Evidence of the impact of partitioned pricing is contradictory. Research indicates that partitioning a price into multiple components can result in more favorable preferences, due to a lower recalled price, or less favorable preferences, due to unfavorable surcharge evaluations. To explain these divergent effects, the authors examine the role of price presentation moderators, which reflect how managers convey prices to consumers (e.g., Is the total price present or absent?), magnitude moderators, which reflect the actual prices charged (e.g., What is the surcharge magnitude?), and contextual moderators, which reflect nonprice transaction characteristics (e.g., Is the product category hedonic or utilitarian?). A meta-analysis of 17 years of partitioned pricing research examining 149 observations in 27 papers (N = 12,878) suggests that consumers respond more favorably to partitioned pricing than to all-inclusive pricing when the total price is absent, as the price level increases, when the surcharges are typical for the product category, when the surcharges are perceived as offering high benefit, and when the product category is utilitarian.
AlbinssonPia A.BurmanBidishaDasNeel (2010), “Price Surcharge and the Effects of Construal Level,” Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 11 (4), 56–69.
2.
BaghiIlariaRubaltelliEnricoTedeschiMarcello (2010), “Mental Accounting and Cause Related Marketing Strategies,” International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7 (2), 145–56.
3.
Bambauer-SachseSilkeMangoldSabrina (2010), “Does a Marketer’s Responsibility for a Surcharge Moderate Price Partitioning Effects?” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 37, CampbellMargarlet C.Inman,JeffPietersRik, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 333–39.
BijmoltTammo H. A.PietersRik G. M. (2001), “Meta-Analysis in Marketing When Studies Contain Multiple Measurements,” Marketing Letters, 12 (2), 157–69.
6.
BijmoltTammo H. A.van HeerdeHarald J.PietersRik G. M. (2005), “New Empirical Generalizations on the Determinants of Price Elasticity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 141–56.
7.
BlanthorneCynthiaRobertsMichael L. (2014), “Cognitive Responses to Partitioned Pricing of Consumption Taxes: Consequences for State and Local Tax Revenues,” Journal of the American Taxation Association, 37 (1), 183–204.
8.
BurmanBidishaBiswasAbhijit (2007), “Partitioned Pricing: Can We Always Divide and Prosper?” Journal of Retailing, 83 (4), 423–36.
9.
CampbellMargaret C. (1999), “Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 187–99.
10.
CarlsonJay P.WeathersDanny (2008), “Examining Differences in Consumer Reactions to Partitioned Prices with a Variable Number of Price Components,” Journal of Business Research, 61 (7), 724–31.
11.
ChakravartiDipankarKrishRajanPaulPallabSrivastavaJoydeep (2002), “Partitioned Presentation of Multicomponent Bundle Prices: Evaluation, Choice, and Underlying Processing Effects,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (3), 215–29.
12.
ChatterjeePatrali (2010), “Consumer Response to Promotions in the Presence of Surcharge: Implications for Online Retailing,” Journal of Customer Behaviour, 9 (2), 117–34.
13.
CheemaAmar (2008), “Surcharges and Seller Reputation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 167–77.
14.
ChernevAlexanderBöckenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
15.
CochranWilliam G. (1954), “The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments,” Biometrics, 10 (1), 101–29.
16.
CohenJacob (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
17.
CohenJacob (1992), “A Power Primer,” Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155–59.
18.
De FariaFlavia Tedeschi (2010), “Price-Partitioning in the Low-Cost Airline Industry,” master thesis, Erasmus School of Economics.
19.
DunlapWilliam P.CortinaJose M.VaslowJoel B.BurkeMichael J. (1996), “Meta-Analysis of Experiments with Matched Groups or Repeated Measures Designs,” Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 170–77.
20.
EisendMartin (2014), “Shelf Space Elasticity: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Retailing, 90 (2), 168–81.
21.
