Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Across three laboratory studies, a biometric eye tracking and facial recognition experiment, and a secondary data analysis, we reveal the unique interaction of consumer numeracy and numerical processing fluency as a significant determinant of consumer response to 99-ending prices. We argue that less numerate individuals create mental analog representations around 99-ending prices' left digits, whereas highly numerate individuals encode 99-ending prices as their one-cent neighbor, with consumers responding more favorably to prices when they mentally encode them around a fluent number. Specifically, highly numerate individuals respond more favorably when 99-ending prices (e.g., 17.99) border a fluent number (i.e., 18). Conversely, less numerate individuals respond more favorably when 99-ending prices (e.g., 16.99) contain fluent left digits (i.e., 16). We provide empirical evidence for the effects of this processing difference on liking, purchase intentions, and actual sales. We also obtain evidence for the underlying process using eye tracking and facial recognition that reveals that highly (vs. less) numerate individuals exhibit less anxiety when processing multi-digit prices, and consequently fixate sooner, more frequently, and for longer durations on the right digits of a price. The findings contribute significantly to the price processing literature and yield substantial managerial implications.

Abstract
According to the dual entitlement principle, consumers find it fair for firms to price asymmetrically to cost changes—that is, for firms to increase prices when costs increase but maintain prices when costs decrease. However, a meta-analysis reveals asymmetric pricing is less prevalent in collectivistic (vs. individualistic) countries (study 1). We propose a fairness-based explanation, demonstrating that interdependent consumers in collectivistic cultures perceive asymmetric pricing to be less fair than do independent consumers in individualistic cultures (studies 2, 4, and 5). We attribute this cultural variation to culture-specific relationship norms. Specifically, we argue that while the practice of asymmetric pricing is consistent with the exchange norms among independent consumers that emphasize self-interest pursuit, it is inconsistent with the communal norms among interdependent consumers mandating firm benevolence. Supporting this argument, we find that (a) directly manipulating communal (vs. exchange) norms yields similar differences in fairness perceptions that mimic those due to culture (study 3), (b) the cultural differences are mediated by the communal mandate for firm benevolence (study 4), and (c) the cultural differences are mitigated when a firm frames asymmetric pricing as benevolent (study 5). We conclude by discussing the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.