Asia Marketing Journal

Korean Marketing Association (한국마케팅학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Exploratory Study on the Effect of Price as an Anchor on Willingness-to-pay: Anchoring-and-adjustment or Selective Accessibility

  • Song, Jae-Do (College of Business Administration, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2016.07.19
  • Accepted : 2017.01.12
  • Published : 2017.01.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The two competing underlying mechanisms of anchoring, anchoring-and-adjustment and selective accessibility, have very different managerial implications for the effect of price as an anchor on willingness-to-pay (WTP). To clarify their relative roles in inducing the anchoring effect, path analysis modeling in which two paths are included in a single model was utilized. The first path proceeds directly from anchor price to WTP, representing anchor-and-adjustment. The second path, representing selective accessibility, includes a mediator formed by various explanatory variables of WTP. The results consistently show that only the direct path, anchoring-and-adjustment, is significant. The results also show that the level of available product information has no significant moderation effect on both of the paths, which implies the robustness of the result with respect to information level.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5A2A03064942).

References

  1. Alberini, Anna, Barbara Kanninen, and Richard Carson (1997), "Modeling response incentive effects in dichotomous choice valuation data," Land Economics, 73(3), 309-324.
  2. Ariely, Dan, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec (2003), "Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73-105.
  3. Baumeister, Roy F., and Brad J. Bushman (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Thomson Wadsworth.
  4. Bearden, William. O., Ajit Kaicker, Melinda Smith de Borrero, and Joel E. Urbany (1992), "Examining alternative operational measures of internal reference prices," Advances in Consumer Research, 19(2), 629-635.
  5. Biel, Anders, Olof Johansson-Stenman, and Andreas Nilsson (2011), "The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap revisited: The role of emotions and moral satisfaction," Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(6), 908-917.
  6. Braga, Jacinto, and Chris Starmer (2005), "Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, 32(1), 55-89.
  7. Carlsson, Fredrik, and Peter Martinsson (2001), "Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 179-192.
  8. Chan, Tat Y., Vrinda Kadiyali, and Young-Hoon Park (2007), "Willingness to pay and competition in online auctions," Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 324-333.
  9. Chandrashekaran, Rajesh (2001), "The implications of individual differences in reference price utilization for designing effective price communications," Journal of Business Research, 53(2), 85-91.
  10. Chandrashekaran, Rajesh, and Harsharanjeet Jagpal (1995), "Is there a well-defined internal reference price?," Advances in Consumer Research, 22(1), 230-235.
  11. Chapman, Gretchen B., and Eric J. Johnson (1994), "The limits of anchoring," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7(4), 223-242.
  12. Cooper, Joseph C., Michael Haneman, and Giovanni Signorello (2002), "One and one-half bids for contingent valuation," Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), 742-750.
  13. DelVecchio, Devon, and Timothy B. Heath (2012), "The effect of dual anchors on numeric judgments: The moderating effects of anchor order and domain knowledge," Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 547-552.
  14. DeShazo, J. R. (2002), "Designing transactions without framing effects in iterative question formats," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(3), 360-385.
  15. Englich, Birte, and Thomas Mussweiler (2001), "Sentencing under uncertainty: anchoring effects in the courtroom," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1535-1551.
  16. Englich, Birte, and Thomas Mussweiler, and Fritz Strack (2005), "The last word in court - a hidden disadvantage for the defense," Law and Human Behavior, 29(6), 705-722.
  17. Englich, Birte (2006), "Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188-200.
  18. Englich, Birte, and Kirsten Soder (2009), "Moody experts - how mood and expertise influence judgmental anchoring," Judgmental and Decision Making, 4(1), 41-50.
  19. Epley, Nicholas, and Thomas Gilovich (2005), "When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally provided anchors," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 199-212.
  20. Flachaire, Emmanuel, and Guillaume Hollard (2007), "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, 29(3), 183-194
  21. Furnham, Adrian, and Hua Chu Boo (2011), "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.
  22. Gall-Ely, Marine Le (2009), "Definition, measurement and determinants of the consumer's willingness to pay: A critical synthesis and avenues for further research," Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 24(2), 91-112.
  23. Green, Donald, Karen E. Jacowitz, Daniel Kahneman, and Daniel McFadden (1998), "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, 20(2), 85-116.
  24. Herriges, Joseph A., and Jason F. Shogren (1996), "Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(1), 112-131.
  25. Horowitz, John K., and Kenneth E. McConnell (2002), "A review of WTA/WTP studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(3), 426-447.
