IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v119y2025ics2214804325000801.html

Effects of zero price and reciprocity on online consumer reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Xian.

Abstract

Online consumer reviews are important for businesses because they potentially influence product sales and profits. This study examines the zero price effect on online consumer reviews and reciprocity as the mechanism through which such an effect operates. By conducting a lab experiment, I observed review behaviour of subjects who received coffee for free or for 1 cent and measured their degree of reciprocity using a Trust Game. Although zero pricing did not significantly change review participation, ratings and emotions, subjects under the zero price treatment wrote longer reviews, therein possibly expressing their greater appreciation. No significant differences in review behaviour were found between high and low reciprocal subjects. Model estimations further show that the zero price effect is significantly negative on the rating of overall performance for those with low reciprocity, but higher reciprocity can mitigate this effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Xian., 2025. "Effects of zero price and reciprocity on online consumer reviews," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325000801
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2025.102416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000801
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2025.102416?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jose Grisolia & K. G. Willis, 2011. "An evening at the theatre: using choice experiments to model preferences for theatres and theatrical productions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(27), pages 3987-3998.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Manzoni, Elena & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2019. "Belief-dependent preferences and reputation: Experimental analysis of a repeated trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 341-360.
    4. Lafky, Jonathan, 2014. "Why do people rate? Theory and evidence on online ratings," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 554-570.
    5. Di Li & Hu Wang, 2022. "Effects of retailers' free shipping promotions on manufacturers' product sales and product review ratings in multichannel retailing," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1912-1925, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    8. Zhijie Lin & Ying Zhang & Yong Tan, 2019. "An Empirical Study of Free Product Sampling and Rating Bias," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 260-275, March.
    9. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2000. "Hot vs. Cold: Sequential Responses and Preference Stability in Experimental Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(3), pages 227-238, March.
    10. Shuchita Bakshi & Nikita Dogra & Anil Gupta, 2019. "What motivates posting online travel reviews? Integrating gratifications with technological acceptance factors," Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, vol. 25(2), pages 335-354, December.
    11. Baumbach, Elisa, 2016. "The zero-price effect in a multicomponent product context," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 689-694.
    12. Chrysanthos Dellarocas & Charles A. Wood, 2008. "The Sound of Silence in Online Feedback: Estimating Trading Risks in the Presence of Reporting Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(3), pages 460-476, March.
    13. Imke Reimers & Joel Waldfogel, 2021. "Digitization and Pre-purchase Information: The Causal and Welfare Impacts of Reviews and Crowd Ratings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1944-1971, June.
    14. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    15. Ji Wu & Haichuan Zhao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2021. "Coupons or Free Shipping? Effects of Price Promotion Strategies on Online Review Ratings," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 633-652, June.
    16. John Ermisch & Diego Gambetta & Heather Laurie & Thomas Siedler & S. C. Noah Uhrig, 2009. "Measuring people's trust," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(4), pages 749-769, October.
    17. Nuno Antonio & Ana Almeida & Luis Nunes & Fernando Batista & Ricardo Ribeiro, 2018. "Hotel online reviews: different languages, different opinions," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 157-185, April.
    18. Xue Bai & James R. Marsden & William T. Ross & Gang Wang, 2020. "A Note on the Impact of Daily Deals on Local Retailers’ Online Reputation: Mediation Effects of the Consumer Experience," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1132-1143, December.
    19. Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser & John Swanson & Kate Lockwood, 2006. "The value of reputation on eBay: A controlled experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 79-101, June.
    20. Andrey Fradkin & Elena Grewal & David Holtz, 2021. "Reciprocity and Unveiling in Two-Sided Reputation Systems: Evidence from an Experiment on Airbnb," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1013-1029, November.
    21. 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.
    22. Füllbrunn, Sascha & Vyrastekova, Jana, 2023. "Does trust break even? A trust-game experiment with negative endowments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    23. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    24. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    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. Gary E. Bolton & David J. Kusterer & Johannes Mans, 2019. "Inflated Reputations: Uncertainty, Leniency, and Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5371-5391, November.
    2. Woods, Daniel & Servátka, Maroš, 2016. "Testing psychological forward induction and the updating of beliefs in the lost wallet game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 116-125.
    3. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia & Müller, Stephan, 2021. "The evolution of morals under indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 251-277.
    4. Britta Hoyer & Dirk van Straaten, 2021. "Anonymity and Self-Expression in Online Rating Systems - An Experimental Analysis," Working Papers Dissertations 70, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    5. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    6. Agnès Festré, 2019. "On the Nature of Fair Behaviour: Further Evidence," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 193-207, December.
    7. Maroš Servátka & Daniel Woods, 2015. "Testing Psychological Forward Induction in the Lost Wallet Game," Working Papers in Economics 15/09, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    8. Halliday, Simon D. & Lafky, Jonathan, 2019. "Reciprocity through ratings: An experimental study of bias in evaluations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Schwerter, Frederik & Zimmermann, Florian, 2020. "Determinants of trust: The role of personal experiences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 413-425.
    10. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2016. "Second and third party punishment under costly monitoring," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-133.
    11. Roman Hoffmann & Bernhard Kittel & Mattias Larsen, 2021. "Information exchange in laboratory markets: competition, transfer costs, and the emergence of reputation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 118-142, March.
    12. Kocher, Martin G. & Martinsson, Peter & Matzat, Dominik & Wollbrant, Conny, 2015. "The role of beliefs, trust, and risk in contributions to a public good," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 236-244.
    13. Miettinen, Topi & Kosfeld, Michael & Fehr, Ernst & Weibull, Jörgen, 2020. "Revealed preferences in a sequential prisoners’ dilemma: A horse-race between six utility functions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 1-25.
    14. Bellemare, Charles & Sebald, Alexander & Suetens, Sigrid, 2017. "A note on testing guilt aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 233-239.
    15. Kusterer, David & Bolton, Gary & Mans, Johannes, 2016. "Inflated Reputations Uncertainty, Leniency & Moral Wiggle Room in Trader Feedback Systems," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145794, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Mittlaender, Sergio, 2025. "Conflict and property law: The hidden costs of takings and of liability rule protection," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Hoyer, B. & van Straaten, D., 2022. "Anonymity and self-expression in online rating systems—An experimental analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    18. Greiner, Ben, 2023. "Strategic uncertainty aversion in bargaining — Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    19. Jürgen Fleiß, 2015. "Merit norms in the ultimatum game: an experimental study of the effect of merit on individual behavior and aggregate outcomes," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 389-406, June.
    20. Pocchiari, Martina & Proserpio, Davide & Dover, Yaniv, 2025. "Online reviews: A literature review and roadmap for future research," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 275-297.

    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:eee:soceco:v:119:y:2025:i:c:s2214804325000801. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.