EstelamiHooman (2003), “The Effect of Price Presentation Tactics on Consumer Evaluation Effort of Multi-Dimensional Prices,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (2), 1–16.
22.
EstelamiHoomanLehmannDonald R.HoldenAlfred C. (2001), “Macro-Economic Determinants of Consumer Price Knowledge: A Meta-Analysis of Four Decades of Research,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18 (4), 341–55.
23.
FolkesValerie S. (1988), “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A Review and New Directions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 548–65.
24.
GierlHeribertBambauer-SachseSilke (2007), “Effects of Price Partitioning on Product Evaluation,” Marketing ZFP – Journal of Research and Management, 3 (2), 61–74.
25.
GreenleafEric A.JohnsonEric J.MorwitzVicki G.ShalevEdith (2016), “The Price Does not Include Additional Taxes, Fees, and Surcharges: A Review of Research on Partitioned Pricing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26 (1), 105–24.
26.
HamiltonRebecca W.SrivastavaJoydeep (2008), “When 2 + 2 Is Not the Same as 1 + 3: Variations in Price Sensitivity Across Components of Partitioned Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (4), 450–61.
27.
HamiltonRebecca W.SrivastavaJoydeepAbrahamAjay Thomas (2010), “When Should You Nickel and Dime Your Customers? A Manager’s Guide to Benefits-Based Price Partitioning,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 52 (1), 59–67.
HossainTanjimMorganJohn (2006), “…Plus Shipping and Handling: Revenue (Non) Equivalence in Field Experiments on eBay,” Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 5 (2), 1–27.
32.
Huedo-MedinaTania B.Sanchez-MecaJulioMarin-MartinezFulgencioBotellaJuan (2006), “Assessing Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: Q Statistic or F Index?” Psychological Methods, 11 (2), 193–206.
33.
IoannidisJohn P. A.TrikalinosThomas A. (2005), “Early Extreme Contradictory Estimates May Appear in Published Research: The Proteus Phenomenon in Molecular Genetics Research and Randomized Trials,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58 (2), 543–49.
34.
KacherskyLukeKimHyeong-Min (2011), “When Consumers Cope with Price-Persuasion Knowledge: The Role of Topic Knowledge,” Journal of Marketing Management, 27 (1/2), 28–40.
35.
KellerPunam AnandLehmannDonald R. (2008), “Designing Effective Health Communications: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27 (2), 117–30.
36.
KimHyeong-Min (2006), “The Effect of Salience on Mental Accounting: How Integration versus Segregation of Payment Influences Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19 (4), 381–91.
37.
KrishnaAradhnaBrieschRichardLehmannDonaldYuanHong (2002), “A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Price Presentation on Perceived Savings,” Journal of Retailing, 78 (2), 101–18.
38.
LakensDaniël (2013), “Calculating and Reporting Effect Sizes to Facilitate Cumulative Science: A Practical Primer for T-Tests and ANOVAs,” Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.
39.
LeeKiljaeChoiJungsilLiYexin Jessica (2014), “Regulatory Focus as a Predictor of Attitudes toward Partitioned and Combined Pricing,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (3), 355–62.
40.
LeeYih HwaiHanCheng Yuen (2002), “Partitioned Pricing in Advertising: Effects on Brand and Retailer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 13 (1), 27–40.
41.
LoveEdwin (2012), “Divide and Prosper? When Partitioned Prices Make Sense,” Journal of Product & Brand Management, 21 (2), 61–67.
42.
MorwitzVicki G.GreenleafEricJohnsonEric (1998), “Divide and Prosper: Consumers’ Reactions to Partitioned Prices,” Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (4), 453–63.
43.
MuthitacharoenAchitaZhangXihuiGillensonMark L. (2013), “What Matters and What Doesn’t: Examining the Effectiveness of Surcharge Policies in C2C Online Auctions,” Journal of Information Technology Management, 24 (3), 1–12.
44.
