Search results

The purpose of the paper is to examine perceptions of unfairness and accompanying cognitive and emotional outcomes exhibited by present versus prospective customers when faced with targeted promotions. The targeted promotions were designed to be alternatively advantageous or disadvantageous to the targeted group.

An experiment was conducted with a two (customers categories: present /prospective customer) × two (inequality conditions: advantaged/disadvantaged condition) between‐subject design. A total of 104 valid questionnaires were completed with a minimum of 24 participants per cell.

Present customers perceive higher unfairness than prospective customers when faced with disadvantaged conditions. However, perceived unfairness was not significantly different when faced with advantaged conditions. Further, perceived unfairness cognitively and affectively influences purchase intentions through perceived value and negative emotions.

Although prospective customers are price‐sensitive, targeted promotions should favor present customers instead of prospective customers to lower the perceived price unfairness of present customers. In addition, when relatively low prices are necessary to attract prospective customers, firms should create a type of “segmentation fence”, where present customers are exposed as little as possible to special offers designed to attract prospective customers.

This research contributes to three streams of literature. The first is related to perceived reference price unfairness, focusing on self/other comparisons (present versus prospective customers) rather than self/self comparisons. The second contribution is related to the outcomes of perceived price unfairness. The mediating effect of perceived value (i.e. cognitive outcomes) and negative emotions (i.e. affective outcomes) between perceived price unfairness and purchase intentions is examined concurrently. The third contribution is that this research raises echoes with the perspective of customer relationship management.

The existing literature involving director compensation has been concentrating on its absolute or intrinsic values. Although the relevant studies have generated mixed findings, research in other fields suggests that the power of an incentive may be determined by its value relative to the chosen referencing standard more than its absolute value. This study aims to investigate how relative director pay affects corporate investment efficiency.

This study takes a fresh theoretical viewpoint by framing the investigation using the dimensional comparison theory and proposing that a directorship also presents a relative value that may influence the board’s performance. Ordinary least squared regressions and two-stage system generalised method of moments are used to analyse 14,267 firm-year observations.

The empirical results suggest that the relative director pay is a better estimate of the power of the incentive than the absolute pay. A positive association between the relative director pay and investment efficiency is evident, while the absolute pay has no significant effect on investment decisions. Director overcompensation, however, will cancel out the positive effect of director compensation on investment efficiency. Firms with relatively lower unexpected investment (UI) level benefit the most from an increase in the relative director pay, while neither absolute nor relative director pay affects investment choices in firms with a high UI level because of significantly more overcompensation.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt to investigate the effect of relative director pay. It is also the first to examine the role of dimensional comparison in strategic decisions which is the single untended comparison framework in the director pay design. The current director pay structure has emphasised social and temporal equality by standardising the pay structure and vesting the equity-based pay over a long period. Yet it ignores the fact that people decide their commitment level by comparing the reward with an internal referent too. The findings speak to the dimensional comparison theory in that the inequality emanated from dimensional or internal comparison may be accentuated by the perceived equality in other comparison frameworks, driving the different performances in the roles one assumes.

This research involves a review of the principal aspects of the concept of perceived price fairness in consumer purchasing behaviour.

The research reviews the principal aspects of perceived price fairness analysed in the literature. First, it tackles the dimensions of the concept of fairness before examining the dual entitlement principle, from which the idea of reference prices and the term fair price derive.

The research establishes research ideas for further research into this important topic, which is not currently the subject of much research.

The principal limitation of the research is that it only focuses on the consumer, without analysing the vendor's point of view in pricing. Additionally, it is limited to considering the effects of perceived unfairness on satisfaction. In future research it will be important to include aspects such as loyalty or confidence in the decision making process.

The research offers a thorough overview of the concept of perceived price fairness, proposing several future research areas that are better adjusted to the real‐world functioning of this important concept and should lead to improved understanding.

El objetivo de este trabajo es hacer una revisión de los principales aspectos relacionados con la percepción de justicia de precios en el comportamiento de compra del consumidor.

