151
The paper
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of price fairness on customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal of Product & Brand Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420710731151

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.