ایجاد اعتماد به منظور افزایش قصد خرید : تاثیر سیگنالینگ سیاست های قیمت گذاری پایین

We examine the differential signaling impact of two low pricing policies, Price Matching Guarantees and Everyday Low Prices, on consumers' trusting beliefs and purchase intentions. We demonstrate that both PMG and EDLP pricing policies signal stores' ability to offer lower prices. However, whether these sellers were perceived as benevolent, and—consequently—consumers' purchase intentions, varied critically depending upon price uncertainty. Perceived benevolence and purchase intentions were significantly higher [lower] for sellers offering PMG than EDLP when price dispersion was high [low]. Our findings offer insights into whether and under what conditions firms should adopt these low pricing policies.

It has long been recognized that sellers often adopt low pricing policies that can “signal” a low price image to consumers and offset their concerns about getting the lowest available prices (Biswas et al., 2006, Jain and Srivastava, 2000 and Lal and Rao, 1997). One pricing policy is a Price Matching Guarantee (PMG). A PMG seller promises to match the lowest price consumers can find elsewhere, typically within a designated period of time (Hess and Gerstner, 1991, Jain and Srivastava, 2000 and Srivastava and Lurie, 2001).3 Another pricing policy that has been adopted by many sellers is Everyday Low Prices (EDLP). An EDLP seller usually charges a constant, lower daily price with very few temporary price discounts (Hoch et al., 1994 and Lal and Rao, 1997). Researchers have documented the impact of low pricing policies on consumers' perceptions of stores' overall price image (e.g., Jain and Srivastava, 2000 and Srivastava and Lurie, 2004). These price image perceptions, in turn, affect not only consumers' price expectations (Thaler, 1985), but also their store choice (e.g., Gijsbrechts, Heerde, & Pauwels, 2008) and purchase likelihood (e.g., Biswas, Pullig, Yagci, & Dean 2000; Jain and Srivastava, 2000, Srivastava, 1999 and Srivastava and Lurie, 2001). Yet, as noted by one industry expert, “Price is not the one and only issue … trust, reliability and credibility are gaining as much weight as competitive pricing (Trop, 2008).” In fact, little, if any, empirical research has examined the individual or differential effects of pricing policies such as PMG and EDLP on consumers' trusting beliefs. The distinction between overall price image and trusting beliefs is theoretically and practically significant. Overall price image entails consumers' perceptions about stores' relative price levels (e.g., high versus low price image retailers are associated with relatively high versus low price expectations, respectively) (Hamilton and Chernev, 2010 and Thaler, 1985). In comparison, in the context of this research, trusting beliefs entail consumers' perceptions not only about firms' ability to offer low pricing policies, but also about their motivations for doing so (i.e., consumers' perceptions of firms' benevolence).4 Thus, regardless of overall price image, low pricing policies such as PMG and EDLP may differentially influence consumers' trusting beliefs. Insofar as these trusting beliefs are associated with greater trusting intentions, specifically purchase intentions (Schlosser, White, & Lloyd, 2006), examining the impact of pricing policies on consumers' trusting beliefs—over and above their impact on overall price image—significantly augments our existing understanding of consumers' psychological and behavioral responses to pricing policies. This research investigates the differential impact of PMG and EDLP on consumers' trust perceptions and purchase intentions. We argue that, over and above overall price image, low pricing policies such as PMG and EDLP also signal ability and benevolence—that is, consumers' beliefs about whether firms are capable of, and altruistically (versus egocentrically) motivated to, offer its consumers the lowest available prices. Controlling for overall price image, we show that, relative to sellers that do not offer pricing policies, those offering PMG and EDLP are perceived as equally low in ability to offer low prices. However, depending upon the extent to which price dispersion is high versus low in the market place, EDLP and PMG differentially affect consumers' benevolence beliefs, and therefore their purchase intentions. Specifically, when price dispersion is high, consumers' purchase intentions are higher for sellers offering PMG than EDLP. However, when price dispersion is low, purchase intentions are higher for sellers offering EDLP than PMG pricing policies. We further demonstrate that these effects are mediated by consumers' benevolence perceptions. Our research makes at least three important theoretical contributions. First, whereas existing research in the pricing literature has examined PMG and EDLP policies independently, our research compares the differential impact of these policies on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions, and identifies conditions under which one pricing policy may lead to higher purchase intentions than the other. Second, we augment existing research, which has demonstrated the signaling impact of low pricing policies on consumers' overall price image perceptions. Specifically, our results suggest that—regardless of overall price image—pricing policies also influence consumers' trusting beliefs; they communicate information about firms' motivations for offering low pricing policies that significantly drive purchase intentions. Third, our findings highlight a previously un-researched theoretical insight: when consumers are concerned about getting the lowest available price, their decision to purchase from any given seller is driven not only by the reassurance that a seller has the ability to provide the lowest available prices, but also that the seller is willing to do so (i.e., is benevolent).

Study 4 findings offer additional support for the predicted role of benevolence beliefs. Specifically, we find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, PMG and EDLP pricing policies differentially signal perceived benevolence (depending upon price dispersion). However, when it was clear that benevolence was no longer a compelling explanation for sellers' intentions (i.e., when it was clear to respondents that offering the pricing policy was not a matter of benevolence), PMG and EDLP policies were no longer differentially effective in their impact on purchase intentions.