IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/beh/jbepv1/v8y2024is1p30-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological Effects of Communicating Temporal Best Prices

Author

Listed:
  • Ruud Lathouwers

    (Department of Social Psychology, and Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research (TIBER), Tilburg University)

  • Christoph Kogler

    (Department of Social Psychology, and Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research (TIBER), Tilburg University)

  • Marcel Zeelenberg

    (Department of Social Psychology, and Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research (TIBER), Tilburg University
    Department of Marketing, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Abstract

When products or services are on discount, it is not always clear to consumers for what price these were sold before. To protect consumers, the European Union’s Omnibus Directive called for more transparency in discounts. In reaction to this, some companies started communicating what we call Temporal Best Prices (TBPs). TBPs indicate what the lowest price was in the last 30 days before the current discounted price. We manipulated whether the TBP was absent (control condition), lower than, equal to, or higher than the current discount for two products. When participants missed out on a better deal (TBPs were lower than the current discount), willingness to buy and perceptions of fairness were lower. Contrary to our expectations, when participants got a particularly good deal the willingness to buy and perceptions of fairness were unaffected. Perceptions of transparency were not affected by the manipulation of TBPs. In conclusion, historical price information in the form of TBPs seems to asymmetrically affect purchase intentions and fairness perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruud Lathouwers & Christoph Kogler & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2024. "Psychological Effects of Communicating Temporal Best Prices," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 8(S1), pages 30-32, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:beh:jbepv1:v:8:y:2024:i:s1:p:30-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://sabeconomics.org/journal/RePEc/beh/JBEPv1/articles/JBEP-8-S1-2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Butler, Adam & Highhouse, Scott, 2000. "Deciding to sell: The effect of prior inaction and offer source," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 223-232, June.
    2. Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Chou, Hsuan-Yi, 2018. "Promotional formats and inaction inertia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 22-32.
    3. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    4. van Putten, Marijke & Zeelenberg, Marcel & van Dijk, Eric, 2013. "How consumers deal with missed discounts: Transaction decoupling, action orientation and inaction inertia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 104-110.
    5. Hanna, Richard C. & Lemon, Katherine N. & Smith, Gerald E., 2019. "Is transparency a good thing? How online price transparency and variability can benefit firms and influence consumer decision making," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 227-236.
    6. Lu, Jingyi & Jia, Huiyuan & Xie, Xiaofei & Wang, Qiuhong, 2016. "Missing the best opportunity; who can seize the next one? Agents show less inaction inertia than personal decision makers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 100-112.
    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. Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Chou, Hsuan-Yi, 2018. "Promotional formats and inaction inertia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 22-32.
    2. Ruth Pogacar & Neil Brigden & Emily Plant & Frank R Kardes & James Kellaris, 2023. "The reference dependence roots of inaction inertia: A query theory account," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-12, March.
    3. Lu, Jingyi & Jia, Huiyuan & Xie, Xiaofei & Wang, Qiuhong, 2016. "Missing the best opportunity; who can seize the next one? Agents show less inaction inertia than personal decision makers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 100-112.
    4. repec:osf:osfxxx:fqmdu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev & Davide Marchiori, 2014. "Cross Cultural Differences in Decisions from Experience: Evidence from Denmark, Israel and Taiwain," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-16, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Hind Dib‐slamani & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2021. "Is theft considered less severe when the victim is a foreign company?," Post-Print hal-03340844, HAL.
    7. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    8. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    9. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    10. Plante, Charles & Lassoued, Rim & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2017. "The Social Determinants of Cognitive Bias: The Effects of Low Capability on Decision Making in a Framing Experiment," SocArXiv u62cx, Center for Open Science.
    11. Vaida Kaduskeviciute & Sigitas Urbonavicius, 2019. "Webrooming: A Way of Dealing with Uncertainties in Purchasing," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 31(2), pages 139-152.
    12. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    13. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    14. repec:osf:socarx:n49hv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    16. Jenny C Su & Chi-Yue Chiu & Wei-Fang Lin & Shigehiro Oishi, 2016. "Social Monitoring Matters for Deterring Social Deviance in Stable but Not Mobile Socio-Ecological Contexts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-13, November.
    17. repec:osf:osfxxx:nb7tg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Goran Calic & Moren Lévesque & Anton Shevchenko, 2024. "On why women-owned businesses take more time to secure microloans," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 917-938, October.
    19. Sirola, Nina, 2023. "Going beyond the call of duty under conditions of economic threat: Integrating life history and temporal dilemma perspectives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    20. Joshua Conrad Jackson & Marieke van Egmond & Virginia K Choi & Carol R Ember & Jamin Halberstadt & Jovana Balanovic & Inger N Basker & Klaus Boehnke & Noemi Buki & Ronald Fischer & Marta Fulop & Ashle, 2019. "Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, September.
    21. Cameron Harwick, 2023. "Money’s mutation of the modern moral mind: The Simmel hypothesis and the cultural evolution of WEIRDness," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 1571-1592, November.
    22. Holli-Anne Passmore & Ying Yang & Sarena Sabine, 2022. "An Extended Replication Study of the Well-Being Intervention, the Noticing Nature Intervention (NNI)," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 2663-2683, August.
    23. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:beh:jbepv1:v:8:y:2024:i:s1:p:30-32. 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: SABE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sabeeea.html .

    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.