IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorapm/v20y2021i4d10.1057_s41272-020-00270-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual differences in the susceptibility of biases relevant in price management: a state-of-the-art article

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Bergers

    (WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management, Chair of Strategy and Marketing)

Abstract

The focus of this paper is to link two subjects that at first glance seem to have only little in common: decision-making in price management and cross-context individual differences in the susceptibility to biases. Individual differences have largely been ignored in research so far. It is striking that clear lines of research are difficult to identify, whereby these missing connections make future research much more difficult. In order to counteract this, we provide a comprehensive review of the literature on individual differences through cognitive biases focussing on five biases that can be presumed as relevant for the price management process.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Bergers, 2021. "Individual differences in the susceptibility of biases relevant in price management: a state-of-the-art article," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(4), pages 497-528, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorapm:v:20:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1057_s41272-020-00270-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41272-020-00270-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41272-020-00270-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41272-020-00270-2?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. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Eroglu, Cuneyt & Croxton, Keely L., 2010. "Biases in judgmental adjustments of statistical forecasts: The role of individual differences," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 116-133, January.
    3. Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, February.
    4. Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, April.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:6:p:558-571 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ratner, Rebecca K. & Herbst, Kenneth C., 2005. "When good decisions have bad outcomes: The impact of affect on switching behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 23-37, January.
    7. Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Sutter, Matthias & Zeileis, Achim, 2015. "No myopic loss aversion in adolescents? – An experimental note," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 169-176.
    8. Palich, Leslie E. & Ray Bagby, D., 1995. "Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 425-438, November.
    9. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    10. Peter M. Noble & Thomas S. Gruca, 1999. "Industrial Pricing: Theory and Managerial Practice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 435-454.
    11. Oechssler, Jörg & Roider, Andreas & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2009. "Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 147-152, October.
    12. Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 128-132, November.
    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. Leone, Robert P. & Robinson, Larry M. & Bragge, Johanna & Somervuori, Outi, 2012. "A citation and profiling analysis of pricing research from 1980 to 2010," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(7), pages 1010-1024.
    15. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    17. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    18. Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei & Hens, Thorsten, 2011. "Prospect Theory around the World," Discussion Papers 2011/19, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    19. Harbaugh, William T. & Krause, Kate & Vesterlund, Lise, 2001. "Are adults better behaved than children? Age, experience, and the endowment effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 175-181, February.
    20. Burmeister, Katrin & Schade, Christian, 2007. "Are entrepreneurs' decisions more biased? An experimental investigation of the susceptibility to status quo bias," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 340-362, May.
    21. Razzolini, Tiziano & Leombruni, Roberto & Mastrobuoni, Giovanni & Pagliero, Mario, 2014. "Beneath the surface: The decline in gender injury gap," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 282-288.
    22. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Katrine Hjorth & Mogens Fosgerau, 2011. "Loss Aversion and Individual Characteristics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 573-596, August.
    24. Musteen, Martina & Barker III, Vincent L. & Baeten, Virginia L., 2006. "CEO attributes associated with attitude toward change: The direct and moderating effects of CEO tenure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(5), pages 604-612, May.
    25. Sara Loughran Dommer & Vanitha Swaminathan, 2013. "Explaining the Endowment Effect through Ownership: The Role of Identity, Gender, and Self-Threat," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(5), pages 1034-1050.
    26. Nyhus, Ellen K. & Pons, Empar, 2005. "The effects of personality on earnings," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 363-384, June.
    27. R. L. Hall & C. J. Hitch, 1939. "Price Theory And Business Behaviour," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 0(1), pages 12-45.
    28. Didem Kurt & J. Jeffrey Inman, 2013. "Mispredicting Others' Valuations: Self-Other Difference in the Context of Endowment," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 78-89.
    29. repec:wly:soecon:v:81:4:y:2015:p:980-994 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. Harbaugh, William & Krause, Catherine & Vesterlund, Lise, 2001. "Are Children Better Behaved Than Adults? Age, Experience and the Endowment Effect," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1950, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    31. Fu, Qiang & Li, Ming, 2014. "Reputation-concerned policy makers and institutional status quo bias," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-25.
    32. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    33. Nigel Nicholson & Emma Soane & Mark Fenton-O'Creevy & Paul Willman, 2005. "Personality and domain-specific risk taking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 157-176, March.
    34. Amira Galin, 2013. "Endowment Effect in negotiations: group versus individual decision-making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 389-401, September.
    35. Jefferson, Therese & Taplin, Ross, 2011. "An investigation of the endowment effect using a factorial design," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 899-907.
    36. Peter M. Noble & Thomas S. Gruca, 1999. "Response to the Comments on “Industrial Pricing: Theory and Managerial Practice”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 458-459.
    37. Lu, Jingyi & Xie, Xiaofei, 2014. "To change or not to change: A matter of decision maker’s role," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 47-55.
    38. Busenitz, Lowell W. & Barney, Jay B., 1997. "Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 9-30, January.
    39. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    40. Rau, Holger A., 2014. "The disposition effect and loss aversion: Do gender differences matter?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 33-36.
    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. Bergers, Dominic, 2022. "The status quo bias and its individual differences from a price management perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. Laura Hueber & Rene Schwaiger, 2021. "Debiasing Through Experience Sampling: The Case of Myopic Loss Aversion," Working Papers 2021-01, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    3. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.
    4. Hueber, Laura & Schwaiger, Rene, 2022. "Debiasing through experience sampling: The case of myopic loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 87-138.
    5. Gächter, Simon & Johnson, Eric J. & Herrmann, Andreas, 2007. "Individual-Level Loss Aversion in Riskless and Risky Choices," IZA Discussion Papers 2961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    7. Daniel Villanova, 2019. "The extended self, product valuation, and the endowment effect," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(3), pages 357-371, December.
    8. Stephen X. Zhang & Javier Cueto, 2017. "The Study of Bias in Entrepreneurship," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 41(3), pages 419-454, May.
    9. Oliver Thomas, 2018. "Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: What do we know and where do we go from here?," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 107-143, April.
    10. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    12. Eriksen, Kristoffer W. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "Myopic risk-taking in tournaments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 37-46.
    13. Kathryn Graddy & Lara Loewenstein & Jianping Mei & Mike Moses & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2023. "Empirical evidence of anchoring and loss aversion from art auctions," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(2), pages 279-301, June.
    14. Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2009. "Previous outcomes and reference dependence: A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback," MPRA Paper 16096, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:617-629 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.
    17. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Alexopoulos, Theodore & Šimleša, Milija & Francis, Mélanie, 2015. "Good self, bad self: Initial success and failure moderate the endowment effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 32-40.
    19. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie Santos, 2005. "The Evolution of Our Preferences: Evidence from Capuchin-Monkey Trading Behavior," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1524, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    20. Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly & Richard Batley, 2018. "Revisiting consistency with random utility maximisation: theory and implications for practical work," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 181-204, March.
    21. Mark J Hurlstone & Stephan Lewandowsky & Ben R Newell & Brittany Sewell, 2014. "The Effect of Framing and Normative Messages in Building Support for Climate Policies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.

    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:pal:jorapm:v:20:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1057_s41272-020-00270-2. 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://www.palgrave.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.