@misc{WernerDostAhmed, author = {Werner, Bastian and Dost, Florian and Ahmed, Sheraz}, title = {Der Einfluss von partizipativen Preismechanismen auf die Kaufentscheidung ein empirischer Vergleich von PWYW , PYP und Festpreis am Beispiel dreier Konsumprodukte}, series = {Proceedings International Marketing Trends Conference 2024, Venice}, journal = {Proceedings International Marketing Trends Conference 2024, Venice}, isbn = {978-2-490372-18-8}, pages = {10}, abstract = {In a time of inflation, stagnant sales, and intense global competition, companies must differentiate themselves from their rivals to gain a competitive advantage. One intriguing strategy for this is the emerging Pick-Your-Price (PYP) mechanism, which, similar to the well-known Pay-What-You-Want (PWYW), is considered a participative pricing mechanism that enables buyers to significantly impact the price. Buyers prefer actively participating in the pricing process instead of passively accepting fixed prices. Their participation also enhances perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. However, which pricing mechanism - fixed price, PWYP, or PYP - should companies use to optimize purchase intent and expected payments? To address this, an online experiment was carried out, and ANOVA and mediation analysis were employed. This research investigates pricing strategies implemented on products of varying price levels (deodorant, smartphone, car) to evaluate their effects on purchase intention, expected payment, and buyers' perceptions of control, effort, and fairness throughout the purchase process. Results indicate that PWYW generates higher ratings for price control, cognitive effort, and purchase intention, while the highest payment expectation comes from PYP. Furthermore, the study shows that perceived control most significantly influences purchase intention and expected payment, followed by effort and fairness. We discuss implications for both researchers and practitioners.}, language = {de} } @misc{WernerDost, author = {Werner, Bastian and Dost, Florian}, title = {Range-based versus Point-based WTP/WTA Measures: New Findings for the Endowment Effect}, series = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy}, journal = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy}, number = {53}, abstract = {Previous research has examined the well-known endowment effect using point-based measures of willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) values and found that this effect leads to market failure because sellers' WTA often exceeds buyers' WTP. This research examines the endowment effect using range-based measures of WTP and WTA, providing a more realistic perspective given bounded rationality and uncertainty conditions. To confirm the conceptual extensions and modifications of the endowment effect, we conceptually replicate a comprehensive point-based study on the endowment effect (Jefferson/Taplin, 2011) using range-based measures. Our results show an increased endowment effect but also less severe inefficiencies in a market, as there is significant overlap between WTP and WTA ranges, leading to a more efficient market than previously thought and more transactions taking place.}, language = {en} } @misc{HuberDreberHuberetal., author = {Huber, Christoph and Dreber, Anna and Huber, J{\"u}rgen and Johannesson, Magnus and Kirchler, Michael and Weitzel, Utz and Abell{\´a}n, Miguel and Adayeva, Xeniya and Ay, Fehime Ceren and Barron, Kai and Berry, Zachariah and B{\"o}nte, Werner and Br{\"u}tt, Katharina and Bulutay, Muhammed and Campos-Mercade, Pol and Cardella, Eric and Claassen, Maria Almudena and Cornelissen, Gert and Dawson, Ian G. J. and Delnoij, Joyce and Demiral, Elif E. and Dimant, Eugen and Doerflinger, Johannes Theodor and Dold, Malte and Emery, C{\´e}cile and Fiala, Lenka and Fiedler, Susann and Freddi, Eleonora and Fries, Tilman and Gasiorowska, Agata and Glogowsky, Ulrich and Gorny, Paul Matthias and Gretton, Jeremy David and Grohmann, Antonia and Hafenbr{\"a}dl, Sebastian and Handgraaf, Michel and Hanoch, Yaniv and Hart, Einav and Hennig, Max and Hudja, Stanton and H{\"u}tter, Mandy and Hyndman, Kyle and Ioannidis, Konstantinos and Isler, Ozan and Jeworrek, Sabrina and Jolles, Daniel and Juanchich, Marie and Raghabendra, Pratap K.C. and Khadjavi, Menusch and Kugler, Tamar and Li, Shuwen and Lucas, Brian and Mak, Vincent and Mechtel, Mario and Merkle, Christoph and Meyers, Ethan Andrew and Mollerstrom, Johanna and Nesterov, Alexander and Neyse, Levent and Nieken, Petra and Nussberger, Anne-Marie and Palumbo, Helena and Peters, Kim and Pirrone, Angelo and Qin, Xiangdong and Rahal, Rima Maria and Rau, Holger and Rincke, Johannes and Ronzani, Piero and Roth, Yefim and Saral, Ali Seyhun and Schmitz, Jan and Schneider, Florian and Schram, Arthur and Schudy, Simeon and Schweitzer, Maurice E. and Schwieren, Christiane and Scopelliti, Irene and Sirota, Miroslav and Sonnemans, Joep and Soraperra, Ivan and Spantig, Lisa and Steimanis, Ivo and Steinmetz, Janina and Suetens, Sigrid and Theodoropoulou, Andriana and Urbig, Diemo and Vorlaufer, Tobias and Waibel, Joschka and Woods, Daniel and Yakobi, Ofir and Yilmaz, Onurcan and Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz and Zeisberger, Stefan and Holzmeister, Felix}, title = {Competition and moral behavior: A meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {120}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, number = {23}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2215572120}, abstract = {Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity—variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity—estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs—indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.}, language = {en} } @misc{WernerDost, author = {Werner, Bastian and Dost, Florian}, title = {Behavioral Pricing and Innovative Pricing Mechanisms in Purchase Decisions- a Review and Recommandations for Future Research}, series = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, EMAC 2023 Annual, Odense, Denmark, May 24, 2023}, journal = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, EMAC 2023 Annual, Odense, Denmark, May 24, 2023}, language = {en} } @misc{HallSchmidtWaggeetal., author = {Hall, Braeden and Schmidt, Kathleen and Wagge, Jordan and Lewis, Savannah C. and Weissgerber, Sophia C. and Kiunke, Felix and Pfuhl, Gerit and Stieger, Stefan and Tran, Ulrich S. and Barzykowski, Krystian and Bogatyreva, Natalia and Kowal, Marta and Massar, KarlIJn and Pernerstofer, Felizitas and Sorokowski, Piotr and Voracek, Martin and Chartier, Christopher R. and Brandt, Mark J. and Grahe, Jon E. and {\"O}zdoğru, Asil A. and Andreychik, Michael R. and Chen, Sau-Chin and Evans, Thomas R. and Hautekiet, Caro and IJzerman, Hans and Kačm{\´a}r, Pavol and Krafnick, Anthony J. and Musser, Erica D. and Vergauwe, Evie and Werner, Kaitlyn M. and Aczel, Balazs and Arriaga, Patr{\´i}cia and Batres, Carlota and Beaudry, Jennifer L. and Cova, Florian and Ďurbisov{\´a}, Simona and Cramblet Alvarez, Leslie D. and Feldman, Gilad and Godbersen, Hendrik and Gottfried, Jaroslav and Haeffel, Gerald J. and Hartanto, Andree and Isloi, Chris and McFall, Joseph P. and Milyavskaya, Marina and Moreau, David and Nos{\´a}ľov{\´a}, Ester and Papaioannou, Kostas and Ruiz-Fernandez, Susana and Schr{\"o}tter, Jana and Storage, Daniel and Vezirian, Kevin and Volz, Leonhard and Weisberg, Yanna J. and Xiao, Qinyu and Awlia, Dana and Branit, Hannah W. and Dunn, Megan R. and Groyecka-Bernard, Agata and Haneda, Ricky and Kielinska, Julita and Kolle, Caroline and Lubomski, Paweł and Miller, Alexys M. and M{\ae}kel{\ae}, Martin J. and Pantazi, Mytro and Ribeiro, Rafael R. and Ross, Robert M. and Sorokowska, Agnieszka and Aberson, Christopher L. and Vassiliou, Xanthippi Alexi and Baker, Bradley J. and Bognar, Miklos and Cong, Chin Wen and Danvers, Alex F. and Davis, William E. and Dranseika, Vilius and Dumbravă, Andrei and