IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorapm/v24y2025i3d10.1057_s41272-024-00514-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining price variation sensitivity with surveys and the relevance of Weber’s law

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald B. Larson

    (Luther College)

  • Anna Tauscher

    (Luther College)

Abstract

Psychologists have tested the concept of just-noticeable-differences (Weber’s Law) and found it to be valid for many sensory phenomena. Marketers have applied this idea to pricing, suggesting that relatively small price changes should not be noticed and the response to changes should be related to the magnitude of the base prices. This study uses two surveys of US adults to test this principle for furniture purchases and develops profiles of the individuals who respond in ways consistent with it. Because more than 45 percent of subjects said they would respond to small percentage changes in price, the analysis provides limited support for the concept of just-noticeable-differences. The analyses of the profiles for the price change responses concludes that three measures are important: time preferences, risk preferences, and social desirability bias (SDB). Researchers should incorporate these measures into their models to improve price sensitivity estimates.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald B. Larson & Anna Tauscher, 2025. "Examining price variation sensitivity with surveys and the relevance of Weber’s law," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(3), pages 254-265, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorapm:v:24:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1057_s41272-024-00514-5
    DOI: 10.1057/s41272-024-00514-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41272-024-00514-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41272-024-00514-5?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. Chien-Huang Lin & Jyh-Wen Wang, 2017. "Erratum to: Distortion of price discount perceptions through the left-digit effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 169-169, March.
    2. Lisa Anderson & Jennifer Mellor, 2009. "Are risk preferences stable? Comparing an experimental measure with a validated survey-based measure," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 137-160, October.
    3. Casado, Esteban & Ferrer, Juan-Carlos, 2013. "Consumer price sensitivity in the retail industry: Latitude of acceptance with heterogeneous demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 418-426.
    4. Grewal, Dhruv & Marmorstein, Howard, 1994. "Market Price Variation, Perceived Price Variation, and Consumers' Price Search Decisions for Durable Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(3), pages 453-460, December.
    5. Beyza Gültekin, 2012. "The Influence of Hedonic Motives and Browsing On Impulse Buying," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 4(3), pages 180-189.
    6. Chien-Huang Lin & Jyh-Wen Wang, 2017. "Distortion of price discount perceptions through the left-digit effect," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 99-112, March.
    7. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    8. Maurice Doyon & Stéphane Bergeron, 2016. "Understanding Strategic Behavior and Its Contribution to Hypothetical Bias When Eliciting Values for a Private Good," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 653-666, December.
    9. Beatrice Scheubel & Daniel Schunk & Joachim Winter, 2013. "Strategic Responses: A Survey Experiment on Opposition to Pension Reforms," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(2), pages 549-574, April.
    10. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    11. Baoubadi Atozou & Stéphane Bergeron & Maurice Doyon & Lota D. Tamini, 2022. "Improving meta-analyses on hypothetical bias by using separate models for private and public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 260-271, July.
    12. Weijters, Bert & Geuens, Maggie & Schillewaert, Niels, 2009. "The proximity effect: The role of inter-item distance on reverse-item bias," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 2-12.
    13. Batchelor, R. A., 1986. "The psychophysics of inflation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 269-290, September.
    14. Parsad, Chandan & Prashar, Sanjeev & Vijay, T. Sai & Kumar, Mukesh, 2021. "Do promotion and prevention focus influence impulse buying: The role of mood regulation, shopping values, and impulse buying tendency," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    15. Kohli, Chiranjeev & Suri, Rajneesh, 2011. "The price is right? Guidelines for pricing to enhance profitability," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 563-573.
    16. Henderson Britt, Steuart, 1975. "How Weber's law can be applied to marketing," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 21-29, February.
    17. 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.
    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. Ian Yeoman, 2025. "The evolution of pricing," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(3), pages 201-203, June.

    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. Irene Mussio & Maximiliano Sosa Andrés & Abdul H Kidwai, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes in the time of COVID-19: an experimental study," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 163-182.
    2. Dekimpe, Marnik G. & van Heerde, Harald J., 2023. "Retailing in times of soaring inflation: What we know, what we don't know, and a research agenda," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 322-336.
    3. Bart Claus & Mario Pandelaere, 2025. "Penny-wise pound-fooling: a replication with extension of the left-digit effect to the context of shrinkflation," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 303-312, June.
    4. Dogerlioglu-Demir, Kivilcim & Akpinar, Ezgi & Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep & Koçaş, Cenk, 2022. "Are 1-endings the new 9-endings? An alternative for generating price discount perceptions," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Robert L. Clark & Robert G. Hammond & Christelle Khalaf, 2019. "Planning for Retirement? The Importance of Time Preferences," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 127-150, June.
    6. Achiel Fenneman & Jörn Sickmann & Sascha Füllbrunn & Carina Goldbach & Thomas Pitz, 2022. "Psychological price perception may exert a weaker effect on purchasing decisions than previously suggested: Results from a large online experiment fail to reproduce either a left-digit or perceptual-f," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Jacob K Goeree & Bernardo Garcia-Pola, 2023. "A Non-Parametric Test of Risk Aversion," Papers 2308.02083, arXiv.org.
    8. Cheng, Junjun & Chen, Bo & Huang, Zihang, 2023. "Collective-based ad transparency in targeted hotel advertising: Consumers’ regulatory focus underlying the crowd safety effect," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    10. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    11. Kevin Devereux & Mona Balesh Abadi & Farah Omran, 2019. "Correcting for Transitory Effects in RCTs: Application to the RAND Health Insurance Experiment," Working Papers 201910, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    12. Fischbacher, Urs & Schudy, Simeon & Teyssier, Sabrina, 2021. "Heterogeneous preferences and investments in energy saving measures," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    13. Julija Michailova & Tadeusz Tyszka & Katarzyna Pfeifer, 2017. "Are People Interested in Probabilities of Natural Disasters?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1005-1017, May.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "A test of independence of discounting from quality of life," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 22-34.
    15. Antonio Filippin & Marco Mantovani, 2023. "Risk aversion and information aggregation in binary‐asset markets," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(2), pages 753-798, May.
    16. Nolan Miller & Alexander Wagner & Richard Zeckhauser, 2013. "Solomonic separation: Risk decisions as productivity indicators," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 265-297, June.
    17. Nienke F. S. Dijkstra & Henning Tiemeier & Bernd Figner & Patrick J. F. Groenen, 2022. "A Censored Mixture Model for Modeling Risk Taking," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(3), pages 1103-1129, September.
    18. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    19. Wärneryd, K.E., 1995. "Demystifying rational expectations theory through an economic-psychological model," Discussion Paper 1995-92, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    20. Tommaso Lando & Lucio Bertoli-Barsotti, 2019. "Distorted stochastic dominance: a generalized family of stochastic orders," Papers 1909.04767, arXiv.org.

    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:pal:jorapm:v:24:y:2025:i:3:d:10.1057_s41272-024-00514-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.