Looking for Loss Aversion in Scanner Panel Data: The Confounding Effect of Price Response Heterogeneity

240 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion (2005, background): “finding by Hardie et al. (1993) that demand is more elastic for price increases than for price decreases was challenged by a study by Bell and Lattin (2000) , who found no such asymmetry after controlling for the confounding influence of heterogeneity in consumer price responsiveness.4”
Understanding Reference-Price Shoppers: A Within- and Cross-Category Analysis (2001, background): “Although reference prices clearly affect brand choices, they explain less variance in choice data than the primary drivers do (e.g., Bell and Lattin 2000; Mazumdar and Papatla 1995).”
Reference Price Research: Review and Propositions (2005, methodology): “Bell and Lattin (2000) contend that price sensitive (insensitive) consumers have lower (higher) reference points because, on average, they pay a lower (higher) price.”
The Kinked Demand Curve and Price Rigidity: Evidence from Scanner Data (2010, unknown): “j=1 ij ln( pj P ) @ lnP @ ln pi 1A (5)”
The Loss of Loss Aversion: Will It Loom Larger Than Its Gain? (2018, unknown): “For example, in 2016, an article by Hardie et al. (1993), which supports the predictions of loss aversion, received 65 Google Scholar citations, whereas a paper by Bell and Lattin (2000), which challenges the interpretation of Hardie et al. (1993), received only 14 Google Scholar citations.”