IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v18y1999i2p178-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects

Author

Listed:
  • Kwangpil Chang

    (J.D. Power and Associates, 30401 Agoura Road, Agoura Hills, California 91301)

  • S. Siddarth

    (Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-1421)

  • Charles B. Weinberg

    (Faculty of Commerce, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2, Canada)

Abstract

The notion that individuals have an internal reference price against which they compare observed prices is well supported by several psychological theories. Empirically, several papers in the marketing literature, employing scanner panel data, have modeled the impact of reference prices on brand choice via the sticker shock formulation, in which consumers evaluate choice alternatives using differences between shelf prices and reference prices. Most of the studies reported thus far have not accounted for heterogeneity in price response among consumers and have typically imputed reference prices from the shelf prices of brands that a consumer is supposed to have “observed” on previous purchases in the category. Since category marketing activity can differentially affect the purchase timing of households, we argue that this measure of reference price may follow certain systematic patterns across consumers and, when combined with unaccounted for price response heterogeneity, may result in a spurious sticker shock effect. Specifically, we show that estimates of sticker shock are biased upward if households that are price-sensitive in the brand choice decision are also more responsive to category promotion activity in their purchase timing decision. We discuss some general conditions under which the bias occurs and conduct a simulation experiment to confirm our specific hypotheses. Our simulation results show that changes in purchase timing are a critical determinant of the bias in the sticker shock effect. We also show that unaccounted for price response heterogeneity can in itself result in a biased sticker shock parameter; however, this requires very large differences in price sensitivities across consumers, far greater than what is normally observed. We develop a hierarchical Bayes version of the nested logit model, which models heterogeneity via individual-level parameters in a continuous random effects framework. We estimate the model on scanner panel data from the yogurt and ketchup categories. We find, in both categories, that the 95% probability interval of the posterior distribution of the mean sticker shock coefficient contains the value zero. Therefore, at least for the data used in this study, there is no evidence for the sticker shock effect at the aggregate level. In contrast, the corresponding coefficient from a standard model (which ignores this heterogeneity) is highly significant and supports the existence of a (possibly spurious) sticker shock effect. Consistent with our explanation of the underlying cause of the bias, households that are more price-sensitive in the choice decision are also found to be more responsive to category promotion activity in their decision to purchase in the category. The results highlight the measurement problems associated with imputing reference prices from past prices. Since the frequency, duration, and price level of a retailer's promotional program depend on its size and prevalence, accurate estimates of the sticker shock effect are essential for formulating optimal promotion strategies. An adequate accounting of consumer heterogeneity is critical to this effort.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwangpil Chang & S. Siddarth & Charles B. Weinberg, 1999. "The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 178-192.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:178-192
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.18.2.178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.18.2.178
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.18.2.178?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    2. Rosen, Sherwin, 2007. "Studies in Labor Markets," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226726304, December.
    3. repec:ucp:bknber:9780226726281 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Dipak C. Jain & Naufel J. Vilcassim, 1991. "Investigating Household Purchase Timing Decisions: A Conditional Hazard Function Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 1-23.
    5. Mayhew, Glenn E & Winer, Russell S, 1992. "An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(1), pages 62-70, June.
    6. Neeraj Arora & Greg M. Allenby & James L. Ginter, 1998. "A Hierarchical Bayes Model of Primary and Secondary Demand," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 29-44.
    7. 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..
    8. Bell, David R & Bucklin, Randolph E, 1999. "The Role of Internal Reference Points in the Category Purchase Decision," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(2), pages 128-143, September.
    9. Briesch, Richard A, et al, 1997. "A Comparative Analysis of Reference Price Models," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 202-214, September.
    10. Bruce G. S. Hardie & Eric J. Johnson & Peter S. Fader, 1993. "Modeling Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence Effects on Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 378-394.
