Similarities and differences between stockpiling and reference effects
The correlation of past prices and demand is commonly attributed to reference effects. Although reference dependence is robust, support for loss aversion is mixed; some find demand more sensitive to price increases, consistent with loss aversion, others find no difference or greater sensitivity to price decreases. Stockpiling offers an explanation for these mixed findings. Combining theory, analytical models and simulations, stockpiling and reference dependence predict similar effects and the more stockable the product, the greater sensitivity of demand to price decreases, the opposite of loss aversion. We show that a model combining stockpiling and reference effects best aligns with previous findings and under what conditions each effect should dominate. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 30 (2009)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- João L. Assunção & Robert J. Meyer, 1993. "The Rational Effect of Price Promotions on Sales and Consumption," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(5), pages 517-535, May.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
- Salop, S & Stiglitz, J E, 1982. "The Theory of Sales: A Simple Model of Equilibrium Price Dispersion with Identical Agents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 1121-1130, December.
- Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & Russell S. Winer, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 161-169.
- Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Little, John D C, 1994. " An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 408-418, December.
- 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.
- Scott A. Neslin & Caroline Henderson & John Quelch, 1985. "Consumer Promotions and the Acceleration of Product Purchases," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 147-165.
- Mayhew, Glenn E & Winer, Russell S, 1992. " An Empirical Analysis of Internal and External Reference Prices Using Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 62-70, June.
- Daniel S. Putler, 1992. "Incorporating Reference Price Effects into a Theory of Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(3), pages 287-309.
- 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.
- 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.
- Briesch, Richard A, et al, 1997. " A Comparative Analysis of Reference Price Models," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 202-214, September.
- 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.
- Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Mazumdar, Tridib & Raj, S P, 1992. " Asymmetric Response to Price in Consumer Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 387-400, December.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:30:y:2009:i:6:p:351-371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.