IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jincot/v17y2017i3d10.1007_s10842-016-0238-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nothing so Certain as your Anchors? A Consumer Bias that may Lower Prices and Prevent Cartels

Author

Listed:
  • Barna Bakó

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

  • András Kálecz-Simon

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate the effect of reference prices on oligopolistic firms’ behavior. Specifically, we analyze pricing strategies and equilibrium outcomes when differentiated firms compete in Bertrand fashion and reference prices act as anchors. We show that anchoring may lower the prices charged in the long run. Furthermore, we claim that the existence of anchoring makes collusion less stable. This might have implications on the optimal allocation of regulatory resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Barna Bakó & András Kálecz-Simon, 2017. "Nothing so Certain as your Anchors? A Consumer Bias that may Lower Prices and Prevent Cartels," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 273-282, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10842-016-0238-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10842-016-0238-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10842-016-0238-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10842-016-0238-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Georg Kirchsteiger & Arno Riedl, 1993. "Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 108(2), pages 437-459.
    2. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    3. Paul Heidhues & Botond Kőszegi & Takeshi Murooka, 2017. "Inferior Products and Profitable Deception," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 323-356.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. Chandrashekaran, Rajesh & Grewal, Dhruv, 2006. "Anchoring effects of advertised reference price and sale price: The moderating role of saving presentation format," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1063-1071, October.
    6. Kelly L. Haws & William O. Bearden, 2006. "Dynamic Pricing and Consumer Fairness Perceptions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 304-311, October.
    7. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    8. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2009. "Imitators and optimizers in Cournot oligopoly," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(12), pages 1981-1990, December.
    9. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium: I. Observable Actions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 191-219, October.
    10. Urbany, Joel E & Bearden, William O & Weilbaker, Dan C, 1988. "The Effect of Plausible and Exaggerated Reference Prices on Consumer Perceptions and Price Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(1), pages 95-110, June.
    11. Javad Nasiry & Ioana Popescu, 2011. "Dynamic Pricing with Loss-Averse Consumers and Peak-End Anchoring," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1361-1368, December.
    12. repec:oup:restud:v:84:y::i:1:p:323-356. is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    14. Thijs Jansen & Arie van Lier & Arjen van Witteloostuijn, 2009. "On the impact of managerial bonus systems on firm profit and market competition: the cases of pure profit, sales, market share and relative profits compared," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 141-153.
    15. Bolton, Lisa E & Warlop, Luk & Alba, Joseph W, 2003. "Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(4), pages 474-491, March.
    16. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    17. Uri Simonsohn & George Loewenstein, 2006. "Mistake #37: The Effect of Previously Encountered Prices on Current Housing Demand," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(508), pages 175-199, January.
    18. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & Russell S. Winer, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 161-169.
    19. Wenzel, Tobias, 2014. "Consumer myopia, competition and the incentives to unshroud add-on information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 89-96.
    20. Rajiv Lal & Ram Rao, 1997. "Supermarket Competition: The Case of Every Day Low Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(1), pages 60-80.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richards, Timothy J. & Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A., 2016. "Personalized pricing and price fairness," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 138-153.
    2. Richards, Timothy & Liaukonyte, Jura & Nadia, Streletskya, 2016. "Personalized Pricing and Price Fairness," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235809, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Colombo, Luca & Labrecciosa, Paola, 2021. "Dynamic oligopoly pricing with reference-price effects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 1006-1016.
    4. Rabbanee, Fazlul K. & Roy, Rajat & Sharma, Piyush, 2022. "Contextual differences in the moderating effects of price consciousness and social desirability in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) pricing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 13-25.
    5. Viglia, Giampaolo & Abrate, Graziano, 2014. "How social comparison influences reference price formation in a service context," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 168-180.
    6. Azar, Ofer H., 2014. "Optimal strategy of multi-product retailers with relative thinking and reference prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 130-140.
    7. Dmitri Kuksov & Kangkang Wang, 2014. "The Bright Side of Loss Aversion in Dynamic and Competitive Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 693-711, September.
    8. Chu, Hsunchi & Liao, Shuling, 2010. "Buying while expecting to sell: The economic psychology of online resale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1073-1078, September.
    9. Sojin Jung & Hyeon Jeong Cho & Byoungho Ellie Jin, 2020. "Does effective cost transparency increase price fairness? An analysis of apparel brand strategies," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(5), pages 495-507, September.
    10. Fabrizi, Simona & Lippert, Steffen & Puppe, Clemens & Rosenkranz, Stephanie, 2016. "Manufacturer suggested retail prices, loss aversion and competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 141-153.
    11. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Winer, Russell S., 2022. "Behavioral response to price: Data-based insights and future research for retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 46-70.
    12. Sojin Jung & Hyeon Jeong Cho & Byoungho Ellie Jin, 0. "Does effective cost transparency increase price fairness? An analysis of apparel brand strategies," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    13. Zhenyu Hu & Javad Nasiry, 2018. "Are Markets with Loss-Averse Consumers More Sensitive to Losses?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1384-1395, March.
    14. Kim, Jungkeun, 2019. "The impact of different price promotions on customer retention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 95-102.
    15. Selcuk, Cemil & Gokpinar, Bilal, 2017. "Fixed vs. Flexible Pricing in a Competitive Market," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2017/9, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    16. Priya Jha-Dang, 2006. "A Review of Psychological Research on Consumer Promotions and a New Perspective Based on Mental Accounting," Vision, , vol. 10(3), pages 35-43, July.
    17. Luiz Antonio Slongo & Carlos Sérgio Valdez Saldanha & Syed H. Akhter, 2014. "Low-Income Consumers in Brazil: Nuances of a Market That Can No Longer Be Ignored," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 4(10), pages 485-505.
    18. Yasuhiko Nakamura, 2015. "Endogenous Choice of Strategic Variables in an Asymmetric Duopoly with Respect to the Demand Functions that Firms Face," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(5), pages 546-567, September.
    19. Fanti, Luciano & Gori, Luca & Mammana, Cristiana & Michetti, Elisabetta, 2014. "Local and global dynamics in a duopoly with price competition and market share delegation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 253-270.
    20. Cellini, Roberto & Lambertini, Luca & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P., 2020. "Strategic inattention, delegation and endogenous market structure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Reference price; Anchoring; Consumer bias; Bertrand competition; Collusion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s10842-016-0238-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.