Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorvan Oest, Rutger D.
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-12T12:19:30Z
dc.date.available2013-04-12T12:19:30Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn1873-3271
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/93856
dc.descriptionThis is the author’s final, accepted and refereed manuscript to the articleno_NO
dc.description.abstractThe literature has produced mixed support for loss aversion in a reference price context and the outcome may depend on the type of reference price. One extant study has reported empirical evidence that consumers are less loss averse in internal than external reference prices, but without discussing causes or implications. In the current study, we reconcile relevant literature and propose this asymmetric loss aversion result as an empirical generalization. Next, we provide and test an explanation: two empirical regularities in pricing cause that consumers tend to observe few losses for external reference price and many losses for internal reference price, making them less sensitive to internal than external losses. We use two scanner panel data sets to show that the two empirical regularities contribute to asymmetric loss aversion, while accounting for alternative explanations. We explore the implications of loss aversion asymmetry for the effectiveness of price promotions by simulation.no_NO
dc.language.isoengno_NO
dc.publisherElsevierno_NO
dc.subjectInternal reference priceno_NO
dc.subjectExternal reference priceno_NO
dc.subjectLoss aversionno_NO
dc.subjectScanner panel datano_NO
dc.titleWhy are consumers less loss averse in internal than external reference prices?no_NO
dc.typeJournal articleno_NO
dc.typePeer reviewedno_NO
dc.source.pagenumber62-71no_NO
dc.source.volume89no_NO
dc.source.journalJournal of Retailingno_NO
dc.source.issue1no_NO
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.003


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel