A meta-analysis on the effects of just-below versus round prices

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Journal of Consumer Psychology Pub Date : 2023-04-19 DOI:10.1002/jcpy.1353
Eve Sarah Troll, Julius Frankenbach, Malte Friese, David D. Loschelder
{"title":"A meta-analysis on the effects of just-below versus round prices","authors":"Eve Sarah Troll,&nbsp;Julius Frankenbach,&nbsp;Malte Friese,&nbsp;David D. Loschelder","doi":"10.1002/jcpy.1353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Marketers' proclivity for just-below prices (e.g., $9.99) is rooted in an expected higher demand than for round prices ($10.00). The literature, however, lacks a comprehensive assessment of when and how price endings matter. Three mechanisms might explain price-ending effects on consumers' purchase decisions: just-below prices (1) improve price perceptions, but (2) impair perceived product quality, and (3) cause consumers to underestimate prices. A preregistered meta-analysis (<i>k</i> = 69 studies, <i>m</i> = 362 effect sizes, <i>N</i> = 40,541) established that just-below (vs. round) prices tend to increase purchase decisions (<i>g</i> = 0.13, CI<sub>95%</sub>[0.01, 0.25]), result in an advantageous price image (<i>g</i> = 0.28, CI<sub>95%</sub>[0.09, 0.48]), have no effect on perceived product quality (<i>g</i> = 0.00, CI<sub>95%</sub>[−0.17, 0.18], <i>p</i> = 0.96), and are more often underestimated (<i>g</i> = 0.67, CI<sub>95%</sub>[0.04, 1.30]). Participant, study, price, and product characteristics moderate the magnitude of these effects. Overall, the effect sizes are small and highly heterogenous, <i>p</i>-curve analyses revealed a large proportion of nonsignificant effects, and publication bias corrections suggest smaller and, at times, nonsignificant true effects. We discuss theoretical and applied implications for the pricing literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":48365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jcpy.1353","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1353","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Marketers' proclivity for just-below prices (e.g., $9.99) is rooted in an expected higher demand than for round prices ($10.00). The literature, however, lacks a comprehensive assessment of when and how price endings matter. Three mechanisms might explain price-ending effects on consumers' purchase decisions: just-below prices (1) improve price perceptions, but (2) impair perceived product quality, and (3) cause consumers to underestimate prices. A preregistered meta-analysis (k = 69 studies, m = 362 effect sizes, N = 40,541) established that just-below (vs. round) prices tend to increase purchase decisions (g = 0.13, CI95%[0.01, 0.25]), result in an advantageous price image (g = 0.28, CI95%[0.09, 0.48]), have no effect on perceived product quality (g = 0.00, CI95%[−0.17, 0.18], p = 0.96), and are more often underestimated (g = 0.67, CI95%[0.04, 1.30]). Participant, study, price, and product characteristics moderate the magnitude of these effects. Overall, the effect sizes are small and highly heterogenous, p-curve analyses revealed a large proportion of nonsignificant effects, and publication bias corrections suggest smaller and, at times, nonsignificant true effects. We discuss theoretical and applied implications for the pricing literature.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于恰好低于整数价格与整数价格的影响的荟萃分析
与整数价格(10.00 美元)相比,营销者倾向于采用略低于整数的价格(如 9.99 美元),这是由于预期需求会更高。然而,文献中缺乏对价格结束何时以及如何产生影响的全面评估。有三种机制可以解释价格结尾对消费者购买决策的影响:刚需价格(1)改善了价格感知,但(2)损害了产品质量感知,以及(3)导致消费者低估价格。一项预先登记的荟萃分析(k = 69 项研究,m = 362 个效应大小,N = 40,541 )证实,恰好低于(相对于圆形)的价格往往会增加购买决策(g = 0.13,CI95%[0.01, 0.25]),产生有利的价格形象(g = 0.28,CI95%[0.09, 0.48]),对感知产品质量没有影响(g = 0.00,CI95%[-0.17, 0.18],p = 0.96),并且更经常被低估(g = 0.67,CI95%[0.04, 1.30])。参与者、研究、价格和产品特征会影响这些效应的大小。总体而言,效应大小较小且具有高度异质性,P 曲线分析显示了很大一部分不显著的效应,而发表偏倚校正表明真实效应较小,有时甚至不显著。我们讨论了对定价文献的理论和应用影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Psychology is devoted to psychological perspectives on the study of the consumer. It publishes articles that contribute both theoretically and empirically to an understanding of psychological processes underlying consumers thoughts, feelings, decisions, and behaviors. Areas of emphasis include, but are not limited to, consumer judgment and decision processes, attitude formation and change, reactions to persuasive communications, affective experiences, consumer information processing, consumer-brand relationships, affective, cognitive, and motivational determinants of consumer behavior, family and group decision processes, and cultural and individual differences in consumer behavior.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Refining and expanding applications of Moral Foundations Theory in consumer psychology Message framing to enhance consumer compliance with disease detection communication for prevention: The moderating role of age AI‐induced dehumanization The model‐sizing dilemma: The use of varied female model sizes helps the impressions of brand values but hurts shopping ease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1