The Control–Effort Trade-Off in Participative Pricing: How Easing Pricing Decisions Enhances Purchase Outcomes
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
Participative pricing strategies may influence consumer purchase decisions; this research proposes specifically that firms’ delegation of pricing decisions to consumers can create a control–effort trade-off. Consumers favor greater pricing control but are deterred by the effort involved in deciding what to pay. Strategies such as pay what you want in turn might reduce purchase intentions due to the effort involved. In contrast, strategies that increase feelings of control but not perceived effort, such as pick your price options that let consumers choose from a limited set of prices, could enhance pricing outcomes. A field study and four laboratory experiments confirm these propositions. The findings demonstrate the mixed effects of participative pricing, identify mediating mechanisms that explain these effects, and specify common moderating conditions that shape the outcomes of participative pricing. These results have notable implications for pricing theory and practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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