IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v25y2014i2p139-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical investigation of consumers’ willingness-to-pay and the demand function: The cumulative effect of individual differences in anchored willingness-to-pay responses

Author

Listed:
  • Cenk Koçaş
  • Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir

Abstract

Extant literature on anchoring demonstrates that priming affects willingness-to-pay (WTP), but it mainly focuses on average WTP values, neglecting the aggregate effects of priming on WTP distributions. In this research, we argue that when priming is in effect, WTP distribution rather than the average should be analyzed because important pricing decisions, such as optimal price determination or price customization, require an assessment of distributions. Therefore, the objective of this research is to uncover how priming affects WTP distributions and, consequently, the demand curve. The results of these two studies suggest that priming affects not only the average but also the whole distribution and that this effect is in the form of a shift/stretch to the right for high-priming manipulations and to the left for low-priming manipulations. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Cenk Koçaş & Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir, 2014. "An empirical investigation of consumers’ willingness-to-pay and the demand function: The cumulative effect of individual differences in anchored willingness-to-pay responses," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 139-152, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:25:y:2014:i:2:p:139-152
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-013-9235-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-013-9235-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-013-9235-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2004. "Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 725-741, December.
    2. Moshe Ben-Horim, 1990. "Stochastic Dominance And Truncated Sample Data," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 13(2), pages 105-116, June.
    3. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Neale, Margaret A., 1987. "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 84-97, February.
    4. Dan Ariely & George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 2003. ""Coherent Arbitrariness": Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 73-106.
    5. Greg Shaffer & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Pay to Switch or Pay to Stay: Preference‐Based Price Discrimination in Markets with Switching Costs," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 397-424, June.
    6. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    7. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Richard O'Conor, 1997. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: some experimental results," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 149-151.
    8. Ben-Horim, Moshe, 1990. "Stochastic Dominance and Truncated Sample Data," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 13(2), pages 105-116, Summer.
    9. Kamel Jedidi & Z. John Zhang, 2002. "Augmenting Conjoint Analysis to Estimate Consumer Reservation Price," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(10), pages 1350-1368, October.
    10. Magnus Johannesson, 1997. "Some further experimental results on hypothetical versus real willingness to pay," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(8), pages 535-536.
    11. Winer, Russell S, 1986. "A Reference Price Model of Brand Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(2), pages 250-256, September.
    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. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Tomczyk, Arkadiusz T. & Buhalis, Dimitrios & Fan, Daisy X.F. & Williams, Nigel L., 2022. "Price-personalization: Customer typology based on hospitality business," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 462-476.
    3. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2020. "Honey, Mugs and Caricatures: anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold hypothetically," Working Papers 2020-40, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    4. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2022. "Anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold when decisions are hypothetical," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.

    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. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    2. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    3. Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Qiu, Chun & He, Yongfu, 2009. "Empirical Testing of the Reference-Price Effect of Buy-Now Prices in Internet Auctions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 211-221.
    4. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Définition, mesure et déterminants du consentement à payer du consommateur : synthèse critique et voies de recherche," Post-Print hal-00522826, HAL.
    5. Beltramo, Theresa & Blalock, Garrick & Levine, David I. & Simons, Andrew M., 2015. "The effect of marketing messages and payment over time on willingness to pay for fuel-efficient cookstoves," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 333-345.
    6. Munro, Alistair, 2007. "When is some number really better than no number? On the optimal choice between non-market valuation methods," MPRA Paper 8978, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    8. Fischer, Greg & Karlan, Dean & McConnell, Margaret & Raffler, Pia, 2019. "Short-term subsidies and seller type: A health products experiment in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 110-124.
    9. Helen Neill, 1999. "Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: comment," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(5), pages 267-269.
    10. Jason Delaney & Sarah Jacobson & Thorsten Moenig, 2020. "Preference discovery," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 694-715, September.
    11. Kathryn Graddy & Lara Loewenstein & Jianping Mei & Mike Moses & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2023. "Empirical evidence of anchoring and loss aversion from art auctions," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(2), pages 279-301, June.
    12. Li, Lunzheng & Maniadis, Zacharias & Sedikides, Constantine, 2021. "Anchoring in Economics: A Meta-Analysis of Studies on Willingness-To-Pay and Willingness-To-Accept," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Glimcher, Paul & Tymula, Agnieszka & Woelbert, Eva, 2013. "Flexible valuations for consumer goods as measured by the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism," Working Papers 2013-20, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    14. McAlvanah, Patrick & Moul, Charles C., 2013. "The house doesn’t always win: Evidence of anchoring among Australian bookies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 87-99.
    15. Luo, Zheng & Chen, Xu & Kai, Ming, 2018. "The effect of customer value and power structure on retail supply chain product choice and pricing decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 115-126.
    16. Dean Gatzlaff & Peng Liu, 2013. "List Price Information in the Negotiation of Commercial Real Estate Transactions: Is Silence Golden?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 760-786, November.
    17. Kivilcim Dogerlioglu-Demir & Cenk Koçaş, 2015. "Seemingly incidental anchoring: the effect of incidental environmental anchors on consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 607-618, December.
    18. David de Meza & Diane Reyniers, 2013. "Debiasing the Becker – DeGroot – Marschak valuation mechanism," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1446-1456.
    19. Hofstetter, Reto & Miller, Klaus M. & Krohmer, Harley & Zhang, Z. John, 2021. "A de-biased direct question approach to measuring consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 70-84.
    20. Greg Fischer & Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Pia Raffler, 2014. "To Charge or Not to Charge: Evidence from a Health Products Experiment in Uganda," Working Papers 1041, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:25:y:2014:i:2:p:139-152. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.