IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00336.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shrouded attributes and information suppression: Evidence from field experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Tanjim Hossain
  • John Morgan

Abstract

We use field and natural experiments in online auctions to study the revenue effect of varying the level and disclosure of shipping charges. Our main findings are (1) disclosure affects revenues-for low shipping charges, a seller is better off disclosing; and (2) increasing shipping charges boosts revenues when these charges are hidden. These results are not explained by changes in the number of bidders.

Suggested Citation

  • Tanjim Hossain & John Morgan, 2006. "Shrouded attributes and information suppression: Evidence from field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00336, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:natura:00336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00336.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2010. "Consumer myopia, standardization and aftermarket monopolization," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(7), pages 931-946, October.
    2. Glenn Ellison, 2005. "A Model of Add-On Pricing," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 585-637.
    3. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    4. Hossain Tanjim & Morgan John, 2006. "...Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Jeffrey C. Ely & Tanjim Hossain, 2009. "Sniping and Squatting in Auction Markets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 68-94, August.
    7. repec:bla:jindec:v:49:y:2001:i:4:p:541-58 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Michael D. Smith & Erik Brynjolfsson, 2001. "Consumer Decision-making at an Internet Shopbot: Brand Still Matters," NBER Chapters, in: E-commerce, pages 541-558, 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. Vincze, János & Koltay, Gábor, 2009. "Fogyasztói döntések a viselkedési közgazdaságtan szemszögéből [Consumer decisions from the angle of behavioural economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 495-525.
    2. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Keyu Wu, 2021. "Obfuscation in competitive markets," ECON - Working Papers 391, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Feb 2023.
    4. Scharf, Kimberley & Smith, Sarah, 2010. "Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions," CEPR Discussion Papers 7760, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Schmöller, Arno, 2010. "Bidding Behavior, Seller Strategies, and the Utilization of Information in Auctions for Complex Goods," Munich Dissertations in Economics 11175, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    6. Zhuangai Li & Xia Cao, 2021. "Effectiveness of China’s Labeling and Incentive Programs for Household Energy Conservation and Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.

    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. Tom Blake & Sarah Moshary & Kane Sweeney & Steve Tadelis, 2021. "Price Salience and Product Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 619-636, July.
    2. Herweg, Fabian & Rosato, Antonio, 2018. "Bait and Ditch: Consumer Naiveté and Salesforce Incentives," CEPR Discussion Papers 12612, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Ulrike Malmendier & Young Han Lee, 2011. "The Bidder's Curse," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 749-787, April.
    4. Glenn Ellison & Sara Fisher Ellison, 2005. "Lessons About Markets from the Internet," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 139-158, Spring.
    5. Ioana Chioveanu & Jidong Zhou, 2013. "Price Competition with Consumer Confusion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2450-2469, November.
    6. Janssen, Aljoscha & Kasinger, Johannes, 2021. "Obfuscation and rational inattention in digitalized markets," SAFE Working Paper Series 306, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    7. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson, 2018. "Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia and information suppression in competitive markets," Chapters, in: Victor J. Tremblay & Elizabeth Schroeder & Carol Horton Tremblay (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Industrial Organization, chapter 3, pages 40-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Wenzel, Tobias, 2024. "Collusion, inattentive consumers and shrouded prices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 579-591.
    9. Johannes Voester & Bjoern Ivens & Alexander Leischnig, 2017. "Partitioned pricing: review of the literature and directions for further research," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 879-931, October.
    10. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Oz Shy, 2024. "Is Sales Tax Included in the Price? Consumer Inattention and Price Competition," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2024-5, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    12. Chioveanu, Ioana & Zhou, Jidong, 2009. "Price Competition and Consumer Confusion," MPRA Paper 17340, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    14. Marco Savioli & Lorenzo Zirulia, 2020. "Does add-on presence always lead to lower baseline prices? Theory and evidence," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 143-172, March.
    15. Shelle Santana & Steven K. Dallas & Vicki G. Morwitz, 2020. "Consumer Reactions to Drip Pricing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 188-210, January.
    16. Roman Inderst & Martin Obradovits, 2023. "Excessive Competition On Headline Prices," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 783-808, May.
    17. Hu Wang & Di Li & Changbin Jiang, 2023. "Online retailers' price structure decisions in competitive markets: A structure–conduct–performance framework," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(2), pages 1125-1141, March.
    18. Quinn Keefer & Galib Rustamov, 2018. "Limited attention in residential energy markets: a regression discontinuity approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 993-1017, November.
    19. Thomas Blake & Sarah Moshary & Kane Sweeney & Steven Tadelis, 2018. "Price Salience and Product Choice," NBER Working Papers 25186, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Sanjiv Erat & Sreekumar R. Bhaskaran, 2012. "Consumer Mental Accounts and Implications to Selling Base Products and Add-ons," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 801-818, September.

    More about this item

    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:00336. 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.