The identification of social norms of price discrimination on the internet
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify some of the current social norms of pricing that constrain sellers' discriminatory pricing on the internet. Violations of such social norms can lead to perceptions of price unfairness and swift and potentially damaging negative reactions from consumers. This paper seeks to demonstrate a state‐of‐the‐art technique for assessing social norms, to identify current norms using a large representative sample of US consumers and to distinguish between social norms and personal beliefs. Design/methodology/approach The study involves an online survey of 387 respondents. The survey was designed to measure both the consensus and the strength of consumer reaction to seller behaviors. To establish that a behavior is the norm, the consensus has to be greater than a 65 percent agreement and the strength of the response has to be significantly different from neutral. Both personal beliefs and perceptions of society's beliefs were collected. Findings The paper finds that some of the social norms constraining discriminatory pricing on the internet are as follows: a seller should charge the same price for a given item to all customers; a seller should not charge a higher price to either more loyal or more frequent customers; a seller should not charge more to new or infrequent customers; and a seller should not charge less to infrequent purchasers. In addition, although it is not established as a norm, a surprising 50 percent of the respondents th…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
What is perceived to be fair may strongly depend on existing societal norms, as well as personal norms.
“What is perceived to be fair may strongly depend on existing societal norms, as well as personal norms (Maxwell & Garbarino, 2010).”
From Discrimination grounds and personalised pricing: Consumer perceptions of fairness, norm alignment, legality, and trust in markets (2024) · cites this paper as Maxwell & Garbarino, 2010
Cites
Consumer response to norm-breaking pricing events in e-commerce
Garbarino, E., & Maxwell, S. (2010) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.010 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Personalized pricing and price fairness
Richards, T. J., Liaukonyte, J., & Streletskaya, N. A. (2016) · International Journal of Industrial Organization · doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2015.11.004 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Priester, A., Robbert, T., & Roth, S. (2020) · Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management · doi:10.1057/s41272-019-00224-3 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Seeking the perfect price: Consumer responses to personalized price discrimination in e-commerce
Hufnagel, G., Schwaiger, M., & Weritz, L. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.002 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
van Boom, W. H., van der Rest, J.-P. I., van den Bos, K., & Dechesne, M. (2020) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-020-00348-7 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
“…markets with a discriminatory or personalized pricing regime purchase intentions are impacted by perceptions of price fairness (Darke & Dahl, 2003; Maxwell & Garbarino, 2010; Richards, Liaukonyte, & Streletskaya, 2016; Riquelme, Román, Cuestas, & Iacobucci, 2019); the literature on 335 1 3 Social…”
BackgroundHeidary, K., van der Rest, J.-P., & Custers, B. (2024) · Internet Policy Review · doi:10.14763/2024.4.1809 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Maxwell, S., & Garbarino, E.
- Affiliations
- Fordham University (US)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- ORCID
- Garbarino, Ellen
- Venue
- Journal of Product & Brand Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-06-02
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 218-224
- ISSN
- 1061-0421 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2085514737
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Product & Brand Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Keywords
- price discrimination, social norms, internet pricing, consumer perception, price fairness, e-tailers, personal beliefs
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