Low price signal default: an empirical investigation of its consequences
Tóm tắt
Low-price guarantees (LPG) signal the market position of a seller’s offer price and promise to compensate consumers in case that information is erroneous. In this research, we demonstrate that when retailers default on the information provided by an LPG, consumer perceptions of the retailer suffer, but the extent of the damage depends on the conditions associated with the default. On the basis of attribution theory, we posit that consumers may attribute default to the retailer’s opportunism but emphasize this attribution differently in various default conditions. Furthermore, we show that the restoration of consumer perceptions after a refund depends on consumers’ focus in terms of the signal itself. If they consider the protective, compensatory function of a low price signal, their post-refund outcomes are more favorable; when they focus on the informational function, these outcomes are less favorable. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Arbatskaya, M., Hviid, M., & Shaffer, G. (2004). On the incidence and variety of low-price guarantees. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 307–332 (April).
Biswas, A., Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2006). Low price guarantees as signals of lowest price: The moderating role of perceived price dispersion. Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 245–257.
Biswas, A., Pullig, C., Yagci, M. I., & Dean, D. H. (2002). Consumer evaluation of low price guarantees: The moderating role of reference price and store image. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 107–118.
Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee reponses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69–82 (April).
Boulding, W., & Kirmani, A. (1993). A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(1), 111–123.
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 187–199 (May).
Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., & Basuroy, S. (2003). Failure to suspect collusion in price-matching guarantees: Consumer limitations in game-theoretic reasoning. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 255–267.
Dutta, S., & Biswas, A. (2005). Effects of low price guarantees on consumer postpurchase search intention: The moderating roles of value consciousness and penalty level. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 283–291.
Estelami, H., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L. (2007). The negative effect of policy restrictions on consumers’ postpurchase reactions to price-matching guarantees. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (forthcoming).
Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548–565 (March).
Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (1998). Payment depreciation: The behavioral effects of temporally separating payments from consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 160–174 (September).
Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 148–155 (September).
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67–75 (June).
Jain, S., & Srivastava, J. (2000). An experimental and theoretical analysis of price-matching refund policies. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 351–362 (August).
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128 (February).
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.
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).
Kukar-Kinney, M., & Walters, R. G. (2003). Consumer perceptions of refund depth and competitive scope in price-matching guarantees: Effects on store patronage. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 53–60.
Lassar, W. M., Grewal, D., & Marmorstein, H. (1999). Consumer responses to the timing of product breakdowns in the presence of manufacturers’ warranties. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(2), 355–371.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Bearden, W. O. (1989). Contextual influences on perceptions of merchant-supplied reference prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 55–66 (June).
Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2000). Driving customer equity. New York: The Free Press.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2005). A dangerous divergence: Marketing and society. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(1), 160–162.
Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S. Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998). The effects of television consumption on social perceptions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psychological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 447–458 (March).
Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 356–372.
Spence, M. (1974). Market signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spreng, R. A., Harrell, G. D., & Mackoy, R. D. (1995). Service recovery: Impact on satisfaction and intention. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(1), 15–23.
Srivastava, J., & Lurie, N. (2004). Price-matching guarantees as signals of low store prices: Survey and experimental evidence. Journal of Retailing, 80, 117–128.
Tsiros, M., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. Jr. (2004). The role of attributions in consumer satisfaction: A reexamination. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 476–483 (September).
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573 (October).
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Weiner, B. (2000). Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 382–387.