.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
The study investigated processing goal and price presentation on perceived price and consumer purchase intention. Processing goal will moderate price judgement process of price presentation order. Specifically, price judgement process assimilation effect is observed, when processing goal is generalization, however when processing goal is discrimination, price perceptions are influenced by contrast effect. This progress goal will be influence price presentation order. In study1 the effect of goal progress and presentation price order was examined. In order to test this hypothesis, randomly distributed in the 2(progress goal: generalization vs. discrimination) X 2(price order: ascendign vs. descending) between-subjects experiment. The result of study 1 shows significant interaction between progress goal and price order. They find that reference point influence of presentation price order is more effective when goal progress is distribution, however, the influence of reference price is decrease when goal progress is generation. In study2. focal price perception by progress goal is contrast and assimilation effect. The design was processing goal(discrimination vs. generalization) by price context(control, mean shift, endpoint shift), with seven price rated. The result of study2. they find that assimilation effect when the processing goal was generalization and contrast effect when the processing goal was discrimination.
Adaval, R. & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Automatic construction and use of Contextual information for product and price evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(March), 572-588.
Anderson, Norman H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition, Hillsdake, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cook, Alan D., Chris Janiszewski, Marcus Cunha Jr., Suzanne A. Nasco, & Els De Wilde. (2004). Stimulus context and the formation of consumer ideals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(Jane), 112-124.
Cunha Jr. M., & Shulman, J. D. (2011). Assimilation and contrast in price evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 822-835.
Janiszewski, Chris & Donald R. Lichtenstein. (1999). Arange theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(March), 353-369.
Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy & Russell S. Winer. (1995). Empirical generalizations for reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(2), 161-169.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Mancy M. Rodgway, & Richard G. Netemeyer. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behaviors:A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(May), 234-245.
Markman, Arthur B. & Brian H. Ross. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychology Bulletin, 129(July), 592-613.
Niedrich, Ronald W., Danny Weathers, R. Carter Hill, & David R. Bell. (2009). Reference price and price perception: Acomparion of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(December), 339-354.
Rao, Akshay R. & Kent, B. Monroe. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, & store name on buy perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research,26(August), 351-357.
Russo, J. Edward, Kurt A. Carlson, Margaret G. Meloy, & Kevyn, Yong. (2008). The goal of consistency as a cause of information distortion. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 137(August), 456-470.
Suk, K., Lee, J., & Lichtenstein, Donald R. (2012). The influence of price presentation order on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing, 49(5), 708-717.
Yamauchi, T., & Arthur B. Markman. (1998). Category learning by inference and classification. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(July), 124-148.
Zunma, N, S. (1992). Assimilation and contrast effects in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 72-77.