Professional Documents
Culture Documents
eference prices are standards against which the pur- tions and modeling of the reference price concept, Briesch
def RP
R chase price of a product is judged (Monroe 1973).
Numerous articles on the topic of reference price
have been published in marketing journals and presented at
and colleagues (1997) present an empirical comparison of
different reference price models, and Kalyanaram and
Winer (1995) draw empirical generalizations, but these
marketing conferences. These articles provide insights into reviews focus primarily on modeling-based investigations
such issues as the conceptualization of reference price, how that use panel data for frequently purchased packaged
it can be measured or modeled, and its effects on consumer goods (FPPG). Thus, there has not been a comprehensive
purchase behavior. The effects of reference price on con- assessment of what is known about reference price and
sumer choice have been accepted as an empirical general- what remains unresolved.
ization in marketing (Kalyanaram and Winer 1995), and the The goal of this article is to present an integrative
idea of reference point has been extended to other stimuli review of published articles on reference price and related
such as price promotions (Lattin and Bucklin 1989) and topics. In our attempt to synthesize the empirical evidence,
product quality (Hardie, Johnson, and Fader 1993). A few we identify two fairly independent streams of research. The
researchers have also incorporated reference price into eco- first stream takes a behavioral perspective and uses experi-
nomic theory and have developed models of consumer mental approaches to assess the effects of external stimuli
choice (e.g., Putler 1992). Others have considered reference on consumers’ internal reference price (IRP), price judg-
price effects in modeling competitive behavior of firms and ments, and other evaluations (e.g., Alba et al. 1999; Urbany,
have developed managerial guidelines for retailers and Bearden, and Weilbaker 1988). The second stream of
manufacturers (Greenleaf 1995; Kopalle, Rao, and research models alternative reference price formulations
Assunção 1996). and tests their effects from the statistical fit of models cali-
Despite the wealth of available findings and the brated on consumer panel data. (e.g., Briesch et al. 1997;
acknowledged theoretical and managerial importance of the Winer 1986).
reference price concept, there is no cohesive framework that We offer a framework that synthesizes the findings from
has systematically examined its antecedents, the mecha- both behavioral and modeling-based research streams, and
nisms by which it is formed, and its use by consumers. we assess our current understanding of (1) the formation of
Winer (1988) provides a survey of the theoretical founda- reference price, (2) the retrieval of IRP from memory and
the relative use of memory versus information available
Tridib Mazumdar is Professor of Marketing, Martin J. Whitman School of
externally (hereafter, external reference price [ERP]), and
Management, Syracuse University (e-mail: mazumdar@syr.edu). S.P. Raj (3) the effects of reference price on purchase decisions and
is Professor of Marketing, Cornell University (e-mail: spr24@cornell.edu). evaluations. For each of the three areas of reference price
Indrajit Sinha is Associate Professor of Marketing, Fox School of Business research, we first review available prior research and pre-
and Management, Temple University (e-mail: isinha@temple.edu). The sent the findings as summaries. We then identify “research
authors thank the three anonymous JM reviewers for their insightful and gaps” and provide directions for further research, which
helpful comments at each stage of the review process. The authors also include a set of propositions. Next, we highlight the
thank Yong Liu and Jason Pattit for their comments on the manuscript.
They are grateful for the financial assistance granted to the first author by methodological challenge that arises from the confounding
the Earl V. Snyder Innovation Management Center of the Whitman School. effects of consumer heterogeneity when reference price
effects are estimated. We conclude with a brief review of
FIGURE 1
A Conceptual Framework for the Review of Reference Price Research
Extent of
Research Areas Research Prior Findings and Further Research
Antecedents
Purchase History Extensive Effects of prior prices, promotions, and recency of purchase are well
established (Summary 1).
Contextual Moderators
•Purchase occasion Low Further research: moderating effects of different shopping occasions (e.g.,
planned versus unplanned) on the roles of prior prices and promotions on
IRP.
•Store environment Moderate Effects of depth, frequency, and framing of promotions on IRP have been
demonstrated (Summary 2). Further research: effects of store pricing
policy (hi–lo versus EDLP) on IRP.