Farmer, Harry and Field, Andy P. and Forscher, Patrick S. and Graton, Aur{\´e}lien and Hajdu, Nandor and Howlett, Peter A. and Kabut, Radosław and Larsen, Emmett M. and Lee, Sean T. H. and Legate, Nicole and Levitan, Carmel A. and Levy, Neil and Lu, Jackson G. and Misiak, Michał and Morariu, Roxana E. and Novak, Jennifer and Pronizius, Ekaterina and Prusova, Irina and Rathnayake, Athulya S. and Romanova, Marina O. and R{\"o}er, Jan P. and Sampaio, Waldir M. and Schild, Christoph and Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael and Stephen, Ian D. and Szecsi, Peter and Takacs, Elizabeth and Teeter, Julia N. and Thiele-Evans, Elian H. and Valeiro-Paterlini, Julia and Vilares, Iris and Villafana, Louise and Wang, Ke and Wu, Raymond and {\´A}lvarez-Solas, Sara and Moshontz, Hannah and Buchanan, Erin M.}, title = {Registered Replication Report: A Large Multilab Cross-Cultural Conceptual Replication of Turri et al. (2015)}, series = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science}, volume = {7}, journal = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science}, number = {4}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, issn = {2515-2459}, doi = {10.1177/25152459241267902}, pages = {1 -- 38}, language = {en} } @incollection{UlrichSchlegelMertensetal., author = {Ulrich, Rainer G. and Schlegel, Matthias and Mertens, Marc and Groschup, Martin H. and Schmidt-Chanasit, Jonas and Plenge-B{\"o}nig, Anita and Jacob, Jens and Pelz, Hans-Joachim and Freise, Jona and Wenk, Matthias and Thiel, J{\"o}rg and Triebenbacher, Cornelia and Schmolz, Eric and Kurth, Andreas and Kr{\"u}ger, Frank and R{\"u}he, Ferdinand and Kiffner, Christian and Ansorge, Hermann and Gerwin, Werner and Wegener, Wolfgang and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg and Bemmann, Margit and Wolf, Ronny and Otto, Lutz-Florian and Oehme, Rainer and Pfeffer, Martin and Heckel, Gerald and Schex, Susanne and Essbauer, Sandra S.}, title = {Netzwerk Nagetier-{\"u}bertragene Pathogene: Monitoring von Hantavirus-Infektionen in Deutschland}, series = {Wildhygiene, Wildtierkrankheiten, Parasiten, Epidemiologie}, booktitle = {Wildhygiene, Wildtierkrankheiten, Parasiten, Epidemiologie}, publisher = {Ges. f{\"u}r Wildtier- und Jagdforschung}, address = {Halle/Saale}, isbn = {978-378-88131-2-3}, issn = {1436-3895}, pages = {229 -- 250}, language = {de} } @misc{WernerDost, author = {Werner, Bastian and Dost, Florian}, title = {Comparing average payments and minimal bounds for lower and higher outcomes among customers in participative pricing mechanisms : an empirical investigation of PWYW, NYOP, and PYP}, series = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, EMAC 2025 Spring Conference, Pozuelo (Madrid), Spain, May 25, 2025}, journal = {Proceedings of the European Marketing Academy, EMAC 2025 Spring Conference, Pozuelo (Madrid), Spain, May 25, 2025}, publisher = {European Marketing Academy}, pages = {11}, abstract = {This research uses three online experiments (total n =501) to examine which participative pricing mechanism—Pay What You Want (PWYW), Name Your Own Price (NYOP), or Pick Your Price (PYP)—firms should use to optimize purchase intentions and expected payments. In doing so, we combine the PWYW and NYOP literatures and jointly test relevant mediators: perceived price fairness, price control, and effort. In addition to average total and indirect effects, a novel application of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test provided lower bounds of consumers paying less or more under each pricing method. Our results show that PWYW leads to the highest purchase intention despite generating the lowest payments. PYP outperforms in terms of expected payments. Mediation analyses indicate that perceived control negatively affects purchase intention for PYP and NYOP. Under PYP and NYOP, at least 10\% to 84\% of consumers pay more, depending on the study, but very few (single digit percentages) pay less than under PWYW.}, language = {en} }