A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices. / Troll, Eve Sarah; Frankenbach, Julius; Friese, Malte et al.
In: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 2, 04.2024, p. 299-325.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Troll ES, Frankenbach J, Friese M, Loschelder DD. A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2024 Apr;34(2):299-325. Epub 2023 May 21. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1353

Bibtex

@article{05b6b45993c94091b17f2ded78a2fc1d,
title = "A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices",
abstract = "Marketers' proclivity for just-below prices (e.g., $9.99) is rooted in an expected higher demand than for round prices ($10.00). The literature, however, lacks a comprehensive assessment of when and how price endings matter. Three mechanisms might explain price-ending effects on consumers' purchase decisions: just-below prices (1) improve price perceptions, but (2) impair perceived product quality, and (3) cause consumers to underestimate prices. A preregistered meta-analysis (k = 69 studies, m = 362 effect sizes, N = 40,541) established that just-below (vs. round) prices tend to increase purchase decisions (g = 0.13, CI 95%[0.01, 0.25]), result in an advantageous price image (g = 0.28, CI 95%[0.09, 0.48]), have no effect on perceived product quality (g = 0.00, CI 95%[−0.17, 0.18], p = 0.96), and are more often underestimated (g = 0.67, CI 95%[0.04, 1.30]). Participant, study, price, and product characteristics moderate the magnitude of these effects. Overall, the effect sizes are small and highly heterogenous, p-curve analyses revealed a large proportion of nonsignificant effects, and publication bias corrections suggest smaller and, at times, nonsignificant true effects. We discuss theoretical and applied implications for the pricing literature.",
keywords = "Management studies, just-below prices, meta-analysis, price endings, pricing, round prices",
author = "Troll, {Eve Sarah} and Julius Frankenbach and Malte Friese and Loschelder, {David D.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Psychology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Consumer Psychology.",
year = "2024",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1002/jcpy.1353",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "299--325",
journal = "Journal of Consumer Psychology",
issn = "1057-7408",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A meta‐analysis on the effects of just‐below versus round prices

AU - Troll, Eve Sarah

AU - Frankenbach, Julius

AU - Friese, Malte

AU - Loschelder, David D.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Consumer Psychology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Consumer Psychology.

PY - 2024/4

Y1 - 2024/4

N2 - Marketers' proclivity for just-below prices (e.g., $9.99) is rooted in an expected higher demand than for round prices ($10.00). The literature, however, lacks a comprehensive assessment of when and how price endings matter. Three mechanisms might explain price-ending effects on consumers' purchase decisions: just-below prices (1) improve price perceptions, but (2) impair perceived product quality, and (3) cause consumers to underestimate prices. A preregistered meta-analysis (k = 69 studies, m = 362 effect sizes, N = 40,541) established that just-below (vs. round) prices tend to increase purchase decisions (g = 0.13, CI 95%[0.01, 0.25]), result in an advantageous price image (g = 0.28, CI 95%[0.09, 0.48]), have no effect on perceived product quality (g = 0.00, CI 95%[−0.17, 0.18], p = 0.96), and are more often underestimated (g = 0.67, CI 95%[0.04, 1.30]). Participant, study, price, and product characteristics moderate the magnitude of these effects. Overall, the effect sizes are small and highly heterogenous, p-curve analyses revealed a large proportion of nonsignificant effects, and publication bias corrections suggest smaller and, at times, nonsignificant true effects. We discuss theoretical and applied implications for the pricing literature.

AB - Marketers' proclivity for just-below prices (e.g., $9.99) is rooted in an expected higher demand than for round prices ($10.00). The literature, however, lacks a comprehensive assessment of when and how price endings matter. Three mechanisms might explain price-ending effects on consumers' purchase decisions: just-below prices (1) improve price perceptions, but (2) impair perceived product quality, and (3) cause consumers to underestimate prices. A preregistered meta-analysis (k = 69 studies, m = 362 effect sizes, N = 40,541) established that just-below (vs. round) prices tend to increase purchase decisions (g = 0.13, CI 95%[0.01, 0.25]), result in an advantageous price image (g = 0.28, CI 95%[0.09, 0.48]), have no effect on perceived product quality (g = 0.00, CI 95%[−0.17, 0.18], p = 0.96), and are more often underestimated (g = 0.67, CI 95%[0.04, 1.30]). Participant, study, price, and product characteristics moderate the magnitude of these effects. Overall, the effect sizes are small and highly heterogenous, p-curve analyses revealed a large proportion of nonsignificant effects, and publication bias corrections suggest smaller and, at times, nonsignificant true effects. We discuss theoretical and applied implications for the pricing literature.

KW - Management studies

KW - just-below prices

KW - meta-analysis

KW - price endings

KW - pricing

KW - round prices

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159816067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/aef7ba5e-975e-337e-854e-ef935aaeb99f/

U2 - 10.1002/jcpy.1353

DO - 10.1002/jcpy.1353

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 34

SP - 299

EP - 325

JO - Journal of Consumer Psychology

JF - Journal of Consumer Psychology

SN - 1057-7408

IS - 2

ER -

DOI