Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 936

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences

Campbell, Margaret C.·1999·Journal of Marketing Research
DOI 10.1177/002224379903600204
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Using two studies, the author examines the influence of the inferred motive for a firm's price increase on perceptions of price unfairness. Prior to the research presented here, the only established causal antecedent of perceived price unfairness was increased relative profit. In Study 1, the author extends the existing research by demonstrating that the inferred motive, as well as inferred relative profit, provides causal explanation of perceived price unfairness. When participants inferred that the firm had a negative motive for a price increase, the increase was perceived as significantly less fair than the same increase when participants inferred that the firm had a positive motive. In addition, the author shows in Study 2 that the firm's reputation can influence the inferred motive, thereby altering perceptions of price unfairness. Specifically, participants sometimes gave a firm with a good reputation the benefit of the doubt when inferring motive. If the “good” firm did not profit from the price increase, participants inferred significantly more positive motives than if it did profit. The firm with a poor reputation did not receive this benefit; inferred motive was equally negative regardless of whether the firm profited from the price increase. Together, these studies provide evidence that consumer inferences of the motive for a price increase influence the perceived fairness of the increase. Furthermore, reputation is shown to moderate the effect of inferred relative profit on inferred motive. Finally, analyses show that perceived unfairness leads to lower shopping intentions and demonstrate that perceived unfairness mediates the effects of inferred motive and relative price on consumers’ shopping intentions.

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 · 10.1177/002224379903600204

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Campbell, M. C.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1999-05
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
187-199
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
DOI
10.1177/002224379903600204
OpenAlex
W2093960187
Cited by
936
References
3
FWCI
17.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.