价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线动态价格的感知与购买意愿的影响*

心理与行为研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (4): 537-543.

价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线动态价格的感知与购买意愿的影响*

李宗龙^1,2, 胡冬梅¹, 张堂正¹

1 山东师范大学心理学院，济南 250014;
2 华南师范大学心理学院，广州 510631

收稿日期:2015-01-01 出版日期:2016-07-20 发布日期:2016-07-25
通讯作者: 胡冬梅，E-mail382170956@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（31371048）和山东省应用基础型名校工程建设经费支持。

Effects of Price Framing on Consumers′ Perceptions of Online Dynamic Pricing and Willingness to Buy with Different Need for Cognitive Closure

Li Zonglong^1,2, Hu Dongmei¹, Zhang Tangzheng¹

1 School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250014;
2 School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631

Received:2015-01-01 Online:2016-07-20 Published:2016-07-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用问卷与实验相结合的方法，以112名大学生为被试，考察价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线购物时对动态定价策略下的价格感知与购买意愿的影响。结果发现：（1）相比非动态价格，动态价格条件下消费者感知价格公平感、购买意愿都较低；（2）在打折框架下，高认知闭合需要者对采取动态价格在线购物网站的感知信任显著好于非动态价格，而低认知闭合需要者则相反，说明消费者的价格感知受这三个变量的综合影响；（3）在降价框架下，认知闭合需要与动态价格的交互作用不显著，意味着在线消费者的购买意愿可能受到更多其它因素制约。

关键词: 动态价格, 认知闭合需要, 价格框架, 感知价格公平, 感知信任, 购买意愿。

Abstract: This study examined tactical ways for online merchants to mitigate negative reactions of consumers with high/low dispositional need for cognitive closure(NFCC)when adopting dynamic pricing strategies. One hundred and tuelve college students participated in the experiment, and their perceptions of dynamic pricing(including price fairness, trust and willingness to buy) were collected for analysis. A 2(dynamic versus non-dynamic pricing)×2(price-number off versus percentage off)×2(high versus low NFCC)between subject design was adopted. The results showed that: 1)when adopting dynamic pricing practices, price- disadvantaged consumers perceived a worse price fairness and had a lower willingness to buy; 2)and specially, compared to no price framing, using percentage off price framing can reduce price-disadvantaged consumers′ trust perception, who with high NFCC; 3)however, there′s no significant impact of NFCC, price framing and dynamic pricing was discovered on consumers′ willingness to buy, which may because more other factors work on that.

Key words: dynamic pricing, price framing, need for cognitive closure, perceived price fairness, perceived trust, willingness to buy.

中图分类号:

B842

李宗龙, 胡冬梅, 张堂正. 价格框架对不同认知闭合需要者在线动态价格的感知与购买意愿的影响*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(4): 537-543.

Li Zonglong, Hu Dongmei, Zhang Tangzheng. Effects of Price Framing on Consumers′ Perceptions of Online Dynamic Pricing and Willingness to Buy with Different Need for Cognitive Closure[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(4): 537-543.

参考文献

[1] 刘雪峰, 张志学.(2009). 认知闭合需要研究评述. 心理科学进展, 17(1), 51-55.
[2] 刘雪峰, 张志学, 梁钧平.(2007). 认知闭合需要、框架效应与决策偏好. 心理学报, 39(4), 611-618.
[3] 牟兵兵, 司继伟, 邬钟灵.(2012). 促销策略与认知闭合需要对模糊消费决策的影响. 心理研究, 5(3), 61-69.
[4] Chen, S. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C.(1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers′ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353-372.
[5] Compeau, L. D., & Grewal, D.(1998). Comparative price advertising: An integrative review. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 257-273.
[6] Compeau, L. D., Grewal, D., & Chandrashekaran, R.(2002). Bits, briefs, and applications: Comparative price advertising: Believe it or not. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 284-294.
[7] Elmaghraby, W., & Keskinocak, P.(2003). Dynamic pricing in the presence of inventory considerations: Research overview, current practices, and future directions. Management Science, 49(10), 1287-1309.
[8] Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M.(1990). The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 496-510.
[9] Garbarino, E., & Maxwell, S.(2010). Consumer response to norm-breaking pricing events in e-commerce. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 1066-1072.
[10] Gelbrich, K.(2011). I have paid less than you! The emotional and behavioral consequences of advantaged price inequality. Journal of Retailing, 87(2), 207-224.
[11] Hasseldine, J., & Hite, P. A.(2003). Framing, gender and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(4), 517-533.
[12] Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O.(2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 304-311.
[13] Kannan, P. K., & Kopalle, P. K.(2001). Dynamic pricing on the internet: Importance and implications for consumer behavior. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(3), 63-83.
[14] Kruglanski, A. W.(1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum.
[15] Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M.(1996). Motivated closing of the mind:“Seizing”and“Freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-283.
[16] Kühberger, A., Perner, J., Schulte, M., & Leingruber, R.(1995). Choice or no choice: Is the langer effect evidence against simulation? Mind and Language, 10(4), 423-436.
[17] Mayhew, G. E., & Winer, R. S.(1992). An empirical analysis of internal and external reference prices using scanner data. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 62-70.
[18] Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W.(1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049-1062.
[19] Weisstein, F. L, Monroe, K. B, & Kukar-Kinney, M.(2013). Effects of price framing on consumers′ perceptions of online dynamic pricing practices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 501-514.
[20] Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B.(2004). Price partitioning on the Internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 63-73.