PanMing-ChuanKuoChih-YingPanChing-TiTuWei (2013), “Antecedent of Purchase Intention: Online Seller Reputation, Product Category and Surcharge,” Internet Research, 23 (4), 507–22.
45.
RaoAkshay R.MonroeKent B. (1989), “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers’ Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 351–57.
46.
ReddenJoseph P.FitzsimonsGavanWilliamsPatti (2007), “Marketing Norms as a Moderator of Consumer Responses to Price Partitioning,” working paper, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota.
47.
RoggeveenAnne L.XiaLanMonroeKent B. (2006), “How Attributions and the Product’s Price Impact the Effectiveness of Price Partitioning,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, PechmannConniePriceLinda, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 182–83.
48.
RoschEleanor H. (1973), “Natural Categories,” Cognitive Psychology, 4 (3), 328–50.
49.
RosenthalRobertDiMatteoM. Robin (2001), “Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Reviews,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 59–82.
50.
RosnowRalph L.RosenthalRobertRubinDonald B. (2000), “Contrasts and Correlations in Effect-Size Estimation,” Psychological Science, 11 (6), 446–53.
51.
SahayArvindMukherjeeSumitavaDiwaniPrem (2014), “Price Discount Framings on Product Bundles with Shipping Surcharges in the Indian Market: Examining the Weighted-Additive and Reference-Dependent Models,” working paper, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
52.
ScheibehenneBenjaminGreifenederRainerToddPeter M. (2010), “Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–25.
53.
SchindlerRobert M.MorrinMaureenBechwatiNada (2005), “Shipping Charges and Shipping-Charge Skepticism: Implications for Direct Marketers’Pricing Formats,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (1), 41–53.
54.
SethuramanRajTellisGerard J.BrieschRichard A. (2011), “How Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertising Elasticities,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 457–71.
55.
ShengShibinBaoYeqingPanYue (2007), “Partitioning or Bundling? Perceived Fairness of the Surcharge Makes a Difference,” Psychology & Marketing, 24 (12), 1025–41.
56.
SlovicPaul (1995), “The Construction of Preference,” American Psychologist, 50 (5), 364–71.
57.
SterlingTheodore D. (1959), “Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice Versa,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54 (285), 30–34.
58.
ThompsonDebora V.HamiltonRebecca W. (2006), “The Effects of Information Processing Mode on Consumers’ Responses to Comparative Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 530–40.
59.
TverskyAmosThalerRichard H. (1990), “Anomalies: Preference Reversals,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4 (2), 201–11.
60.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission (2012), “A Conference on the Economics of Drip Pricing,” (accessed July 31, 2012), [available at:http://www.ftc.gov/be/workshops/drippricing].
61.
ViechtbauerWolfgang (2010), “Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package,” Journal of Statistical Software, 36 (3), 1–48.
62.
VölcknerFranziskaRühleAlexanderSpannMartin (2012), “To Divide or not to Divide? The Impact of Partitioned Pricing on the Informational and Sacrifice Effects of Price,” Marketing Letters, 23 (3), 719–30.
63.
WangShuoLynnMichael (2007), “The Effects on Perceived Restaurant Expensiveness of Tipping and Its Alternatives,” Cornell Hospitality Report, 7 (3), 6–17.
64.
WangShuoLynnMichael (2010), “The Impact of Prix Fixe Menu Price Formats on Guests’ Deal Perception,” Cornell Hospitality Report, 10 (15), 6–15.
65.
XiaLanMonroeKent B. (2004), “Price Partitioning on the Internet,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (4), 63–73.
66.
YaoYuliangZhangJie (2012), “Pricing for Shipping Services of Online Retailers: Analytical and Empirical Approaches,” Decision Support Systems, 53 (2), 368–80.
67.
ZhaoMinHoefflerSteveZaubermanGal (2011), “Mental Simulation and Product Evaluation: The Affective and Cognitive Dimensions of Process versus Outcome Simulation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (5), 827–39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