•Product category Durables: Effects of economic conditions, technology, and attribute configuration
moderate have been demonstrated (Summary 3). Further research: effects of input
costs, externalities, and default options on IRP.
Services: low Further research: effects of pricing schemes (e.g., fixed, variable, two-part
pricing) on IRP (P1).
Integration
Purchase History Extensive Temporal integration is captured well by the adaptive expectation model
and assimilation–contrast theory (Summary 4).
Contextual Moderators
•Store environment Extensive Effects of ARP on IRP, the weighting of contextual information, and the
influence of irrelevant information are well established (Summary 5).
•Product category Durables: low Further research: investigating the anchoring effects of a default option
and sequential addition/deletion of attributes on IRP for durables (P2a).
Services: low Further research: investigating the integration of two-part prices of services
(P2b).
Representations Low Further research: identifying alternative forms (e.g., numeric versus
nonnumeric) and levels (budget, category, brand/item) of IRP (P3).
gory, (d) negatively to the increase of interpur- prices of specific brands. As we noted previously, con-
chase time of the category, and (e) negatively to sumers retrieve store-specific reference prices to decide
the frequency of promotions in the category. which store to visit. Because the retrieval of store prices
Because prior research has focused on the retrieval and depends on consumers’ prior experience with the store, con-
use of price in the context of brand choice, there is no sumers are prone to draw a sample of prices of product cat-
known research on how IRP is retrieved in other types of egories (or brands) from memory that they are more famil-
purchase tasks. In addition, research on less effortful price iar with and place greater weights on these prices in judging
retrieval and the factors that bias the retrieval process is the overall store price levels. Moreover, the availability
somewhat sparse. hypothesis (Tversky and Kahneman 1973) suggests that
estimates of the probability that certain products will be on
Purchase Task Moderator promotion depend on how easily the consumer can remem-
Although the retrieval and use of IRP is relevant in many ber a previously encountered promotional episode. Thus,
purchase contexts, we consider only two purchase tasks promotional frequencies may be over- or underestimated on
here: store selection decision and consideration set forma- the basis of what a consumer readily remembers about a
tion.4 The former task is performed outside of the store, and prior purchase experience. When consumers make store
the latter may take place either in the store or out of the choices (or switching) based on externally available price
store. and promotional information (e.g., feature advertisements),
Store choice decision. Deciding which store to visit they may evaluate the attractiveness of the sale price by
depends on factors such as store location, assortment and comparing it with prices previously paid in the store or
quality of products, overall price level of the store, and prices charged by competing stores. In either case, retrieval
of prior and competitive prices is subject to the same set of
4These tasks are not independent. Items in the consideration set previously discussed biases.
may influence the store choice decision, and vice versa. A brand
Consideration set formation. The decision to include
choice task can be considered a special case of consideration set
formation performed at the point of purchase. Other tasks for certain items in the consideration set is influenced in large
which price retrieval is necessary include purchase timing part by consumers’ idiosyncratic preferences for specific
decisions. brands and their prices. When the consumer forms a consid-
Models Utility Specifications Sample Studies Effects Studied Product Categories Special Features Results
Baseline (5) UiHt = β0,i + βp × PriceiHt Guadagni and Little No reference price
+ βProm × PromiHt (1983) effect
+ βLoy × LoyaltyiHt + εiHt
Symmetric (6) UiHt = β0,i + βp × PriceiHt Winer (1986) Sticker shock Coffee (three brands) Multiple price Significant sticker
sticker + βProm × PromiHt expectation models. shock effect for two
shock + βLoy × LoyaltyiHt brands.
model + βref(RPiHt – PriceiHt)
+ εiHt Lattin and Bucklin Sticker shock and Ground coffee (ten Includes promotion Reference price is
(1989) reference promotions stockkeeping units) expectation term. not significant in the
presence of
promotion effect.
Mayhew and Winer Sticker shock Yogurt Multiple reference Both IRP and ERP
(1992) price (IRP and ERP). effects are significant.
Rajendran and Tellis Sticker shock Salted and unsalted Multiple reference Significant sticker
(1994) saltine crackers prices. shock effects when
ERP is included.
Chang, Siddarth, and Sticker shock Yogurt, ketchup Purchase-timing Sticker shock effect is
Weinberg (1999) heterogeneity not significant.
accounted for.
