IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ijrema/v32y2015i4p457-460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Free indulgences: Enhanced zero-price effect for hedonic options

Author

Listed:
  • Hossain, Mehdi T.
  • Saini, Ritesh

Abstract

We find that the relative preference of hedonic products is disproportionately enhanced when they are offered at a free price. This “free price bounce” is more subdued for utilitarian products. This is surprising because rational choice theory posits that relative preference amidst two options – say a hedonic and a utilitarian product – remains intact as long as the price difference between them is constant. We propose and demonstrate that this axiom is violated when a hedonic product is offered for free.

Suggested Citation

  • Hossain, Mehdi T. & Saini, Ritesh, 2015. "Free indulgences: Enhanced zero-price effect for hedonic options," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 457-460.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ijrema:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:457-460
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811615001172
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.10.001?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. Sucharita Chandran & Vicki G. Morwitz, 2006. "The Price of "Free"-dom: Consumer Sensitivity to Promotions with Negative Contextual Influences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 384-392, October.
    2. Simona Botti & Ann L. McGill, 2011. "The Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(6), pages 1065-1078.
    3. 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..
    4. Kristina Shampanier & Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2007. "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 742-757, 11-12.
    5. Pham, Michel Tuan, 1998. "Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 144-159, September.
    6. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toshiaki Iizuka & Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2018. "Free for Children? Patient Cost-sharing and Healthcare Utilization," NBER Working Papers 25306, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Erik Schut, 2017. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," CPB Discussion Paper 366.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    3. Alnawas, Ibrahim & Al Khateeb, Amr & El Hedhli, Kamel, 2023. "The effects of app-related factors on app stickiness: The role of cognitive and emotional app relationship quality," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Frederik T. Schut, 2017. "Premium Levels and Demand Response in Health Insurance: Relative Thinking and Zero-Price Effects," NBER Working Papers 23846, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Erik Schut, 2017. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," CPB Discussion Paper 366, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    6. Douven, Rudy & van der Heijden, Ron & McGuire, Thomas & Schut, Frederik, 2020. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 903-923.
    7. Xiaomeng Fan & Fengyan Cindy Cai & Galen V. Bodenhausen, 2022. "The boomerang effect of zero pricing: when and why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 521-537, May.

    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. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.
    2. Nina Mazar & Kristina Shampanier & Dan Ariely, 2017. "When Retailing and Las Vegas Meet: Probabilistic Free Price Promotions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 250-266, January.
    3. Elspeth Kirkman, 2019. "Free riding or discounted riding? How the framing of a bike share offer impacts offer-redemption," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    4. Koo, Jieun & Suk, Kwanho, 2020. "Is $0 Better than Free? Consumer Response to “$0” versus “Free” Framing of a Free Promotion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 383-396.
    5. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Driouchi, Ahmed & Chetioui, Youssef & Baddou, Meryem, 2011. "How zero price affects demand?: experimental evidence from the Moroccan telecommunication market," MPRA Paper 32352, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Jul 2011.
    8. Rudy Douven & Ron van der Heijden & Thomas McGuire & Erik Schut, 2017. "Premium levels and demand response in health insurance: relative thinking and zero-price effects," CPB Discussion Paper 366, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    9. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    10. Gordon-Hecker, Tom & Pittarello, Andrea & Shalvi, Shaul & Roskes, Marieke, 2020. "Buy-one-get-one-free deals attract more attention than percentage deals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 128-134.
    11. Białaszek Wojciech & Ostaszewski Franciszek & Zielonka Piotr, 2018. "A Discrepancy Between “What Should You Choose?” and “What Do You Choose?” in Intertemporal and Risky Decision-Making," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 26(4), pages 2-10, December.
    12. Andrea Stevenson Thorpe & Stephen Roper, 2019. "The Ethics of Gamification in a Marketing Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 597-609, March.
    13. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    14. Donald R. Lehmann & Jeffrey R. Parker, 2017. "Disadoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(1), pages 36-51, June.
    15. Johannes Voester & Bjoern Ivens & Alexander Leischnig, 2017. "Partitioned pricing: review of the literature and directions for further research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 879-931, October.
    16. Brice Corgnet & Camille Cornand & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2021. "Emotional Markets: Competitive Arousal, Overbidding and Bubbles," Working Papers 2117, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    17. 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.
    18. Mandler, Timo & Won, Sungbin & Kim, Kyungae, 2017. "Consumers' cognitive and affective responses to brand origin misclassifications: Does confidence in brand origin identification matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 197-209.
    19. Nicole Koschate-Fischer & Katharina Wüllner, 2017. "New developments in behavioral pricing research," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(6), pages 809-875, August.
    20. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.

    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:eee:ijrema:v:32:y:2015:i:4:p:457-460. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-research-in-marketing/ .

    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.