Skip to main content
Log in

Suspicion and Perceptions of Price Fairness in Times of Crisis

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Times of crisis bring about increased demands on businesses as shortages, or unexpected but significant, business costs are encountered. Passing on such costs to consumers is a challenge. When faced with a retail price increase, consumers may rely on cues as to the motive behind the increase. Such cues can raise suspicion of alternative motive (e.g., taking advantage of the consumer) affecting consumers’ judgments of price fairness. This research investigates two triggers of suspicion: salience of alternative motives, and behavior judged to be out-of-character for the business. Results of the two studies within crisis contexts indicate that suspicion is created when alternative motives are salient and when a retailer acts out-of-character. Multiple group analyses revealed that suspicion induced negative affect and subsequent perceptions of price fairness. When suspicion was present, more negative feelings toward the retailer and judgments of price unfairness resulted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing:1988, ‘Structural Equation Model in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach’, Psychological Bulletin 103, 411-123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badertscher, N.: 2005, ‘15 Cited for Gouging Gas Prices’, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (November 16), Home Edition, 1B.

  • Bagozzi, R. P. and Y. Yi,:1989, ‘On the Use of Structural Equation Models in Experimental Designs’, Journal of Marketing Research 26, 271-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., K. C. Manning, and P. W. Miniard:2010, ‘Consumer Response to Retailer’s Use of Partially Comparative Pricing’, Journal of Marketing 68, 37-47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechwati, N. N. and M. Morrin:2003, ‘Outraged Consumers: Getting Even at the Expense of Getting a Good Deal’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 13, 440-453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L. E. and J. W. Alba:2006, ‘Price Fairness: Good-Service Differences and the Role of Vendor Costs’, Journal of Consumer Research 33, 258-265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L. E., L. Warlop and J. W. Alba:2003, ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness’, Journal of Consumer Research 29, 474-491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bougie, R., R. Pieters and M. Zeelenberg:2003, ‘Angry Customers Don’t Come Back, They Get Back: The Experience and Behavioral Implications of Anger and Dissatisfaction in Services’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31, 377-393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C.:1999a, ‘Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences’, Journal of Marketing Research 36, 187-199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C.:1999b, ‘Why Did You Do That? The Important Role of Inferred Motive in Perceptions of Price Fairness’, Journal of Product and Brand Management 8, 145-152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M. C. and A. Kirmani:2000, ‘Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent’, Journal of Consumer Research 27, 69-83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chylinski, M. and A. Chu:2010, ‘Consumer Cynicism: Antecedents and Consequences’, European Journal of Marketing 44, 796-837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeCarlo, T. E.:2005, ‘The Effects of Sales Message and Suspicion of Ulterior Motives on Salesperson Evaluation’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 15, 238-249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M.:1958, ‘Trust and Suspicion’, Conflict Resolution 2, 265-279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission: 2006, ‘Investigation of Gasoline Price Manipulation and Post-Katrina Gasoline Price Increases (Report, Spring 2006)’, http://www.ftc.gov/reports/060518PublicGasolinePricesInvestigationReportFinal.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2010.

  • Fein, S.:1996, ‘Effects of Suspicion on Attributional Thinking and the Corresponding Bias’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, 1164-1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, S. and J. L. Hilton:1994, ‘Judging Others in the Shadow of Suspicion’, Motivation and Emotion 18, 167-198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fein, S., J. L. Hilton and D. T. Miller:1990, ‘Suspicion of Ulterior Motivation and the Correspondence Bias’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 753-764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fialka, John J.: 2005, ‘Lawmakers Struggle to Define Gasoline Price “Gouging”‘, The Wall Street Journal (November 9), p. B1.

  • Florida Statute 501.160: 2009, Renal or Sale of Essential Commodities During a State of Emergency; Prohibition Against Unconscionable Prices.

  • Friestad, M., and P. Wright:1994, ‘The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts’, Journal of Consumer Research 21, 1-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, D., D. M. Hardesty and G. R. Iyer:2004, ‘The Effects of Buyer Identification and Purchase Timing on Consumers’ Perceptions of Trust, Price Fairness, and Repurchase Intentions’, Journal of Interactive Marketing 18, 87-100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hao, S. and D. Nakaso: 2008, ‘Last Dairy Closing on Oahu; Milk a Concern’, USA Today (January 30, 2008), News, p. 3A.

  • Hu, L. and P. M. Bentler:1999, ‘Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives’, Structural Equation Modeling 6, 1-55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., J. L. Knetsch and R. Thaler:1986, ‘Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market’, The American Economic Review 76, 728-741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kee, H. W. and R. E. Know:1970, ‘Conceptual and Methodological Considerations in the Study of Trust and Suspicion’, Conflict Resolution 14, 357-366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P. H. D. L. Ferrin,C. D. Cooper and K. T. Dirks:2004, ‘Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations’, Journal of Applied Psychology 89, 104-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R. M.:1999, ‘Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions’, Annual Review of Psychology 50, 569-598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, T. R. and S. A. McCornack:1991, ‘The Dark Side of Trust: Conceptualizing and Measuring Types of Communicative Suspicion’, Communication Quarterly 39, 325-340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S.:1995, ‘What Makes a Price Increase Seem Fair?’ Pricing Strategy and Practice 3, 21-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oza, S. S., J. Srivastava, N. T. Koukova:2010 ‘How Suspicion Mitigates the Effect of Influence Tactics’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112, 1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart, R. E. and F. L. Oswald:2004, ‘Applications of Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis: Integrating Correlational and Experimental Approaches’, Organizational Research Methods 7, 27-65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J.:1990, ‘Voice, Exit and Negative Word-of-Mouth Behaviors: An Investigation Across Three Service Categories’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18, 1-15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State of South Carolina Office of the Attorney General: 2009, ‘Gas Price Gouging Report (Report, June 25, 2009)’, http://www.scattorneygeneral.com/newsroom/pdf/2009/gaspricegouging.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2010.

  • Toris, C. and B. M. DePaulo:1985, ‘Effects of Actual Deception and Suspiciousness of Deception on Interpersonal Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, 1063-1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J. E., T. J. Madden and P. R. Dickson:1989, ‘All’s Not Fair in Pricing: An Initial Look at the Dual Entitlement Principle’, Marketing Letters 1, 17-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidyanathan, R. and P. Aggarwal:2003, ‘Who is the Fairest of Them All? An Attributional Approach to Price Fairness Perceptions’, Journal of Business Research 56, 453–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk, R.:1998, ‘The Slime Effect: Suspicion and Dislike of Likeable Behavior Toward Superiors’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 849–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welborn, A. A. and A. M. Flynn: 2005, ‘Price Increases in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Authority to Limit Price Gouging’, CRS Report for Congress, # RS22236 (September 2), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22236.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2006.

  • Xia, L., K. B. Monroe and J. L. Cox:2004, ‘The Price is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price Fairness Perceptions’, Journal of Marketing 68, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jodie L. Ferguson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferguson, J.L., Ellen, P.S. & Piscopo, G.H. Suspicion and Perceptions of Price Fairness in Times of Crisis. J Bus Ethics 98, 331–349 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0552-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0552-8

Keywords

Navigation