Search results

In this paper, the authors study the effect of consumers' fairness preferences on dynamic pricing strategies adopted by platforms in a non-cooperative game.

This study applies fair game and repeated game theory.

This study reveals that, in a one-shot game, if consumers have fairness preferences, dynamic prices will slightly decline. In a repeated game, dynamic prices will be reduced even when consumers do not have fairness preferences. When fairness preferences and repeated game are considered simultaneously, dynamic prices are most likely to be set at fair prices. The authors also discuss the effect of platforms' discounting factors, the consumers' income and alternative choices of consumption on the dynamic prices.

The study findings illustrate the importance of incorporating behavioral elements in understanding and designing the dynamic pricing strategies for platforms and the implications on social welfare in general.

The authors developed a theoretical model to incorporate consumers' fairness preference into the decision-making process of platforms when they design the dynamic pricing strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the antecedents of peer recommendations (generating positive word-of-mouth and recruiting others) in the context of mobile social games.

Drawing on the needs–supplies fit framework and social identity theory, this paper proposes that game design characteristics (challenge, fairness, innovativeness and ease of use) influence game identification, which further predicts word-of-mouth (WOM) generation and recruitment intention. This paper further suggests fits between gamer orientation (passing time and seeking achievements) and game design lead to enhanced game identification. The model was tested using data from an empirical survey with 767 mobile social gamers.

Game challenge, game fairness, game innovativeness and ease of use are positively associated with game identification, whereas game identification positively predicts WOM generation and recruitment intention. Achievement-seeking use was found to enhance the effects of game challenge and game fairness on game identification, and passing time use was found to strengthen the effects of game innovativeness and ease of use on game identification.

The findings of this study provide operable implications to facilitate peer recommendations in a mobile gaming context. The model was only tested within the context of mobile social games, however, so caution is advised when generalizing the findings to other game subgenres.

This study distinguishes itself from other peer recommendation studies by taking recruitment, a more straightforward and salient form of peer recommendation, into account. This paper enriches theory by investigating the antecedents and consequences of game identification. This study clarifies the underlying mechanism of how game design influences peer recommendations and examines the interactions between game design and gamer orientation.

The purpose of this paper is to facilitate understanding of how to convert free players to paid consumers in free-to-play games.

Drawing on the consumption value framework and affordance theory, the present study argues that in-game purchase behaviors are determined by multiple consumption values of in-game items. The perceptions of consumption values were influenced by game affordances. The model was tested, using data from an empirical survey with 2,006 free-to-play game players.

Monetary, enjoyment and social values of in-game items positively predict purchase behaviors in free-to-play games. Game fairness and balance of challenges and skills significantly influence perceived enjoyment value.

The findings of this study provide operable implications to facilitate in-game consumption. The model was tested within the context of free-to-play multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games; however, caution is advisable when generalizing the findings to other subgenre of games.

This study extended and thus validated the consumption value framework in the context of free-to-play MOBA games. This study explored the antecedents of consumption values from the perspective of game affordance.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of fairness concerns of the retailer on the pricing policies of the supply chain partners, their individual profits, and the overall performance of a dual-channel supply chain composed of one manufacturer and one retailer. First, the authors model the dual-channel supply chain under retailer’s fairness concern. Second, the authors derive the optimal pricing policies of the channel members. Third, the authors analyze the effects of retailer’s fairness and bargaining power on the pricing strategies and profit functions of the dual-channel supply chain system.

The authors adopt the manufacturer-led Stackelberg game theoretic framework, where the dominant manufacturer’s pricing decisions are based on the retailer’s pricing decision. The paper considers Nash bargaining solution as the fairness reference point to formulate the utility function of the fair-retailer. The paper uses this approach because it endogenously accounts for the competitive power and cooperative contribution of the channel members when they interact.

The authors find that the retailer’s fairness concerns are not always beneficial for its better performance. If the retailer is moderately sensitive towards its fairness, it will positively influence its performance. However, if the fairness concern becomes too high then it will negatively impact the retailer’s performance because it results in customers’ migration towards direct online channel for buying the products. In addition, if the retailer’s fairness concerns are mild, the manufacturer’s prices will decrease in retailer’s bargaining power, which is opposite otherwise.

The authors use Nash bargaining solution model as the fairness reference in the context of dual-channel supply chain, which is comparatively a recent approach and has been used independently from dual-channel supply chain system.

The purpose of this short paper is to provide an alternative method to explain the reason why the outcome of the ultimatum game based on the well‐known self‐interest model is not feasible in real life.

Contrary to traditional models which treat fairness as a variable of the utility function, the paper takes fairness as a constraint to the utility function. The problem is solved through the standard incentive theory and bargaining theory.

It was found that fairness constraints play an important role in determining the eventual outcome of the ultimatum game.

The paper's approach may set up a useful framework for incorporating fairness into economics, and bridge the gaps between the fairness approach and the standard incentive theory and bargaining theory.

When tackling the problem of distribution based on fairness, the paper shows that the cultural background and special situation should be taken seriously.

In this paper, the concept of the fairness constraint is introduced into a formal framework.

