IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Perception and quality choice in vertically differentiated markets

  • Edward J. Webb

    (Department of Economics, Copenhagen University)

Registered author(s):

    Consumers are assumed to be unable to discriminate between two goods of differing qualities provided that the qualities are close enough. It is shown that in a vertically differentiated duopoly this results in multiple equilibria. Demand for each firm's good is reduced. Firms' profits may be higher or lower depending on which equilibrium is selected.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://www.econ.ku.dk/english/research/publications/wp/dp_2014/1407.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics in its series Discussion Papers with number 14-07.

    as
    in new window

    Length: 20 pages
    Date of creation: 01 Feb 2014
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1407
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building 26, DK-1353 Copenhagen K., Denmark
    Phone: (+45) 35 32 30 10
    Fax: +45 35 32 30 00
    Web page: http://www.econ.ku.dk
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803 - 843.
    2. Andrei Shleifer & Nicola Gennaioli & Pedro Bordalo, 2011. "Salience theory of choice under risk," 2011 Meeting Papers 1442, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    3. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    4. John Leland, 2010. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7644, David K. Levine.
    5. Kurt R. Brekke & Tor Helge Holmås & Odd Rune Straume, 2010. "Reference Pricing, Competition, and Pharmaceutical Expenditures: Theory and Evidence from a Natural Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 3258, CESifo Group Munich.
    6. Adam Szeidl & Botond Koszegi, 2011. "A Model of Focusing in Economic Choice," 2011 Meeting Papers 1441, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    7. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Asset Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 623-28, May.
    8. Jayachandran N. Variyam, 2008. "Do nutrition labels improve dietary outcomes?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 695-708.
    9. Inderst, Roman & Valletti, Tommaso, 2011. "Incentives for input foreclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 820-831, August.
    10. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    11. Motta, Massimo, 1993. "Endogenous Quality Choice: Price vs. Quantity Competition," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 113-31, June.
    12. Juan Carlos Hallak & Peter K. Schott, 2011. "Estimating Cross-Country Differences in Product Quality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 126(1), pages 417-474.
    13. Shaked, Avner & Sutton, John, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition through Product Differentiation," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13, January.
    14. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience Theory of Judicial Decisions," NBER Working Papers 19695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Sileo Patrick W., 1995. "Intransitivity of Indifference, Strong Monotonicity, and the Endowment Effect," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 198-223, June.
    16. Jonathan W. Leland, 2002. "Similarity Judgments and Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 574-581, October.
    17. David Buschena & David Zilberman, 1999. "Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 253-280, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kud:kuiedp:1407. 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: (Thomas Hoffmann)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.