Bell and Lattin (2000) Sticker shock Orange juice, bacon, Price-sensitivity Sticker shock effect is
butter, margarine, heterogeneity significant in 10 of 12
crackers, sugar, paper accounted for. categories.
towel, ice cream,
detergent, hot dogs,
tissue, soft drinks
Asymmetric (7) UiHt = β0,i + βp × PriceiHt Kalwani et al. (1990) Loss aversion Ground coffee Reference price is Loss aversion is
reference + βProm × PromiHt separately modeled. supported.
price + βLoy × LoyaltyiHt
model + Li,βL(PriceiHt – RPiHt) Krishnamurthi, Loss aversion Ground coffee and Consumers Loss aversion is
+ GiβG(RPiHt – PriceiHt) Mazumdar, and Raj another undisclosed segmented on the supported for one of
+ εiHt (1992) category basis of brand loyalty; six brands.
where brand-specific effects.
Li = 1 if PriceiHt > RPiHt,
0 otherwise;
Gi = 1 if PriceiHt < RPiHt,
Models Utility Specifications Sample Studies Effects Studied Product Categories Special Features Results
Hardie, Johnson, and Loss aversion in price Refrigerated orange Reference price is a Loss aversion for
Fader (1993) and quality juice current price of a both price and quality
previously chosen is supported.
brand. However, quality loss
is greater than price
loss.
Kalyanaram and Little Latitude of price Sweetened and Zone of indifference Latitude is supported;
(1994) acceptance, loss unsweetened drinks around the reference loss aversion is
Briesch et al. (1997) Identify the best- Peanut butter, liquid Heterogeneity Brand-specific IRP
fitting reference price detergent, tissue, accounted for. provides the best fit
model coffee for the data. Loss
aversion is not
supported in the any
of the four categories.
Mazumdar and IRP- and ERP-based Liquid detergent, Use of mixture model Consumers are found
Papatla (2000) segmentation ketchup, tissue, to segment to be segmented on
yogurt consumers. the basis of IRP and
ERP use. Loss
aversion is present in
only one segment in
each category.
Bell and Lattin (2000) Loss aversion See previous Bell Preference and price No evidence of loss
and Lattin (2000) sensitivity accounted aversion.
entry for.
Erdem, Mayhew, and Consumer Ketchup, peanut Considers cross- Loss sensitivity is
Sun (2001) heterogeneity in gain butter, tuna category correlations heterogeneous;
and loss and accounts for reference price
responsiveness consumer effects are correlated
heterogeneity. with other
sensitivities.
Research could use similar methodologies in which the ref- reference price overlapping with the effects of other price-
erence price term and other variables of interest are related constructs.
included as covariates.
Confounding Effects of Customer Heterogeneity
Evaluations and Attributions When assessing reference price effects, researchers model
Brand extensions and brand equity. Aside from the reference price using temporal data (e.g., prior prices paid,
effects on purchase decisions, reference price may also promotions, stores visited), which differ across consumers
influence evaluations of brand extensions. Jun, MacInnis, because of differences in price sensitivities, brand prefer-
and Park (2003) demonstrate that consumers’ price expecta- ences, loyalties, and purchase timing. The reference price
tions of a brand extension are affected by the price of the effects are estimated by pooling cross-sectional purchase
parent brand, and the effect is moderated by the parent history data for all households. This approach introduces
brand’s relative price in the parent category and the disper- potential confounding effects that arise from customers’
sion in prices in the extension category. The parent brand’s heterogeneity in their price sensitivities (Bell and Lattin
prices may also evoke quality associations and influence 2000) and, thus, in their purchase timings (Chang, Siddarth,
expectation of quality of the brand extension. Reference and Weinberg 1999).
price may also moderate the effects of frequent promotions Heterogeneity and loss aversion. Bell and Lattin (2000)
on the long-term negative impact on brand equity (Jedidi, contend that price sensitive (insensitive) consumers have
Mela, and Gupta 1999). lower (higher) reference points because, on average, they
Attributions. Nonpurchase influences of reference price pay a lower (higher) price. Therefore, these consumers
include consumers’ attributions of fairness of the price that experience more losses (gains) in their purchase histories.
