Effects of Complex Price Communication on Fairness: Case of a Sequential Communication
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Nowadays, pricing is one of the most challenging tasks for marketers. Despite its importance for both academics and practitioners, consumers’ reactions to prices remain not clear, especially with the emergence of new forms of prices, among which we can highlight the use of complex prices, which is becoming increasingly popular. Complex prices’ perception is highly dependent on the way they are communicated; consequently, complex prices communication plays a crucial role in shaping perception. This study is a continuity of previous researches that have validated the perceptual effects of complex prices communication. It attempts to show the effects complex prices communication has on its perceived fairness. In addition, the effects of the moderating variables; Seller Credibility and Responsibility Attribution (i.e., inferred motive) are studied. One hundred thirty-five undergraduate students participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to 2 (sequential communication of complex price vs non sequential communication of complex price) x2 (credible seller vs less credible seller) conditions. Manipulation consisted of presenting a scenario of buying an online air ticket. The results of our research highlight that sequential complex price communication has a significant effect on its perceived fairness. In particular, the results show that the perceived fairness of price is more negatively affected when the seller lacks credibility according to consumers. Also, it has been proved that the delayed communication of some of the complex price components could be perceived as a way to get a higher profit, which deepens the negative perceived fairness.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it