Este trabajo revisa los principales aspectos relacionados con la percepción de justicia de precios analizados en la literatura. Así, en primer lugar se abordan las distintas dimensiones que componen el concepto de justicia, y en segunda instancia, el denominado principio de doble derecho que introduce el precio de referencia y da lugar al término de precio justo.

Este trabajo plantea líneas de investigación futuras para profundizar en un tema tan importante, pero poco analizado en la actualidad.

La principal limitación de este trabajo es que se centra solo en la perspectiva del consumidor sin analizar el punto de vista del vendedor cuando fija los precios. Además, se ha considerado únicamente los efectos que la percepción de injusticia tiene sobre la satisfacción, siendo interesante incluir elementos como la lealtad o la confianza en la decisión.

Este trabajo aporta una visión integrada del concepto de percepción de justicia de precios, planteando una serie de líneas de investigación que pueden permitir un conocimiento mejor y más adaptado a la realidad de un concepto tan relevante.

The purpose of this paper is to study what happens when firms misuse customers’ information and perceptions of unfairness arise because of privacy concerns. It explores a unifying theoretical framework of perceptions of unfairness, explained by the advantaged–disadvantaged (AD) continuum. It integrates the push, pull and mooring (PPM) model of migration for understanding the drivers of unfairness.

The paper is conceptual and develops a theoretical model based on extant research.

Using the PPM model, the paper explores the effects of information-based marketing tactics on the AD framework in the form of two types of customers. Findings from the review suggest that three variables have a leading direct effect on the AD customers. Traditionally, the fairness literature focuses on price, but findings show that service and communication variables impact customers’ unfairness perceptions. This paper examines the importance of these variables, in the context of an AD framework, to help explain unfairness and consider the implications.

To explain information misuse and unfairness perceptions, the paper develops a unifying theoretical framework of perceptions of unfairness, explained by linking the PPM model of migration with the AD continuum.

CRM treats various profiles of customers or individual customers differently, purposively favoring certain customers while deliberately disadvantaging others. This research aims to provide insights into how advantaged (favored) and (non-favored) disadvantaged customers perceive fairness in retailers’ marketing tactics.

A multiple study approach has been adopted, influenced by a three-stage process, which involved exploratory interviews, pilot tests, and the main survey.

The results have provided marketers with a perspective on maintaining and enhancing relationships. Service and marketing communications concern the advantaged customers most, while pricing is the most important aspect for the disadvantaged customers.

In terms of handling customers, there are important implications from recognizing how those who are favored and those who are not so advantaged perceive their treatment. Failure to appreciate the pitfalls for visibly treating certain customers more favorably and others demonstrably less so, will have stark consequences for retail management and consumer marketing.

Contributions are made to the literatures on CRM and on unfairness, particularly in terms of how to address the inevitable inequities inherent in retailers’ CRM offerings. Identification of the advantaged and disadvantaged customers and their respective views allows marketers to develop more appropriate approaches for handling customers who are sensitive to perceived unfairness.

Purpose – All modern societies are marked by unequal relationships between dominant and subordinate groups. Given that dominant group members often have the resources to determine if and how inequities might be dealt with, it is important to know when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity.

Approach – In this chapter, we present a new framework for how individuals experience inequality: the inequality-framing model. According to the model, individuals distinguish between inequities of advantage and inequities of disadvantage, which is predicted to lead to different experiences of inequity. We then review prior literature that indicates that perceptions of ingroup advantage and outgroup disadvantage can influence when and how dominant group members will respond to inequity. We specifically investigate hierarchy-attenuating responses to inequity, such as support for affirmative action policies, and hierarchy-enhancing responses, such as denial of inequity, disidentification from the group, the motivated construal of inequity, and the motivated use of colorblind ideology.

Research and practical implications – The model suggests that researchers and practitioners alike would do well to pay attention not only to the magnitude of inequity, but also to the way in which it is described. Importantly, dominant group members are more likely to have the power over how inequalities are discussed, which has ramifications for their experience of and willingness to remedy inequity.

Originality – This chapter provides an overview of research indicating that how inequity is described – advantage or disadvantage – can have implications for how dominant group members experience and respond to inequity.

This paper aims to evaluate the socio-economic factors of inequalities in common mental disorders (MDs) between advantaged and disadvantaged groups and also to determine the main contributors of inequality.

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2016–2017. The authors included 763 persons by stratified cluster sampling; clusters were cities, geographical area and households. Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition technique was used to estimate of main inequalities determinant between advantaged and disadvantaged groups.

Overall prevalence of MDs was 22.6 and 35.6% in the advantage and disadvantaged groups, respectively. The concentration index was −0.013 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): −0.022, −0.004]; therefore, MDs were more concentrated in the deprived group. The risk of MDs in deprived group and females was 81 and 60% higher than advantaged group (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.28, 2.57) and males (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.21, 2.24), respectively. Educational status [−0.06 (95% CI: −0.10, −0.01)] was the highest level of contribution in inequality in gaps between groups.

The socio-demographic inequality in MDs among adult population was more explained by lower educational level, married persons and unemployment variables.

Are White and Asian job applicants advantaged in access to professional jobs relative to Black and Latinx job applicants at the initial screening stage of the hiring process? And, are the mechanisms of advantage for White applicants different than the mechanisms for Asian applicants? In this chapter, the author proposes a theoretical framework of “parallel mechanisms” of White and Asian advantage during hiring screening – that White and Asian applicants are advantaged compared to Black and Latinx applicants, but that the mechanisms of advantage subtly differ. The author focuses specifically on mechanisms related to two important factors at the hiring interface: referrals and educational attainment. The author applies the concept of parallel mechanisms to a case study of software engineering hiring at a midsized high technology firm in Silicon Valley. The author finds that at this firm, White applicants are advantaged at initial screening relative to Black and Latinx applicants due to average racial differences in applicant characteristics – namely having a referral – as well as differences in treatment by recruiters. For Asian applicants, average racial differences in possession of elite educational credentials, as well as racial differences in recruiter treatment, explain the racial disparity in callbacks. The author discusses the implications of parallel mechanisms of advantage for racial inequality in a multiracial context, and for organizational policy meant to address racial disparities during organizational hiring processes.

Expectation states theories linking status and behavior enhance our understanding of how social structures organize behavior in a variety of social settings. Efforts to extend behavioral explanations anchored in state organizing processes based on emotions and sentiments have proceeded slowly. This chapter presents a theory of how emotions organize observable power and prestige orders in groups. Emotions are conceptualized as transitory, intense expressions of positive and negative affect communicated from one actor to another by interaction cues. These cues become the basis of long-lasting sentiments conceptualized as liking and disliking for other actors. Sentiments become the foundation for differentiated social structures and hence, performance expectations. This chapter describes how such a process may occur and develops theoretical principles that link emotions, sentiments, and performance expectations.

Gender inequality in paid work persists, in the form of a gender wage gap, occupational sex segregation and a “glass ceiling” for women, despite substantial institutional change in recent decades. Two classes of explanations that have been offered as partial explanations of persistent gender inequality include economic theories of statistical discrimination and social psychological theories of status-based discrimination. Despite the fact that the two theories offer explanations for the same phenomena, little effort has been made to compare them, and practitioners of one theory are often unfamiliar with the other. In this article, we assess both theories. We argue that the principal difference between the two theories lies in the mechanism by which discrimination takes place: discrimination in statistical models derives from an informational bias, while discrimination in status models derives from a cognitive bias. We also consider empirical assessments of both explanations, and find that while research has generally been more supportive of status theories than statistical theories, statistical theories have been more readily evoked as explanations for gender inequalities in the paid labor market. We argue that status theories could be more readily applied to understanding gender inequality by adopting the broader conception of performance favored by statistical discrimination theories. The goal is to build on the strong empirical base of status characteristic theory, but draw on statistical discrimination theories to extend its ability to explain macro level gender inequalities.