The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences
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…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Consumers who perceive a pricing practice to violate a social norm react negatively towards the company, such as lower purchase intentions and loss of trust.
“Consumers that perceive a pricing practice to violate a social norm, react negatively towards the company, such as lower purchase intentions (Campbell, 1999) and loss of trust (Garbarino & Lee, 2003).”
From Discrimination grounds and personalised pricing: Consumer perceptions of fairness, norm alignment, legality, and trust in markets (2024) · cites this paper as Campbell, 1999
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 37 · Cited by 945
Metadata
- Authors
- Campbell, M. C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Margaret C.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1999-05
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093960187
- Cited by
- 945
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 43
- FWCI
- 17.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
- Keywords
- price increases, relative profit, corporate reputation, consumer inference, shopping intention, perceived fairness, relative prices
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