a seller charges and imputation of the seller’s motives Thus, the inferred loss aversion in the results may simply be
behind raising or lowering prices. Urbany, Madden, and due to the cross-sectional heterogeneity in price sensitivities
Dickson (1989) find that consumers appear more ready to rather than to the same consumer exhibiting a greater sensi-
accept price increases when sellers provide explicit cost jus- tivity to losses than to gains. In addressing the heterogene-
tifications. Campbell (1999) demonstrates that people are ity issue, Bell and Lattin (2000) consider both common
more likely to judge the increased price as unfair when they (occasion-specific) and brand-specific reference price for-
infer that the seller is attempting to earn greater-than- mulations (note that the latter permits each brand to have its
normal profits. However, the seller’s reputation moderates own reference price and therefore is less correlated with
this effect. Consumers accord the benefit of the doubt to price sensitivity) and use a mixture model (Kamakura and
more reputable sellers. Xia, Monroe, and Cox (2004) pro- Russell 1989) to account for heterogeneity in not only price
pose that perceived unfairness of a price results in lower sensitivity but also preference. They find that ignoring het-
value perception and evokes negative emotions, which may erogeneity in price sensitivities significantly overstates the
result in behavioral responses such as withdrawing from a loss aversion parameter, but it remains significant in the
purchase, spreading negative word of mouth, and even refrigerated orange juice category. The study includes addi-
engaging in legal actions. This stream of literature can be tional product categories, and in all 11 categories, the loss
extended to further study whether reference prices influence aversion parameters in multisegment models are smaller
other inferences, including consumers’ perceptions of sell- than those in single-segment models (i.e., no heterogeneity)
ers’ deceptive practices. and are significant in only 6 of the 11 categories. Other
Section summary. The research on reference price effect studies that have accounted for heterogeneity also find that
on consumer brand choice decisions is extensive. There is the loss aversion phenomenon is attenuated, and in some
also evidence of effects on purchase quantity and category cases, the gain parameters are greater than the absolute val-
purchase. The purchase quantity effects should be extended ues of loss parameters (e.g., Krishnamurthi, Mazumdar, and
to service usage, and purchase-timing effects need to be Raj 1992; Mazumdar and Papatla 2000).
tested in the context of durable purchases. The role of refer- Heterogeneity and symmetric sticker shock effect. The
ence price on other purchase decisions, such as store choice sticker shock model assumes that the responsiveness to
and consideration set formation, should also be examined. gains is the same as the responsiveness to losses. Bell and
In addition, research is needed to understand how reference Lattin (2000) report significant sticker shock effect in 10 of
prices may influence evaluations of brand extensions and 12 categories after accounting for consumer heterogeneity
brand equity. in price responsiveness. Briesch and colleagues (1997) use
a latent class mixture model to account for heterogeneity
and find that the symmetric reference price model fits better
Methodological Challenges in all four categories. Krishnamurthi, Mazumdar, and Raj
Because IRP is a latent construct, its inferred existence and (1992) carry out a priori segmentation of consumers into
effects are inevitably open to questions about the appropri- loyals and switchers and allow for each brand to have its
ateness of methodologies used to model the construct and own price and sticker shock parameters. This study shows
measure these effects. One such question is directed at the that for all six brands in two product categories, the sym-
stream of research that uses panel data to infer reference metric reference price model performs significantly better
price effects, and it is related to the role of customers’ than the model that does not include a sticker shock term.
(cross-sectional) heterogeneity confounding the reference Chang, Siddarth, and Weinberg (1999) consider
price effects. There are also questions about the effects of purchase-timing heterogeneity in which price sensitive con-
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W., Susan M. Broniarczyk, Terence A. Shimp, and ——— and Katherine N. Lemon (1999), “A Dynamic Model of
Joel E. Urbany (1994), “The Influence of Prior Beliefs, Fre- Customers’ Usage of Services: Usage as an Antecedent and
quency Cues, and Magnitude Cues on Consumers’ Perceptions Consequence of Satisfaction,” Journal of Marketing Research,
of Comparative Price Data,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 36 (2), 171–86.