Laboratory studies of social interaction have revealed a wide range of phenomena that are difficult to explain using standard economic models. For example, people will often sacrifice their own earnings in order to be generous, cooperative, punitive, and retributive in interactions with anonymous strangers. “Behavioral” models that redefine agents’ preferences attempt to provide an account of these phenomena as reflecting a “taste for fairness” or altruism, aversion to inequality, concern about others’ beliefs, and so on. Such models either fail to account for the rich sensitivity of actions to context or in allowing for rich context-dependence, these models ultimately substitute description for explanation. Hayek’s work provides a foundation for thinking about how to explain these phenomena, by conceiving of people as both purpose-seeking (as in economic models) and rule-following. Decisions are shaped both by material interests and by a normative framework that is evoked by context and helps people decide what one ought to do in a particular situation. The implication of this approach is that rather than trying to understand heterogeneity across individuals in terms of preferences, experimenters should instead try to understand heterogeneity across contexts in terms of the rules and norms that operate in the background and guide or constrain people’s purpose-seeking tendencies. What economics needs, then, is a theory of how and why these rules and norms vary with context as they do.

The balance patch is an important but not well studied area to maintain game fairness and improve player entertainment. In this paper, we examine the effect of balance patch on player's character preference and further explore the moderating effect of psychological distance and character selection pattern.

In study 1, a web crawler was used to get server-side data of 40, 974 multi-player online battle arena (MOBA) players through official application programming interfaces (APIs). A paired-T test and a stepwise regression were performed to verify the hypothesis. In study 2, a 2-patch type (buff vs nerf) × 2 psychological distance (near vs distant) × 2 character selection pattern (stable vs variable) between-subjects design was adopted to confirm the empirical conclusions through questionnaire survey design and further explored the mediating effect of patch adjustment perception.

The analyzed results showed that the buff patch led to an increase in players' character preference, while the nerf patch led to a decrease in players' character preference. Moreover, the main effect was mediated by patch adjustment perception. Furthermore, psychological distance and character selection pattern both moderated the relationship between balance patch and character preference changes. The character preference of the near psychological distance increased more significantly elicited by buff patches and decreased more significantly in an adverse situation. Similarly, players with variable selection pattern of characters were more sensitive to the stimuli, and the character preference of the variable group changed more significantly than that of the stable group caused by balance patch release.

This paper studies the influence of a patch on the balance of character strength on player preference, which expands the research on game balance and fairness. The present results contribute to the theoretical research on consumer behavior of psychological distance and character selection pattern elicited by balance patches. Meanwhile, the results indicate that psychological distance theory can apply to the study of the relationship between players and virtual characters.

In recent years, it is increasingly common to find situations in which economic or financial decisions are combined with philanthropic or charity issues (for example, “pay what you can”, cause-related marketing initiatives and micro-insurance). How do people behave in these situations? This study aims to analyze whether charity impacts agents’ economic behavior and which factors (gender and social distance) influence these decisions.

Using a modified one-period ultimatum game that includes a charitable giving variable, the authors investigate agents’ behavior in economic decisions when philanthropic issues are considered, and they compare this behavior to purely economic negotiation without explicit philanthropic relevance. Using a sample of 352 undergraduate business students, the authors explore the interaction effect between gender and social distance on giving behavior.

The results of this study show that women offer more than men when philanthropic motivation is involved. However, the solicitation of a charitable sentiment is not an element that substantially shifts the offers beyond the value considered to be economically fair. Finally, women and men are both susceptible to self-image concerns.

The results enable a more nuanced interpretation of gender differences in economic decisions when philanthropic or charity issues are involved. From a practical perspective, the findings could offer insights relevant to for-profit and non-profit organizations when they plan to provide products, services or investments with positive moral connotations or when they plan fundraising strategies.

Unlike existing laboratory studies, this study focuses on the effects that charity has on economic/financial decisions by exploring the interaction effect between the decision-maker’s gender and social distance on the outcome of the negotiation.

Responding to the store brand (SB) introduction by the retailer, the manufacturer may adopt the strategic choice of incorporating the fairness concern behavior of the retailer. This paper aims to examine how the manufacturer can counteract the retailer’s SB introduction by strategically choosing to or not to incorporating the retailer’s fairness concern.

This paper considers the SB introduction problem in a two-echelon supply chain consisting of one manufacturer and one retailer with fairness concern behavior. This paper resolves the pricing strategies under four strategic scenarios regarding fairness concern incorporation and SB introduction and examine the influences from the fairness concern on pricing strategies and profits. This paper further investigates the strategic choice equilibrium of the manufacturer and retailer on fairness concern and SB introduction decision.

The results show that the retailer can be better off by the introduction of the SB only when the acceptance degree of the SB is high enough. And whether the manufacturer should incorporate the retailer's fairness concern depends on the consumer's acceptance of the SB: Only when the consumer's acceptance is moderate, the manufacturer is able to counteract the SB by strategically not incorporating the retailer’s fairness concern behavior. Otherwise, the manufacturer cannot prevent the retailer from introducing the SB and can be better off by incorporating the retailer’s fairness concern behavior.

This paper contributes to the literature by examining whether the manufacturer can adopt the strategic incorporation of the retailer's fairness concern to counteract the retailer's SB introduction.

Using a dictator game, we examine the other‐regarding behavior of allocators, who are given the responsibility of unilaterally making an allocation decision without consultation on behalf of a two‐person group between their group and another group. We then contrast the behavior of the same individuals in an analogous interindividual situation. We also explore other‐regarding perceptions of passive recipients, who are asked to give behavioral forecasts of how they would behave if assigned the allocator role and how they think their allocators would behave. Gender differences are found in both behavior and perceptions. Males are significantly more self‐interested and less other‐regarding when they are responsible for a group, while females behave similarly under both conditions. Female recipients' forecasts of their own behavior are significantly higher than both their expectations of allocators and the actual female behavior observed in the experiment. Both male and female recipients underestimate the other‐regarding behavior of allocators.