Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 359–377 | Cite as

The dual role of price: decomposing consumers’ reactions to price

Article

Abstract

Price plays two distinct roles in consumers’ evaluations of product alternatives: as a measure of sacrifice and as an informational cue. This article merges two streams of empirical research into the effects of price on consumers’ product evaluations by combining stated preferences, obtained from conjoint measurement, with data on self-reported measures in the form of beliefs or attitudes. It thus offers new, substantive insights into the dual role of price. Specifically, it differentiates between the informational and sacrifice effects of price using a choice-based conjoint approach and differentiates further among different subcomponents of these two main effects by combining choice-based measures with self-reported measures that pertain to potential sources of the dual role of price (price response drivers) and underlying consumer characteristics. Thus, this article presents a general procedure to quantify the impact of the dual role of price on choice shares for product alternatives within a market simulation. This procedure enables managers to simulate the choice share effects of changes in price response drivers, as well as modifications in segmentation and targeting strategies that involve changes in the levels of the price response drivers and thus the levels of the informational and sacrifice components of the price response of demand.

Keywords

Dual role of price Informational effect Sacrifice effect 

References

  1. Agarwal, S., & Teas, R. K. (2001). Perceived value: Mediating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(4), 1–14 (Fall).Google Scholar
  2. Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedenk, K. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: Store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing, 65, 71–89 (January).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allenby, G. M., & Lenk, P. J. (1994). Modeling household purchase behavior with logistic normal regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 1218–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alpert, M. I. (1971). Identification of determinant attributes. A comparison of methods. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(2), 184–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amaldoss, W., & Jain, S. (2005). Pricing of conspicuous goods. A competitive analysis of social effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 30–42 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arora, N., & Huber, J. (2001). Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(2), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bawa, K., & Shoemaker, R. W. (1987). The coupon-prone consumer: Some findings based on purchase behavior across product classes. Journal of Marketing, 51, 99–110 (October).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bearden, W., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 471–481 (March).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bijmolt, T. H. A., van Heerde, H. J., & Pieters, R. G. M. (2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 141–156 (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 359–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Chatterjee, S., & Suman, B. (1998). Interpreting unilateral and competitive price signals: The moderating role of need for cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 151–155.Google Scholar
  13. Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Churchill Jr., G. A. (1995). Marketing research: Methodological foundations (6th ed.). Chicago: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  15. Darden, W. R., & Perreault, W. D. (1976). Identifying interurban shoppers. Multiproduct purchase patterns and segmentation profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 51–60 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 81–95 (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Kenhove, P. (2003). Investments in consumer relationships: A critical reassessment and model extension. International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 13(3), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dubois, B., & Laurent, G. (1994). Attitudes toward the concept of luxury: An exploratory analysis. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 1(2), 271–278.Google Scholar
  20. Erdem, T. (1998). An empirical analysis of umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 339–351 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erdem, T., Keane, M., & Sun, B. (2005). A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Working paper.Google Scholar
  22. Erickson, G. M., & Johansson, J. K. (1985). The role of price in multi-attribute product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace information. Journal of Marketing, 51, 83–97 (January).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gautschi, D. A., & Rao, V. R. (1990). A methodology for specification and aggregation in product concept testing. In A. de Fontenay et al. (Eds.), Telecommunications demand modeling: An integrated view (pp. 37–63). North-Holland: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  27. Gijsbrechts, E. (1993). Prices and pricing research in consumer marketing: Some recent developments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10(2), 151–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haaijer, R., & Wedel, M. (2003). Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 371–412). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hawes, J. M., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1984). Understanding the outshopper. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12, 200–218 (Fall).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92–101 (Summer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huber, J., Wittink, D. R., Fiedler, J. A., & Miller, R. (1993). The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 105–114 (February).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huber, J., & Zwerina, K. (1996). The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jöreskog, K. G. (1982). The LISREL approach to causal model-building in the social science. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, part 1 (pp. 81–100). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  35. Kalyanaram, G., & Winer, R. S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(3), G161–G169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective information processing in price–quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 368–374 (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64, 66–79 (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 54–67 (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 234–245 (May).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mason, R. S. (1981). Conspicuous consumption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  41. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Price and advertising signals of product quality. Journal of Political Economy, 94(4), 796–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 146–153 (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Monroe, K. B. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, P. E., & Enis, B. M. (1986). Classifying products strategically. Journal of Marketing, 50, 24–42 (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagle, T. (1984). Economic foundations for pricing. Journal of Business, 57(1), S3–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Neill, R. M., & Lambert, D. R. (2001). The emotional side of price. Psychology & Marketing, 18(3), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orme, B. (1999). CBC user manual—version 2.0. Sawtooth Software, Sequim/WA.Google Scholar
  48. Pennings, J. M. E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 46(10), 1337–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peterson, R. A., & Wilson, W. R. (1985). Perceived risk and price-reliance schema as price–perceived-quality mediators. In J. Jacoby & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise (pp. 247–267). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  50. Ping, R. A. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 336–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 351–357 (August).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rao, V. R., & Sattler, H. (2003). Measurement of price effects with conjoint analysis: Separating informational and allocative effects of price. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (3rd ed., pp. 47–66). Berlin et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 28–36 (October).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schindler, R. M. (1989). The excitement of getting a bargain: Some hypotheses concerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 447–453.Google Scholar
  55. Sloot, L. M., Verhoef, P. C., & Franses, P. H. (2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Srinivasan, N., & Ratchford, B. T. (1991). An empirical test of a model of external search for automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 233–242 (September).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stiving, M., & Winer, R. S. (1997). An empirical analysis of price endings with scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 92–104 (June).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tellis, G. J. (1988). The price elasticity of selective demand: A meta-analysis of econometric models of sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 331–341 (November).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  62. Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., Kaicker, A., & Smith-de Borreo, M. (1997). Transaction utility effects when quality is uncertain. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Urbany, J. E., Dickson, P. R., & Kalapurakal, R. (1996). Price search in the retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing, 60, 91–104 (April).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  65. Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2005). Separating negative and positive effects of price with choice-based conjoint analyses. Marketing—Journal of Research and Management, 1(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  66. Wood, L. M. (2004). Dimensions of brand purchasing behaviour. Consumers in the 18–24 age group. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2–22 (July).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing and Brand ManagementUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations