Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Personal antecedents of perceived deceptive pricing in online retailing: the moderating role of price inequality

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examines the personality, cognitive and emotional antecedents of deceptive price perceptions that occur in price inequalities. We draw on appraisal theories to examine the extent to which these relationships are different depending on two situations: consumers who are exposed to an advantaged situation (lower price) and those exposed to a disadvantaged situation (higher price). Data from 994 individuals in the online hotel booking context show that the direction of the price inequality significantly influences the way in which both personality and the attributional–emotional process affect perceptions of deceptive pricing. Our findings provide a better understanding of this subjective, complex, but also increasingly prevalent phenomena of price inequality and perceived deceptive pricing in online retailing. Implications for theory and management are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Given their complexity, definitions of the variables under study are provided in “Appendix 2”.

  2. Data was obtained from a Netquest panel. Netquest is a tech-driven company built on a robust and engaged panel and a strict quality standard (ISO 26362 and ISO 20252). Netquest is a member of ESOMAR, and thus is required to comply with the General Data Protection (GDPR) when processing personal data in the context of its services and operations. Netquest provides strong quality data sets from panelists who remain anonymous to Netquest’s clients. Also, Netquest conducts several controls on quality of the data such as time used to complete the survey (to detect “speeders”) or incorrect answers on trick questions (checkout questions) during the survey to detect if panelists are paying attention to the questions.

  3. Sample size (overall and relative to our both subsamples) meets Westland’s (2010) recommendation [84] for a given number of latent factors and observed variables in a SEM model: for 19 observed variables and 6 latent factors that comprise our research model, and assuming the most restrictive or conservative parameter values (anticipated effect size of 0.2 and statistical power level of 0.8) [18], the recommended minimum sample size to detect the effect is 403, and for the model structure is 177 (https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=89), so our samples sizes largely exceed these minimum values.

References

  1. Agrawal, V., Lopomo, G., & Seshadri, S. (2002). Web based capacity allocation strategies for customers with heterogeneous preferences. Electronic Commerce Research, 2(4), 359–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashworth, L., & McShane, L. (2012). Why do we care what others pay? The effect of other consumers’ prices on inferences of seller (dis)respect and perceptions of deservingness violation. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Effects of social comparison direction, threat, and self-esteem on affect, self-evaluation, and expected success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 708–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Babin, B. J., Borges, A., & James, K. (2016). The role of retail price image in a multi-country context: France and the USA. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1074–1081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. BBC. (2017). Amazon Canada fined $1.1m for misleading pricing. Retrieved September 3, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38604870.

  7. Bicen, P., & Madhavaram, S. (2013). Research on smart shopper feelings: An extension. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 21(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borges, A., & Babin, B. (2012). Revisiting low price guarantees: Does consumer versus retailer governance matter? Marketing Letters, 23, 777–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bozkurt, S., & Gligor, D. (2019). Customers’ behavioral responses to unfavorable pricing errors: The role of perceived deception, dissatisfaction and price consciousness. Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2018-2726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts applications, and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Campbell, M. C. (2007). “Says who?!” How the source of price information and affect influence perceived price (un)fairness. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chowdhury, R. M., & Fernando, M. (2014). The relationships of empathy, moral identity and cynicism with consumers’ ethical beliefs: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Compeau, L. D., Lindsey-Mullikin, J. O. A. N., Grewal, D., & Petty, R. D. (2004). Consumers’ interpretations of the semantic phrases found in reference price advertisements. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(1), 178–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Compeau, L. D., & Grewal, D. (1998). Comparative price advertising: An integrative review. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 257–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: Misleading claims, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer distrust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dimicco, J. M., Maes, P., & Greenwald, A. (2003). Learning curve: A simulation-based approach to dynamic pricing. Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3–4), 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Duan, Y., Ge, Y., & Feng, Y. (2020). Pricing and personal data collection strategies of online platforms in the face of privacy concerns. Electronic Commerce Research, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-020-09439-8.

  24. Dutta, S. (2012). Vulnerability to low-price signals: An experimental study of the effectiveness of genuine and deceptive signals. Journal of Retailing, 88(1), 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Egan, V., Hughes, N., & Palmer, E. J. (2015). Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Estelami, H. (2003). Strategic implications of a multi-dimensional pricing environment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(4/5), 322–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Feather, N. T. (1992). An attributional and value analysis of deservingness in success and failure situations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fu, H., Ma, H., Bian, J., Wang, C., Zhou, J., & Ma, Q. (2019). Don’t trick me: An event-related potentials investigation of how deceptive pricing decreases consumer purchase intention. Neuroscience Letters, 713, 134522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grewal, D., & Compeau, L. D. (1992). Comparative price advertising: Informative or deceptive? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11(1), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Grewal, D., Hardesty, D. M., & Iyer, G. R. (2004). The effects of buyer identification and purchase timing on consumers’ perceptions of trust, price fairness, and repurchase intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 87–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 304–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Helm, A. E., Moulard, J. G., & Richins, M. (2015). Consumer cynicism: Developing a scale to measure underlying attitudes influencing marketplace shaping and withdrawal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(5), 515–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equations Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jin, L., He, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2014). How power states influence consumers’ perceptions of price unfairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 818–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 112–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanter, D. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1989). The cynical Americans: Living and working in an age of discontent and disillusion. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kaufmann, P. J., Smith, N. C., & Ortmeyer, G. K. (1994). Deception in retailer high-low pricing: A “rule of reason” approach. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kelln, B. R. C. (1997). Construction and validation of a self-report measure of exaggerated deservingness: The XD21, (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/26674/34680Kelln.pdf?sequence=1.

  44. Kim, H. M. (2006). Consumers’ responses to price presentation formats in rebate advertisements. Journal of Retailing, 82(4), 309–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim, H. W., Xu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Which is more important in Internet shopping, perceived price or trust? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kopalle, P. K., & Lindsey-Mullikin, J. (2003). The impact of external reference price on consumer price expectations. Journal of Retailing, 79(4), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lee, K., Lee, B., & Oh, W. (2015). Thumbs up, sales up? The contingent effect of facebook likes on sales performance in social commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(4), 109–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Karson, E. J. (1991). The effect of semantic cues on consumer perceptions of reference price ads. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(3), 380–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Liefeld, J., & Heslop, L. A. (1985). Reference prices and deception in newspaper advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 868–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lii, Y. S., & Sy, E. (2009). Internet differential pricing: Effects on consumer price perception, emotions, and behavioral responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 770–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Petty, R. D. (2011). Marketing tactics discouraging price search: Deception and competition. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., & McCoy, S. K. (2003). It’s not my fault: When and why attributions to prejudice protect self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 772–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mattila, A. S., Hanks, L., & Zhang, L. (2013). Existential guilt and preferential treatment: The case of an airline upgrade. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 591–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. McLeod, B. A., & Genereux, R. L. (2008). Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying: The interaction of personality with type of lie. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 591–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Misra, K., Schwartz, E. M., & Abernethy, J. (2019). Dynamic online pricing with incomplete information using multiarmed bandit experiments. Marketing Science, 38(2), 226–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mudrack, P. E. (1990). Machiavellianism and locus of control: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(1), 125–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (1995). Extending the Machiavellianism construct: A brief measure and some unexplored relationships. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 187–200.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model for the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rauthmann, J. F., & Will, T. (2011). Proposing a multidimensional Machiavellianism conceptualization. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39(3), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Riquelme, I. P., & Román, S. (2014). The influence of consumers’ cognitive and psychographic traits on perceived deception: A comparison between online and offline retailing contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(3), 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Riquelme, I. P., Román, S., & Iacobucci, D. (2016). Consumers’ perceptions of online and offline retailer deception: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 35, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Román, S. (2007). The ethics of online retailing: A scale development and validation from the consumers’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Román, S. (2010). Relational consequences of perceived deception in online shopping: The moderating roles of type of product, consumer’s attitude toward the internet and consumer’s demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Román, S., Riquelme, I. P., & Iacobucci, D. (2019). Perceived deception in online consumer reviews: Antecedents, consequences, and moderators. Marketing in a Digital World (Review of Marketing Research), 16, 141–166.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Romani, S. (2006). Price misleading advertising: Effects on trustworthiness toward the source of information and willingness to buy. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(2), 130–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sahut, J. M., Hikkerova, L., & Pupion, P. C. (2016). Perceived unfairness of prices resulting from yield management practices in hotels. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4901–4906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (Eds.). (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceiver’s intention, and deceiver–deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 66(2), 158–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Shulyn, T., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). Globalization of retailing and related cross cultural issues. International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 2(9), 1088–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Solomon, I., & Leven, S. (1975). Entitlement. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 12(3), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Strudler, A. (1995). On the ethics of deception in negotiation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(4), 805–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Suls, J. E., & Wills, T. A. E. (1991). Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sheng, S., Zhou, K. Z., Li, J. J., & Guo, Z. (2018). Institutions and opportunism in buyer–supplier exchanges: The moderated mediating effects of contractual and relational governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(6), 1014–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Tong, E. M. (2010). Personality influences in appraisal–emotion relationships: The role of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tuzovic, S., Simpson, M. C., Kuppelwieser, V. G., & Finsterwalder, J. (2014). From “free” to fee: Acceptability of airline ancillary fees and the effects on customer behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Urbany, J. E., Bearden, W. O., & Weilbaker, D. C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wu, C. C., Liu, Y. F., Chen, Y. J., & Wang, C. J. (2012). Consumer responses to price discrimination: Discriminating bases, inequality status, and information disclosure timing influences. Journal of Business Research, 65(1), 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Xue, J., Huang, L., & Liang, X. (2019). How should online stores implement coping strategies to fight against deceptive promotions? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 36, 100860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Yim, J. S. C., & Moses, P. (2016). Work factors and teacher satisfaction: The mediating effect of cynicism toward educational change. Issues in Educational Research, 26(4), 694–709.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by the Grant ECO2017-83999-R from the Spanish Ministry of Economics, Industry and Competitiveness.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel P. Riquelme.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Online survey questionnaire

Have you ever booked a flight or a hotel room online?:

YES (continue with the survey)

NO (abandon the survey)

1.1 Introduction

This survey is part of a research conducted by the University of Murcia. The answers will be treated statistically and never individually, so the information you provide will be used only for academic purposes, being totally anonymous and confidential. THANKS A LOT FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

  1. 1.

    Please indicate the number of online travel reservations (hotels, flights, etc.) that you have made on any website in the last 12 months:___

The following scenario describes a possible situation where you book a hotel room online. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU READ IT CAREFULLY.

Imagine that…

You and some friends decide to spend a weekend in Salamanca at the end of November this year. In order to avoid reservation problems, you all agree that each one will look for the hotel room on their own. With this idea in mind, you search the Internet and find a well-located 4-star hotel with good prices on a travel website. After reading various opinions and confirming through the photos that the hotel is fine, you book a standard double room for two nights without the possibility of cancellation for a total price of 150 euros (breakfast not included).

Now imagine that…:

After making your reservation, you talk to your friends because you want to find out which place they have booked. It turns out that one of them has also booked a room, same as yours (standard double, without breakfast or the possibility of cancellation) in the very same hotel as you. However, surprisingly, you friend tells you that he got the room for 110 euros (40 euros less than you) for the same two nights in the same travel website that you used.

  1. 2.

    Please, indicate how you would feel after knowing that the price of your friend’s reservation was 110€, while yours was 150€:

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

Not at all

Very little

Somewhat

Very

To a great extent

Angry

Upset

Annoyed

  1. 3.

    If the situation described earlier in the scenario had actually happened to you, please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”:

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

This site is not entirely truthful about its prices

This site uses misleading prices to convince consumers to purchase their products

This site takes advantage of less experienced consumers to convince them that they have the best prices

This site exaggerates the attractiveness of its prices and promotions

  1. P4.

    How would you explain that you paid more than your friend? This is due to…

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

…The discriminating pricing policies of the site that would identify me

…The site would apply some targeted promotional price

…The site would apply some pricing tactic to benefit only a part of its customers

At this point, in relation to the situation described earlier in the scenario, please answer the following questions:

  • The scenario describes the booking of a (mark only one option)

Hotel room

Flight ticket

Train ticket

  • In the scenario, you end up paying (mark only one option):

Same as your friend

Less than your friend

More than your friend

The following questions refer to your way of being. Please, answer them honestly as there are no correct or incorrect answers.

  1. P5.

    Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree”:

 

1

2

3

4

5

 

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

Most businesses are more interested in making profits than in serving consumers

Companies see consumers as puppets to manipulate

To make a profit, companies are willing to do whatever they can get away with

I honestly feel I’m just more deserving than others

I demand the best because I’m worth it

People like me deserve an extra break now and then

In dealing with people, it is best to tell them what they want to hear

Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so

Lying is necessary to maintain a competitive advantage over others

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Definitions of the variables in our framework

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Riquelme, I.P., Román, S. Personal antecedents of perceived deceptive pricing in online retailing: the moderating role of price inequality. Electron Commer Res 23, 739–783 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09490-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09490-z

Keywords