Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating relative impact of reference prices on customers’ price evaluation in absence of posted prices: a case of Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW) pricing

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management Aims and scope

Abstract

This study investigates customers’ evaluation of the offered price suggestion for a consumer durable sold under Pay-What-You-Want pricing. The relative use of internal reference price (IRP) and external reference price (ERP) is examined in customers’ price evaluation process. This study is a quantitative study employing a scenario-based approach to obtain responses from the participants. 208 students participated in between-subject factorial experiment design. ANCOVA and simple effects analysis were used to assess customers’ responses to measures like price assessment and perceived price fairness. Results show that respondents exhibit the relatively greater influence of ERP than IRP in the price evaluation process. This varying effect was attributed to two key factors, accessibility of the information and diagnostic perceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi, S., T. Bornemann, and J. Wieseke. 2015. Gambled price discounts: A remedy to the negative side effects of regular price discounts. Journal of Marketing 79 (2): 62–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, P. 2015. The effects of math anxiety on consumer price perception and purchase decision. Edinburg: The University of Texas-Pan American.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balan, C. 2014. “Pay what you want”: A participative price setting mechanism. International Journal of Economic Practices and Theories 4 (5): 952–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, W.D. 1969. Factorial design in a pricing experiment. Journal of Marketing Research 6 (4): 427–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskaran, S.R., and S.M. Gilbert. 2005. Selling and leasing strategies for durable goods with complementary products. Management Science 51 (8): 1278–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehal, G., and D. Chakravarti. 1983. Information accessibility as a moderator of consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A., and D.L. Sherrell. 1993. The influence of product knowledge and brand name on internal price standards and confidence. Psychology & Marketing 10 (1): 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L.E., H.T. Keh, and J.W. Alba. 2010. How do price fairness perceptions differ across culture? Journal of Marketing Research 47 (3): 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L.E., L. Warlop, and J.W. Alba. 2003. Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 474–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briesch, R.A., L. Krishnamurthi, T. Mazumdar, and S.P. Raj. 1997. A comparative analysis of reference price models. Journal of Consumer Research 24 (2): 202–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B.J., L.W. Phillips, and A.M. Tybout. 1981. Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research 8 (2): 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. N.L. Gage, 171–246. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.Y. 2009. Who I am and how I think: The impact of self-construal on the roles of internal and external reference prices in price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 (3): 416–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, P.J., A.E. Ellinger, and D.S. Rogers. 1995. Information accessibility: Customer responsiveness and enhanced performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 25 (1): 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, A., D. Chakravarti, and G. Biehal. 1990. Memory-based inferences during consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (1): 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J.M., and J.G. Lynch. 1988. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (3): 421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerpott, T. 2017. Pay-what-you-want pricing: An integrative review of the empirical research literature. Management Science Letters 7 (1): 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, A., U. Gneezy, L.D. Nelson, and A. Brown. 2010. Shared social responsibility: A field experiment in pay-what-you-want pricing and charitable giving. Science 329 (5989): 325–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gneezy, A., U. Gneezy, G. Riener, and L.D. Nelson. 2012. Pay-what-you-want, identity, and self-signaling in markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (19): 7236–7240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravert, C. 2017. Pride and patronage-pay-what-you-want pricing at a charitable bookstore. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 67: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groeppel-Klein, A. 1998. The influence of the dominance perceived at the point-of-sale on the price-assessment. In ACR European Advances.

  • Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition, always learning. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardie, B.G., E.J. Johnson, and P.S. Fader. 1993. Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Science 12 (4): 378–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haws, K.L., and W.O. Bearden. 2006. Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research 33 (3): 304–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A.F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helson, H. 1964. Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herr, P.M., F.R. Kardes, and J. Kim. 1991. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 17 (4): 454–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyman, J., and D. Ariely. 2004. Effort for payment: A tale of two markets. Psychological Science 15 (11): 787–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, L.P., and A. Suessmair. 2015. The effects of social interaction and social norm compliance in pay-what-you-want situations. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 5 (08): 548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, C.W., and D.W. Cravens. 1973. Fractional factorial experimental designs in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research 10 (3): 270–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.L., and Y.C. Liao. 2014. Exploring the linkages between perceived information accessibility and microblog stickiness: The moderating role of a sense of community. Information & Management 51 (7): 833–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., and W. Chu. 2012. Are consumers acting fairly toward companies? An examination of pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of Macromarketing 32 (4): 348–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, L., Y. He, and Y. Zhang. 2013. How power states influence consumers’ perceptions of price unfairness. Journal of Consumer Research 40 (5): 818–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.W., and A.P. Cui. 2013. To influence or not to influence: External reference price strategies in pay-what-you-want pricing. Journal of Business Research 66 (2): 275–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, W.L., and B.S. Sonner. 2001. Just say no to traditional student samples. Journal of Advertising Research 41 (5): 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, M.H., H. Perfecto, and L.D. Nelson. 2016. Anchoring in payment: Evaluating a judgmental heuristic in field experimental settings. Journal of Marketing Research 53 (3): 354–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 2013. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I, ed. L.C. MacLean and W.T. Ziemba, 99–127. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyanaram, G., and R.S. Winer. 1995. Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science 14 (3_supplement): 161–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kempf, D.S., and R.E. Smith. 1998. Consumer processing of product trial and the influence of prior advertising: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research 35: 325–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. 1991. Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.Y., K. Kaufmann, and M. Stegemann. 2014. The impact of buyer–seller relationships and reference prices on the effectiveness of the pay what you want pricing mechanism. Marketing Letters 25 (4): 409–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J.Y., M. Natter, and M. Spann. 2009. Pay what you want: A new participative pricing mechanism. Journal of Marketing 73 (1): 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, F., K.M. Schmidt, M. Spann, and L. Stich. 2017. Delegating pricing power to customers: Pay what you want or name your own price? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 136: 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V.K.K.W.J., M. Hurley, K. Karande, and W.J. Reinartz. 1998. The impact of internal and external reference prices on brand choice: The moderating role of contextual variables. Journal of Retailing 74 (3): 401–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., and D. Braun. 2013. The price is up to you!”–“Oh no! What am I gonna do?” Customers’ product category inexperience and belief about other customers’ payments under pay-what-you-want conditions. European Journal of Management 13 (2): 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, H., T. Daugherty, and F. Biocca. 2002. Impact of 3-D advertising on product knowledge, brand attitude, and purchase intention: The mediating role of presence. Journal of Advertising 31 (3): 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch Jr., J.G., H. Marmorstein, and M.F. Weigold. 1988. Choices from sets including remembered brands: Use of recalled attributes and prior overall evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 15 (2): 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, G.E., and R.S. Winer. 1992. An empirical analysis of internal and external reference prices using scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (1): 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, T., and P. Papatla. 2000. An investigation of reference price segments. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (2): 246–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazumdar, T., S.P. Raj, and I. Sinha. 2005. Reference price research: Review and propositions. Journal of Marketing 69 (4): 84–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon, G., and P. Raghubir. 2003. Ease-of-retrieval as an automatic input in judgments: A mere-accessibility framework? Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 230–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K.B. 1973. Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research 10: 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedrich, R.W., S. Sharma, and D.H. Wedell. 2001. Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3): 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofir, C., P. Raghubir, G. Brosh, K.B. Monroe, and A. Heiman. 2008. Memory-based store price judgments: The role of knowledge and shopping experience. Journal of Retailing 84 (4): 414–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., S. Nam, and J. Lee. 2017. Charitable giving, suggestion, and learning from others: Pay-What-You-Want experiments at a coffee shop. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 66: 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regner, T., and J.A. Barria. 2009. Do consumers pay voluntarily? The case of online music. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71 (2): 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regner, T., and G. Riener. 2017. Privacy is precious: On the attempt to lift anonymity on the internet to increase revenue. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 26 (2): 318–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R. 2015. An insight into pay-what-you-want pricing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33 (5): 733–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, R., F.K. Rabbanee, and P. Sharma. 2016. Antecedents, outcomes, and mediating role of internal reference prices in pay-what-you-want (PWYW) pricing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34 (1): 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schons, L.M., M. Rese, J. Wieseke, W. Rasmussen, D. Weber, and W.C. Strotmann. 2014. There is nothing permanent except change—Analyzing individual price dynamics in “pay-what-you-want” situations. Marketing Letters 25 (1): 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleesman, D.J., and D.E. Conlon. 2017. Encouraging prosocial decisions: The role of fairness salience and uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30 (2): 502–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soule, C.A.A., and R. Madrigal. 2015. Anchors and norms in anonymous pay-what-you-want pricing contexts. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 57: 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stangl, B., M. Kastner, and G. Prayag. 2017. Pay-what-you-want for high-value priced services: Differences between potential, new, and repeat customers. Journal of Business Research 74: 168–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegemann, M. 2014. Success factors of pay what you want pricing. Doctoral dissertation.

  • Suk, K., J. Lee, and D.R. Lichtenstein. 2012. The influence of price presentation order on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research 49 (5): 708–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., E.A. Lind, R. Vermunt, and H.A. Wilke. 1997. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (5): 1034.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. 1985. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92 (4): 548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisstein, F.L., M. Kukar-Kinney, and K.B. Monroe. 2016. Determinants of consumers’ response to pay-what-you-want pricing strategy on the Internet. Journal of Business Research 69 (10): 4313–4320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, R.S. 1986. A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. Journal of Consumer Research 13 (2): 250–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, J., and S.E. Kimes. 2007. The moderating role of familiarity in fairness perceptions of revenue management pricing. Journal of Service Research 9 (3): 229–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., and K.B. Monroe. 2010. Is a good deal always fair? Examining the concepts of transaction value and price fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (6): 884–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L., K.B. Monroe, and J.L. Cox. 2004. The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India

    Preeti Narwal & J. K. Nayak

Authors
  1. Preeti Narwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. K. Nayak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Preeti Narwal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Narwal, P., Nayak, J.K. Investigating relative impact of reference prices on customers’ price evaluation in absence of posted prices: a case of Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW) pricing. J Revenue Pricing Manag 19, 234–247 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-019-00198-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-019-00198-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation