IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00771.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Left-Digit Bias at Lyft

Author

Listed:
  • John List
  • Ian Muir
  • Devin Pope
  • Gregory Sun

Abstract

Left-digit bias (or 99-cent pricing) has been discussed extensively in economics, psychology, and marketing. Despite this, we show that the rideshare company, Lyft, was not using a 99-cent pricing strategy prior to our study. Based on observational data from over 600 million Lyft sessions followed by a field experiment conducted with 21 million Lyft passengers, we provide evidence of large discontinuities in demand at dollar values. Approximately half of the downward slope of the demand curve occurs discontinuously as the price of a ride drops below a dollar value (e.g. $14.00 to $13.99). If our short run estimates persist in the longer run, we calculate that Lyft could increase its profits by roughly $160M per year by employing a left-digit bias pricing strategy. Our results showcase the robustness of an important behavioral bias for a large, modern company and its persistence in a highly-competitive market.

Suggested Citation

  • John List & Ian Muir & Devin Pope & Gregory Sun, 2023. "Left-Digit Bias at Lyft," Natural Field Experiments 00771, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:natura:00771
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00771.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Stiving, 2000. "Price-Endings When Prices Signal Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1617-1629, December.
    2. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    3. Ginger Zhe Jin & Andrew Kato & John A. List, 2010. "That’S News To Me! Information Revelation In Professional Certification Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 104-122, January.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna & Ulrike Malmendier, 2004. "Contract Design and Self-Control: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 353-402.
    5. Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1351-1408.
    6. Meghan R. Busse & Christopher R. Knittel & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2013. "Are Consumers Myopic? Evidence from New and Used Car Purchases," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(1), pages 220-256, February.
    7. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    8. Armstrong, Mark & Vickers, John, 2015. "Which demand systems can be generated by discrete choice?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 293-307.
    9. John A. List, 2004. "Testing Neoclassical Competitive Theory in Multilateral Decentralized Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(5), pages 1131-1156, October.
    10. Stiving, Mark & Winer, Russell S, 1997. "An Empirical Analysis of Price Endings with Scanner Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 57-67, June.
    11. David Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 2005. "Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000643, UCLA Department of Economics.
    12. John A. List, 2020. "Non est Disputandum de Generalizability? A Glimpse into The External Validity Trial," NBER Working Papers 27535, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    14. Imbens, Guido W & Angrist, Joshua D, 1994. "Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 467-475, March.
    15. Cade Massey & Richard H. Thaler, 2013. "The Loser's Curse: Decision Making and Market Efficiency in the National Football League Draft," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1479-1495, July.
    16. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    17. Carver, James R. & Padgett, Daniel T., 2012. "Product Category Pricing and Future Price Attractiveness: 99-Ending Pricing in a Memory-Based Context," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 497-511.
    18. Stefano DellaVigna & Matthew Gentzkow, 2019. "Uniform Pricing in U.S. Retail Chains," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(4), pages 2011-2084.
    19. Kaushik Basu, 2006. "Consumer Cognition and Pricing in the Nines in Oligopolistic Markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 125-141, March.
    20. Aart Gerritsen, 2015. "Optimal Taxation when People Do Not Maximize Well-Being," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2015-07, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    21. Stefano Dellavigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier & Gautam Rao, 2017. "Voting to Tell Others," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 143-181.
    22. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    23. Rema Hanna & Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein, 2014. "Learning Through Noticing: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1311-1353.
    24. Joshua D. Angrist & Kathryn Graddy & Guido W. Imbens, 2000. "The Interpretation of Instrumental Variables Estimators in Simultaneous Equations Models with an Application to the Demand for Fish," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(3), pages 499-527.
    25. Basu, Kaushik, 1997. "Why are so many goods priced to end in nine? And why this practice hurts the producers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 41-44, January.
