IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v19y2000i2p185-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • David R. Bell

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • James M. Lattin

    (Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California 94305)

Abstract

Recent work in marketing has drawn on behavioral decision theory to advance the notion that consumers evaluate attributes (and therefore choice alternatives) not only in absolute terms, but as from a reference point. The theory has important substantive and practical implications for the timing and execution of price promotions and other marketing activities. Choice modelers using scanner panel data have tested for the presence of these “reference effects” in consumer response to an attribute such as price. In applications of the theory of reference-dependent choice (Tversky and Kahneman 1991), some modelers report empirical evidence of loss aversion: When a consumer encounters a price above his or her established reference point (a “loss”), the response is greater than for a price below the reference point (a “gain”). Researchers have gone so far as to suggest that evidence for the so-called reference effect make it an empirical generalization in marketing (e.g., Kalyanaram and Winer 1995, Meyer and Johnson 1995). It is our contention that the measurement of loss aversion in empirical applications of the reference-dependent choice model is confounded by the presence of unaccounted-for heterogeneity in consumer price responsiveness. Our reasoning is that the kinked price response curve implied by loss aversion is confounded with the slopes of the response curves across segments that are differentially responsive to price. A more price-responsive consumer (with a steeper response function) tends to have a lower price level as a reference point. This consumer faces a larger proportion of prices above his reference point, thus the response curve is steeperin the domain of losses. Similarly, the less price-responsive consumer sees a greater proportion of prices below his reference point, so the response curve is less steep within the domain of gains. As a result, any cross-sectional estimate of loss aversion that does not take this into account will be biased upward—researchers who do not control for heterogeneity in price responsiveness may arrive at incorrect substantive conclusions about the phenomenon. It is interesting to note that in this instance, failure to control for heterogeneity induces a bias in of finding an effect, rather than the more typical case of attenuation of the effect toward zero. We first test our assertion regarding the referencedependent model using scanner panel data on refrigerated orange juice and subsequently extend this analysis to 11 additional product categories. In all cases we find, as predicted, that accounting for price-response heterogeneity leads to lower and frequently nonsignificant estimates of loss aversion. We do, however, find some categories in which the effect does not disappear altogether. We also estimate loss aversion using a “sticker shock” model of brand choice in which the reference prices are . In line with the results of the majority of prior literature, we find smaller and insignificant estimates of loss aversion in this model. We show that this is because in the sticker shock model, there is no apparent correlation between the price responsiveness of the consumer and the representation of reference effects as losses or gains. Our findings strongly suggest that loss aversion may not in fact be a universal phenomenon, at least in the context of frequently purchased grocery products.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:19:y:2000:i:2:p:185-200
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.19.2.185.11802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.2.185.11802
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.19.2.185.11802?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 M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. Peter S. Fader & James M. Lattin & John D. C. Little, 1992. "Estimating Nonlinear Parameters in the Multinomial Logit Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 372-385.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    7. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    8. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & Russell S. Winer, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 161-169.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert Meyer & Eric J. Johnson, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations in the Modeling of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 180-189.
    12. David R. Bell & Jeongwen Chiang & V. Padmanabhan, 1999. "The Decomposition of Promotional Response: An Empirical Generalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 504-526.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Mazumdar, Tridib & Raj, S P, 1992. "Asymmetric Response to Price in Consumer Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(3), pages 387-400, December.
    16. Andrew Ainslie & Peter E. Rossi, 1998. "Similarities in Choice Behavior Across Product Categories," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 91-106.
    17. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Little, John D C, 1994. "An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 408-418, December.
    18. Daniel S. Putler, 1992. "Incorporating Reference Price Effects into a Theory of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 287-309.
    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. 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.
    2. Neumann, Nico & Böckenholt, Ulf, 2014. "A Meta-analysis of Loss Aversion in Product Choice," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 182-197.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Nobuhiko Terui & Wirawan Dony Dahana, 2006. "Research Note—Estimating Heterogeneous Price Thresholds," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 384-391, 07-08.
    8. 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.
    9. Necati Tereyağoğlu & Peter S. Fader & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2018. "Multiattribute Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence: Evidence from the Performing Arts Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 421-436, January.
    10. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2005-057 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. Prakash, David & Spann, Martin, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and reference price effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 300-314.
    13. Boztuğ, Yasemin & Hildebrandt, Lutz, 2005. "An empirical test of theories of price valuation using a semiparametric approach, reference prices, and accounting for heterogeneity," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2005-057, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Sojin Jung & Hyeon Jeong Cho & Byoungho Ellie Jin, 2020. "Does effective cost transparency increase price fairness? An analysis of apparel brand strategies," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(5), pages 495-507, September.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Teck H. Ho & Noah Lim & Colin Camerer, 2005. "Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000476, UCLA Department of Economics.
    20. Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Winer, Russell S., 2022. "Behavioral response to price: Data-based insights and future research for retailing," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 46-70.
    21. Friesen, Mark, 2020. "A dynamic perspective on consumers’ price fairness perception: Empirical evidence from the airline industry," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 74(4), pages 403-425.

    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:19:y:2000:i:2:p:185-200. 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.