    11. Winer, Russell S, 1986. "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 250-256, September.
    12. Kristiaan Helsen & David C. Schmittlein, 1993. "Analyzing Duration Times in Marketing: Evidence for the Effectiveness of Hazard Rate Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 395-414.
    13. Eric A. Greenleaf, 1995. "The Impact of Reference Price Effects on the Profitability of Price Promotions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 82-104.
    14. Andrew Ainslie & Peter E. Rossi, 1998. "Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 91-106.
    15. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    16. James J. Heckman, 1981. "Heterogeneity and State Dependence," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 91-140, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1993. "Investigating Purchase Incidence, Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions of Households," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 184-208.
    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. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Kannan, P.K. & Boldt, Lin Bao & Arora, Neeraj, 2012. "The impact of household level heterogeneity in reference price effects on optimal retailer pricing policies," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 102-114.
    2. David R. Bell & James M. Lattin, 2000. "Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 185-200, May.
    3. Meloria Meschi & Carla Pace, 2012. "Accounting for Behavioral Biases for Non-biased Demand Estimations," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Paul R. Kleindorfer (ed.), Multi-Modal Competition and the Future of Mail, chapter 24, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Nobuhiko Terui & Wirawan Dony Dahana, 2006. "Research Note—Estimating Heterogeneous Price Thresholds," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 384-391, 07-08.
    5. van Oest, Rutger, 2013. "Why are Consumers Less Loss Averse in Internal than External Reference Prices?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 62-71.
    6. Moon, Sangkil & Voss, Glenn, 2009. "How do price range shoppers differ from reference price point shoppers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 31-38, January.
    7. Robert Slonim & Ellen Garbarino, 2009. "Similarities and differences between stockpiling and reference effects," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 351-371.
    8. Ahrens, Steffen & Pirschel, Inske & Snower, Dennis J., 2017. "A theory of price adjustment under loss aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 78-95.
    9. Dmitri Kuksov & Kangkang Wang, 2014. "The Bright Side of Loss Aversion in Dynamic and Competitive Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(5), pages 693-711, September.
    10. Greg M. Allenby & Thomas S. Shively & Sha Yang & Mark J. Garratt, 2004. "A Choice Model for Packaged Goods: Dealing with Discrete Quantities and Quantity Discounts," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 95-108, June.
    11. Jaikumar, Saravana & Sahay, Arvind, 2016. "Effect of Overlapping Price Ranges on Price Perception: Revisiting the Range Theory of Price Perception," IIMA Working Papers WP2016-02-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    12. Nicolau, Juan L., 2011. "Differentiated price loss aversion in destination choice: The effect of tourists’ cultural interest," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 1186-1195.
    13. Vincenzina Caputo & Jayson L Lusk & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Am I Getting a Good Deal? Reference‐DependentDecision Making When the Reference Price Is Uncertain," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 132-153, January.
    14. Prakash, David & Spann, Martin, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and reference price effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 300-314.
    15. Neumann, Nico & Böckenholt, Ulf, 2014. "A Meta-analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 182-197.
    16. Lillian L. Cheng & Kent B. Monroe, 2013. "An appraisal of behavioral price research (part 1): price as a physical stimulus," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(3), pages 103-129, September.
    17. Zhang, Qin & Seetharaman, P.B. & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, 2012. "The Indirect Impact of Price Deals on Households’ Purchase Decisions Through the Formation of Expected Future Prices," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 88-101.
    18. Ying Zhu & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2017. "A tale of two brands: The joint effect of manufacturer and retailer brands on consumers’ product evaluation," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(3), pages 284-306, May.
    19. Preeti Narwal & J. K. Nayak, 2020. "Investigating relative impact of reference prices on customers’ price evaluation in absence of posted prices: a case of Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW) pricing," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 19(4), pages 234-247, August.
    20. Yuval Arbel & Danny Ben-Shahar & Stuart Gabriel, 2016. "Are The Disabled Less Loss Averse? Evidence From A Natural Policy Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1291-1318, April.

    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:inm:ormksc:v:18:y:1999:i:2:p:178-192. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.