    26. Avi Goldfarb & Mo Xiao, 2011. "Who Thinks about the Competition? Managerial Ability and Strategic Entry in US Local Telephone Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3130-3161, December.
    27. Peter Cohen & Robert Hahn & Jonathan Hall & Steven Levitt & Robert Metcalfe, 2016. "Using Big Data to Estimate Consumer Surplus: The Case of Uber," NBER Working Papers 22627, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Cho, Hyunkuk, 2024. "Left-digit bias in self-reported height," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    2. Andor, Mark Andreas & Götte, Lorenz & Price, Michael Keith & Schulze Tilling, Anna & Tomberg, Lukas, 2023. "Differences in how and why social comparisons and real-time feedback impact resource use: Evidence from a field experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 1059, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    3. Breunig, Robert & Deutscher, Nathan & Hamilton, Steven, 2024. "Rounded Up: Using round numbers to identify tax evasion," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    4. Mark A. Andor & Lorenz Goette & Michael K. Price & Anna Schulze-Tilling & Lukas Tomberg, 2025. "Real-Time Feedback and Social Comparison Reports Impact Resource Use and Welfare: Evidence From a Field Experiment," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_651, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    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. Germ'an Reyes, 2022. "Coarse Wage-Setting and Behavioral Firms," Papers 2206.01114, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    2. Reyes, Germán, 2024. "Coarse Wage-Setting and Behavioral Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 17039, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Cardella, Eric & Seiler, Michael J., 2016. "The effect of listing price strategy on real estate negotiations: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-90.
    4. Avi Goldfarb & Mo Xiao, 2024. "Transitory shocks, limited attention, and a firm’s decision to exit," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 223-255, September.
    5. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    6. Snir, Avichai & Levy, Daniel, 2021. "If You Think 9-Ending Prices Are Low, Think Again," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(1 (Forthc).
    7. Levy, Daniel & Snir, Avichai & Gotler, Alex & Chen, Haipeng (Allan), 2020. "Not all price endings are created equal: Price points and asymmetric price rigidity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue forthcomi.
    8. Nicola Lacetera & Devin G. Pope & Justin R. Sydnor, 2012. "Heuristic Thinking and Limited Attention in the Car Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2206-2236, August.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Matilde Giaccherini & David Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael Price, 2020. "Are Economics and Psychology Complements in Household Technology Diffusion? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00713, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Ulrike Malmendier, 2018. "Behavioral Corporate Finance," NBER Working Papers 25162, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Heidhues, Paul & Köszegi, Botond, 2018. "Behavioral Industrial Organization," CEPR Discussion Papers 12988, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    15. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Lamar Pierce & Alex Rees-Jones & Charlotte Blank, 2025. "The Negative Consequences of Loss-Framed Performance Incentives," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 506-539, February.
    17. Fiala, Nathan, 2015. "Skills in the marketplace: Market efficiency, social orientation, and ability in a field-based experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 174-188.
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/7fsnj6af7v9ncrf76qn5p5on9e is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Diego Aparicio & Roberto Rigobon, 2020. "Quantum Prices," NBER Working Papers 26646, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Richard Blundell & Jack Britton & Monica Costa Dias & Eric French, 2023. "The Impact of Health on Labor Supply near Retirement," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(1), pages 282-334.
    21. Reto Foellmi & Stefan Legge & Lukas Schmid, 2016. "Do Professionals Get It Right? Limited Attention and Risk‐taking Behaviour," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(592), pages 724-755, May.
    22. Parente, Paulo M.D.C. & Santos Silva, J.M.C., 2012. "A cautionary note on tests of overidentifying restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 314-317.
    23. Halbert White & Karim Chalak, 2013. "Identification and Identification Failure for Treatment Effects Using Structural Systems," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 273-317, November.
    24. Michele Fioretti, 2022. "Caring or Pretending to Care? Social Impact, Firms' Objectives, and Welfare (former title: Social Responsibility and Firm's Objectives)," SciencePo Working papers hal-03393065, HAL.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:feb:natura:00771. 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: Francesca Pagnotta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.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.