(2), 219–35. Bridges, Eileen, Chi Kin (Bennett) Yim, and Richard A. Briesch
———, Carl F. Mela, Terence A. Shimp, and Joel E. Urbany (1995), “A High-Tech Product Market Share Model with Cus-
(1999), “The Effect of Discount Frequency and Depth on Con- tomer Expectations,” Marketing Science, 14 (1), 61–81.
sumer Price Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 Briesch, Richard A., Lakshman Krishnamurthi, Tridib Mazumdar,
(2), 99–114. and S.P. Raj (1997), “A Comparative Analysis of Reference
Arora, Neeraj, Praveen K. Kopalle, and P.K. Kannan (2001), “The Price Models,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2),
Impact of Household Level Heterogeneity in Reference Price 202–214.
Effects on Optimal Retailer Pricing Policies,” working paper, Bucklin, Randolph E. and James M. Lattin (1991), “A Two-State
School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Model of Purchase Incidence and Brand Choice,” Marketing
Bearden, William O., Jay P. Carlson, and David M. Hardesty Science, 10 (1), 24–39.
(2003), “Using Invoice Information to Frame Advertised Campbell, Margaret C. (1999), “Perceptions of Price Unfairness:
Prices,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (May), 355–66. Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing
Bell, David R. and Randolph E. Bucklin (1999), “The Role of Research, 36 (May), 187–99.
Internal Reference Price in the Category Purchase Decision,” Chang, Kwangpil, S. Siddarth, and Charles B. Weinberg (1999),
Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (2), 128–43. “The Impact of Heterogeneity in Purchase Timing and Price
——— and James M. Lattin (1998), “Shopping Behavior and
Responsiveness on Estimates of Sticker Shock Effects,” Mar-
Consumer Preference for Retail Price Format: Why ‘Large
keting Science, 18 (2), 178–92.
Basket’ Shoppers Prefer EDLP,” Marketing Science, 17 (1),
Crocker, Jennifer (1981), “Judgment of Covariation by Social Per-
66–88.
ceivers,” Psychological Bulletin, 90 (2), 272–92.
——— and ——— (2000), “Looking for Loss Aversion in Scan-
Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March (1963), A Behavioral
ner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price-Response
Heterogeneity,” Marketing Science, 19 (2), 185–200. Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berkowitz, Eric N. and John R. Walton (1980), “Contextual Influ- Danaher, Peter (2002), “Optimal Pricing of Subscription Services:
ences on Consumer Price Responses: An Experimental Analy- Analysis of a Market Experiment,” Marketing Science, 21 (2),
sis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (August), 349–59. 119–38.
Bettman, James R., Deborah Roedder John, and Carol A. Scott Deaton, Angus and John Muellbauer (1980), Economics and Con-
(1985), “Covariation Assessment by Consumers,” Journal of sumer Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Consumer Research, 13 (3), 316-26. Dehaene, Stanislas (1997), The Number Sense. New York: Oxford.
Biehal, Gabriel and Dipankar Chakravarti (1983), Information Dekimpe, Marnik G. and Dominique M. Hanssens (1995), “The
Accessibility as a Moderator of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales,” Marketing Science,
Consumer Research, 10 (1), 1–14. 14 (1), 1–21.
Biswas, Abhijit and Edward A. Blair (1991), “Contextual Effects DelVecchio, Devon, H. Shanker Krishnan, and Daniel C. Smith
of Reference Price in Retail Advertisements,” Journal of Mar- (2003), “Cents or Percent? Promotion Framing and Consumer
keting, 55 (July), 1–12. Price Expectations,” working paper, Kelly School of Business,
Bolton, Lisa E., Luk Warlop, and Joseph W. Alba (2003), “Con- Indiana University.
sumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness,” Journal of Con- Dickson, Peter R. and Alan G. Sawyer (1990), “The Price Knowl-
sumer Research, 29 (March), 474–91. edge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Market-
Bolton, Ruth N. (1989), “The Relationship Between Market Char- ing, 54 (July), 42–53.
acteristics and Promotional Price Elasticities,” Marketing Sci- Erdem, Tulin, Glenn Mayhew, and Baohong Sun (2001), “Under-
ence, 8 (2), 153–69. standing Reference-Price Shoppers: A Within- and Cross-