  26. Jarvis, Cheryl B., Scott B. Mackenzie, and Philip M. Podsakoff (2003), "A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research," Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218.
  27. Kato, Takaaki, and Noboru Hidano (2007), "Anchoring effects, survey conditions, and respondents' characteristics: Contingent valuation of uncertain environmental changes," Journal of Risk Research, 10(6), 773-792.
  28. Khan, Uzma, and Ravi Dhar (2010), "Price-framing effects on the purchase of hedonic and utilitarian bundles," Journal of Marketing Research, 47(6), 1090-1099
  29. Ladenburg, Jacob (2013), "Does gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments prevail among well-informed respondents: evidence from an empirical study," Applied Economics Letters, 20(17), 1527-1630.
  30. LeBoeuf, Robyn A., and Eldar Shafir (2009), "Anchoring on the "Here" and "Now" in time and distance judgments," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(1), 81-93.
  31. List, John A. (2003), "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies?," The quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 41-71.
  32. List, John A. (2004), "Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from marketplace," Econometrica, 22(2), 615-625.
  33. List, John A. (2011), "Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? The case of exogenous market experience," American Economic Review, 101(3), 313-317.
  34. Luchini, Stephane, and Verity Watson (2013), "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 204-214.
  35. Mazumdar, Tridib, S. P. Raj, and Indrajit Sinha (2005), "Reference price research: Review and propositions," Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 84-102.
  36. Monroe, Kent B. (1973), "Buyers' subjective perceptions of price," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (1), 70-80.
  37. Monroe, Kent B. (2002). Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  38. Mussweiler, Thomas, and Fritz Strack (1999), "Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
  39. Mussweiler, Thomas (2000), "Numeric judgments under uncertainty: The role of knowledge in anchoring," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5), 495-518.
  40. Mussweiler, Thomas, Fritz Strack, and Tim Pfeiffer (2000), "Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142-1150.
  41. Northcraft, Gregory B., and Marharet A. Neale (1987), "Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84-97.
  42. Petter, Stacle, Detmar Straub, and Arun Rai (2007), "Specifying formative constructs in information systems research," MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623-656.
  43. Plott, Charles R., and Kathryn Zeiler (2005), "The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "Endowment Effect," subject misconceptions and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations.," American Economic Review, 95(3), 530-545.
  44. Ryan, Mandy S., and Sarah Wordsworth (2000), "Sensitivity of willingness to pay estimates to level of attributes in discrete choice experiments," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 47(5), 504-524.
  45. Sitzia, Stefania, and Daniel John Zizzo (2012), "Price lower and then higher or price higher and then lower?," Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(6), 1084-1099.
  46. Strahilevitz, Michal A., and John G. Myers (1998), "Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell," Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446.
  47. Thaler, Richard (1985), "Mental accounting and consumer choice," Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
  48. Tirole, Jean (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization (8th ed.). The MIT Press.
  49. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman (1974), "Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases," Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
  50. Tversky, Amos, and Richard H. Thaler (1990), "Anomalies: Preference reversals," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 201-211.
  51. van Exel, N. J. A., W. B. F. Brouwer, B. van den Berg, and M. A. Koopmanschap (2006), "With a little help from an anchor: Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation," The Journal of SocioEconomics, 35(5), 836-853.
  52. Wegener, Duane T., Richard E. Petty, Brian T. Detweiler-Bedell, and W. Blair G. Jarvis (2001), "Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62-69.
  53. Wegener, Duane. T., Richard E. Petty, Kevin L. Blankenship, and Brian Detweiler-Bedell (2010 a), "Elaboration and numerical anchoring: implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 5-16.
  54. Wegener, Duane. T. (2010 b), "Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Breadth, depth, and the role of (non-)thoughtful processes in anchoring theories," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1). 28-32.
  55. Whitehead, John C. (2002), "Incentive incompatibility and starting-point bias in iterative valuation questions," Land Economics, 78(2), 285-297.
  56. Wilson, Timothy D., Christopher E. Houston, Kathryn M. Etling, and Nancy Brekke (1996), "A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents," Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387-402.
  57. Wood, Wendy, and Timothy Hayes (2012), "Social influence on consumer decisions: Motives, modes, and consequences," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 324-328.