Rebates, Matches, and Consumer Behavior
AbstractAn experiment conducted to examine the effects of different discount formats on consumer purchases is reported. Participants made a series of purchase decisions for chocolate bars given (1) “rebates” from the listed price, (2) “matching” quantities of chocolates for each bar purchased, and (3) simple price reductions. Contrary to standard theoretical predictions, and consistent with results in the context of charitable contributions by Eckel and Grossman (2003), we find that participants purchase significantly more chocolate bars under a “matching” sales format than under a comparable “rebate” format. Inattention to the net consequences of decisions, as well as some “rebate aversion,” explain the preference for matching discounts.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Southern Economic Association in its journal Southern Economic Journal.
Volume (Year): 72 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Other versions of this item:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
- D46 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Value Theory
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Philippe Fevrier & Michael Visser, 2000.
"A Study of Consumer Behavior Using Laboratory Data,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers
1095, Econometric Society.
- Philippe FÃ©vrier & Michael Visser, 2004. "A Study of Consumer Behavior Using Laboratory Data," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 93-114, February.
- Andreoni,J. & Vesterlund,L., 1998.
"Which is the fair sex? : Gender differences in altruism,"
10, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
- James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which Is The Fair Sex? Gender Differences In Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312, February.
- Andreoni, James & Vesterlund, Lise, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," Staff General Research Papers 1951, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Douglas Davis & Edward Millner & Robert Reilly, 2005. "Subsidy Schemes and Charitable Contributions: A Closer Look," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 85-106, June.
- Glenn W. Harrison & Ronald M. Harstad & E. Elisabet Rutstr–m, 2004.
"Experimental Methods and Elicitation of Values,"
Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 123-140, 06.
- James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
- John Kagel & Raymond Battalio & Leonard Green, 1995. "Economic choice theory. an experimental analysis of animal behavior," Framed Field Experiments 00166, The Field Experiments Website.
- Elizabeth Hoffman & Dale J. Menkhaus & Dipankar Chakravarti & Ray A. Field & Glen D. Whipple, 1993. "Using Laboratory Experimental Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of New Packaging for Fresh Beef," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 318-338.
- Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
- Neslihan Uler, 2011. "Public goods provision, inequality and taxes," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 287-306, September.
- Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-44, Monash University, Department of Economics.
- Catherine Eckel, 2005.
"Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies,"
2098, The Field Experiments Website.
- Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2005. "Subsidizing charitable contributions: A field test comparing matching and rebate subsidies," Framed Field Experiments 00145, The Field Experiments Website.
- Kimberly Scharf & Sarah Smith, 2011.
"Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions,"
The Centre for Market and Public Organisation
11/269, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
- Scharf, Kim; Smith, Sarah, 2010. "Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 02, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
- Scharf, Kimberley Ann & Smith, Sarah L., 2010. "Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions," CEPR Discussion Papers 7760, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Axsen, Jonn & Mountain, Dean C. & Jaccard, Mark, 2009. "Combining stated and revealed choice research to simulate the neighbor effect: The case of hybrid-electric vehicles," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 221-238, August.
- Emmanuel Saez, 2009.
"Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-Up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving,"
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy,
American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 204-28, February.
- Saez, Emmanuel, 2007. "Details Matter: The Impact of Presentation and Information on the Take-up of Financial Incentives for Retirement Saving," CEPR Discussion Papers 6386, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Laura Razzolini).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.