RISS 검색 - 국내학술지논문 상세보기

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The price fairness perception of the product is closely related to the reference price. If price of the product is higher than reference price, consumer will perceive it as unfair.
As previously reported, the principles of price fairness perception such as dual entitlement theory, cost-plus rule and buffer rule have been discussed by many researchers. Dual entitlement theory means that both buyer and seller has the right. That is to say, sellers have the right to obtain the profit and sellers have the right not to buy when the price is not fair. On the other had, consumers will judge the price ad fair when the price is set on the cost level. Buffer rule means that consumers will judge the price as fair when the price should be constant without considering the fluctuation of the cost level. Kahneman et al.(1986a, b) is the first researcher who applied the dual entitlement theory to the price fairness perception. However, Urbany et al.(1989) also supported partially the effectiveness of the dual entitlement theory. That is, he showed that dual entitlement theory will be valid when the search cost is lower than the amount of price increase.
But Kalpurkal et al.(1991) denied entirely the Kahneman’s conclusion and suggested that the cost-plus rule and buffer rule are more effective than dual entitlement theory. According to previous studies, there was no dominant rules to describe the phenomenon of price fairness perception.
Under the above mentioned backgrounds, the purpose of this study is to explain which theory is more explainable in different situations. In order to describe which theory would make sense for perceiving the fairness, three scenarios based on the each theories was built and they were applied to three products such as digital camera, lettuces and aromatics which were selected in the pre-study. The hypothesis was that consumers would perceive the price fairness differently when each of three previous theories was applied to each product.
The conditions considered are as follows when the products were selected. Firstly, lettuces represent the condition that the sellers can control the cost and the consumers have negotiation power, Digital cameras represent the condition that the sellers can control the cost, and have even negotiation power. Aromatics express that the seller cannot control the cost and the consumers have the negotiation power. To test the hypothesis, 3(three rules) by 3(three products based on the situations) experimental design was used. Each cell is composed of around 30 students who attend ‘S’ university.
They are required to check the degree of fairness after reading the scenarios. We judged the degree of fairness by the number of respondents who checked 4(probably fair), or 5(fair) in 5 point interval scale.
<Table 1> Scenarios
[표]
Contrary to the hypothesis, and similarly to the Kalpurkal et al.(1991), the cost plus rule and the buffer rule are more valid than dual entitlement theory for explaining the price fairness perception. The reason why the contradictive results were shown is as following. Because consumers tend to maximize their own profit, they consider the rules to be beneficial as fairness.
<Table 2> Results
[표]
This study has also some limitations. The manipulation of one of the scenarios did not work well in the main experiment, which is contradictory to the pre-study. The case of aromatics was not manipulated in the main experiment. Thus, I could not check the ideas I developed based on the literature review. Secondly, the meaning of dual entitlement theory was not delivered to the subjects because of the its delicate situation. The some of contradictory result was due to it.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

가격 공정성 지각은 소비자들의 제품구매에 영향을 미친다. 선행연구에서 이미 제시되었듯이 소비자들은 쌍방권한원칙(dual entitlement theory), 원가가산원칙(cost-plus rule), 완충원칙(buffer rule)에 ...

가격 공정성 지각은 소비자들의 제품구매에 영향을 미친다. 선행연구에서 이미 제시되었듯이 소비자들은 쌍방권한원칙(dual entitlement theory), 원가가산원칙(cost-plus rule), 완충원칙(buffer rule)에 근거하여 가격 공정성을 판단한다. Kahneman 등(1986a, b)은 가격공정성 지각원칙 중 쌍방권한원칙에 대해 처음으로 제시하였고 소비자들이 쌍방권한원칙을 적용하여 가격공정성을 판단할 때 더 효과적이라고 하였다. 그러나 Urbany 등(1989)은 Kahneman 등(1986a, b)의 쌍방권한원칙의 효과에 대해 부분적으로 부정하였고 Kalpurkal 등(1991)은 Kahneman 등(1986a, b)의 결론을 완전히 부정하면서 쌍방권한원칙보다 원가가산원칙, 완충원칙이 더 효과적이라는 결론을 제시하였다. 이렇듯 선행연구에 따르면 어느 하나의 원칙이 지배적으로 설명력이 있다고 보기 어려울 정도로 여러 가지 결과들이 혼재되어 있는 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 이 논문에서는 선행연구에서 나타난 결과를 정리하여, 각 공정성지각의 원칙이 어떤 경우에 더 효과적으로 설명이 가능한가를 밝히기 위하여, 각 원칙들이 설명 가능한 세 가지 상황과 제품군을 시나리오로 설정하여 소비자들이 공정성을 지각하는 방법들을 증명하고자 하였다. 선행연구 결과와는 달리 쌍방권한원칙보다는 원가가산원칙, 완충원칙이 가격 공정성을 지각하는데 더 설명력이 있는 것으로 나타났다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 이진용, "가격 정책의 공정성에 대한 소비자 판단의 연구" 한국마케팅학회 11 (11): 77-104, 1996

2 조소현, "가격 공정성의 규범적 통합모형에 관한 연구" 성신여자대학교 대학원 2008

3 Campbell, M. C, "“‘Says Who?!’ How the Source of Price Information and Affect Influence Perceived Price(Un)fairness" 44 (44): 261-271, 2007

4 Vaidyanathan, R, "Who is the Fairest of them all? An Attribution Approach to Price Fairness Perceptions" 56 (56): 453-463, 2003

5 Dickson, P. R, "The Use and Perceived Fairness of Price-Setting Rules in the Bulk Electricity Market" 15 (15): 427-448, 1994

6 Xia, L, "The Price is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price Unfairness Perceptions" 68 (68): 1-15, 2004

7 Hanson, W, "The Dynamics of Cost-Plus Pricing" 13 (13): 149-161, 1992

8 Major, B, "Social Comparison Processes and Judgement of Entitlement and Satisfaction" 25 (25): 101-120, 1989

9 Kamen, J. M, "Psychophysics of Prices" 8 (8): 252-257, 1970

10 Gielissen, R, "Perceptions of Price Fairness: An Empirical Research" 47 (47): 370-389, 2008