People perceive price as a cue of monetary sacrifice, a quality signal, or both. However, this research proposed that the relative salience of these two roles varies with different decision tasks (i.e., selection and rejection). Furthermore, the effect of decision task type on price perception differs by product type (i.e., tangible goods or services). Two experiments show that (1) the price–quality perception under the selection task is higher than that of a rejection task for tangible goods but not for services; and (2) for goods and services, the sacrifice perception is greater in the rejection task than that in a selection task. These findings have important implications for formulating product assortment and marketing communications strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BijmoltT. H.Van HeerdeH. J.PietersR. G. (2005) New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 141–156.
2.
BornemannT.HomburgC. (2011) Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(3), 490–504.
3.
ChangC-J. (2013) Price or quality? The influence of fluency on the dual role of price. Marketing Letters, 24(4), 1–12.
4.
ChenI. J.GuptaA.RomW. (1994) A study of price and quality in service operations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(2), 23–33.
5.
ChernevA. (2009) Choosing versus rejecting: The impact of goal-task compatibility on decision confidence. Social Cognition, 27(2), 249–260.
6.
CronleyM. L.PosavacS. S.MeyerT.KardesF. R.KellarisJ. J. (2005) A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 159–169.
7.
CurryD. J.RieszP. C. (1988) Prices and price/quality relationships: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 36–51.
8.
DevalH.MantelS. P.KardesF. R.PosavacS. S. (2013) How naive theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185–1201.
9.
DharR.KimE. Y. (2007) Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 96–100.
10.
DingM.RossW. T.Jr.RaoV. R. (2010) Price as an indicator of quality: Implications for utility and demand functions. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 69–84.
11.
GerstnerE. (1985) Do higher prices signal higher quality?Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 209–215.
12.
HellerD.LevinI. P.GoranssonM. (2002) Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1194–1213.
13.
KimY. J.ParkJ.WyerR. S.Jr. (2009) Effects of temporal distance and memory on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 634–645.
14.
LaranJ.WilcoxK. (2011) Choice, rejection, and elaboration on preference-inconsistent alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 229–241.
15.
LevinI. P.HunekeM. E.JasperJ. D. (2000) Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171–193.
16.
LichtensteinD. R.BurtonS. (1989) The relationship between perceived and objective price–quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 429–443.
17.
MeloyM. G.RussoE. J. (2004) Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(2), 114–128.
18.
MurrayK. B.SchlacterJ. L. (1990) The impact of services versus goods on consumers' assessment of perceived risk and variability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 51–65.
19.
NagpalA.KrishnamurthyP. (2008) Attribute conflict in consumer decision making: The role of task compatibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 696–705.
20.
OrdóñezL. D.BensonL.IIIBeachL. R. (1999) Testing the compatibility test: How instructions, accountability, and anticipated regret affect prechoice screening of options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(1), 63–80.
21.
ParkC. W.JunS. Y.MacInnisD. J. (2000) Choosing what I want versus rejecting what I do not want: An application of decision framing to product option choice decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 187–202.
22.
ShafirE. (1993) Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.
SuriR.KohliC.MonroeK. B. (2007) The effects of perceived scarcity on consumers' processing of price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 89–100.
25.
SuriR.MonroeK. B. (2003) The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92–104.
26.
TsaiC. I.McGillA. L. (2011) No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807–821.
27.
VölcknerF.HofmannJ. (2007) The price-perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 181–196.
28.
WhiteK.MacDonnellR.DahlD. W. (2011) It's the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485.
29.
YanivI.SchulY. (1997) Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10(3), 211–220.
