Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Ethicality of online dynamic pricing: an empirical investigation of consumer perception of ethical risks

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

“Consumers always love it when they can get a great deal, and dynamic pricing isn’t just about raising prices–it often leads to lowering them…In general, we have found that when prices are transparent to consumers and they understand the ‘rules of the game’, they adapt to dynamic pricing fairly seamlessly and even embrace it.”*

*www.theguardian.com/global/2017/nov/20/dynamic-personalised-pricing.

Greg Loewen, CEO of Digonex Technologies,

one of the leaders of dynamic pricing.

Abstract

This article examines consumer perception of ethicality regarding online dynamic pricing in relation to six perceived ethical risks (discrimination, opacity, disrespect, unequal treatment, data-use, and intrusiveness). An online study was conducted on 903 French web users. The results show that consumers perceive online dynamic pricing as unethical. This unethicality is positively determined by three ethical risks: discrimination, disrespect, and opacity. Unequal treatment, data-use, and intrusiveness risks do not influence consumer perceived unethicality of dynamic pricing. We further address theoretical and practical implications of our work and propose future research directions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon a reasonable request

References

  • Ahmetoglu, Gorkan, Adrian Furnham, and Patrick Fagan. 2014. Pricing practices: A critical review of their effects on consumer perceptions and behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (5): 696–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderighi, Marco, Consuelo R.. Nava, Matteo Calabrese, Jean-Marc. Christille, and Chiara B.. Salvemini. 2022. Consumer perception of price fairness and dynamic pricing: Evidence from Booking.com. Journal of Business Research 145: 769–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alghababsheh, Mohammad, David Gallear, and Mushfiqur Rahman. 2020. Balancing the scales of justice: Do perceptions of buyers’ justice drive suppliers’ social performance? Journal of Business Ethics 163: 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ameen, Nisreen, Ali Tarhini, Alexander Reppel, and Amitabh Anand. 2021. Customer experiences in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior 114: 106548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anton, Ramona, Régis. Y.. Chenavaz, and Corina Paraschiv. 2023. Dynamic pricing, reference price, and price-quality relationship. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 146: 104586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, Laurence, and Clinton Free. 2006. Marketing dataveillance and digital privacy: Using theories of justice to understand consumers’ online privacy concerns. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (2): 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, Laurence, and Lindsay McShane. 2012. Why do we care what others pay? The effect of other consumers’ prices on inferences of seller (dis)respect and perceptions of deservingness violation. Journal of Retailing 88 (1): 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awasthi, Ashwini K.., and Mahima Singhal. 2014. Exploring the domains of consumer perceived ethicality. Journal of Management Research 14 (2): 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayadi, Nawel, Corina Paraschiv, and Xavier Rousset. 2017. Online dynamic pricing and consumer-perceived ethicality: Synthesis and future research. Recherche Et Applications En Marketing (english Edition) 32: 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandara, Ruwan, Mario Fernando, and Shahriar Akter. 2020. Explicating the privacy paradox: A qualitative inquiry of online shopping consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52: 101947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechwati, Nada Nasr, and Maureen Morrin. 2003. Outraged consumers: Getting even at the expense of getting a good deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology 13 (4): 440–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, Ruth N., Katherine N. Lemon, and Peter C. Verhoef. 2002. The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset management: A framework and propositions for future research. Nashville: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, Lisa E.., Hean Tat Keh, and Joseph W.. Alba. 2010. How do price fairness perceptions differ across culture? Journal of Marketing Research 47 (3): 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, Katja H.. 2010. Exploring origins of ethical company/brand perceptions—A consumer perspective of corporate ethics. Journal of Business Research 63: 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunk, Katja H.., and Christian Blümelhuber. 2011. One strike and you’re out: Qualitative insights into the formation of consumers’ ethical company or brand perceptions? Journal of Business Research 64 (2): 134–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann, Alexander, Johannes Paßmann, and Christian Fieseler. 2020. Managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing reputational concerns, engagement strategies, and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business Ethics 163 (2): 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Chen, and Yongrui Duan. 2022. Impact of personalization and privacy concerns on information disclosure and pricing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 69: 103099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Jianqing, and Jan Stallaert. 2010. An economic analysis of online advertising using behavioral targeting. MIS Quarterly 38 (2): 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenavaz, Régis., and Corina Paraschiv. 2018. Dynamic pricing for inventories with reference price effects. Economics 12 (1): 20180064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenavaz, Régis., Corina Paraschiv, and Gabriel Turinici. 2021. Dynamic pricing of new products in competitive markets: A mean-field game approach. Dynamic Games and Applications 11: 463–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, Jerod, and Jean-Manuel Izaret. 2020. Progressive pricing: The ethical case for price personalization. Journal of Business Ethics: 1–12.

  • Dixit, Ashutosh, Karin Braunsberger, George M.. Zinkhan, and Yue Pan. 2005. Information technology-enhanced pricing strategies: Managerial and public policy implications. Journal of Business Research 58 (9): 1169–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elegido, Juan M.. 2011. The ethics of price discrimination. Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (4): 633–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassnacht, Martin, and Sebastian Unterhuber. 2016. Consumer response to online/offline price differentiation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 28: 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Jodie L.. 2014. Implementing price increases in turbulent economies: Pricing approaches for reducing perceptions of price unfairness. Journal of Business Research 67 (1): 2732–2737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Jodie L.., Pam Scholder Ellen, and William O.. Bearden. 2014. Procedural and distributive fairness: Determinants of overall price fairness. Journal of Business Ethics 121 (2): 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Jodie L.., Brian P.. Brown, and Wesley J.. Johnston. 2017. Partitioned pricing, price fairness perceptions, and the moderating effects of brand relationships in SME business markets. Journal of Business Research 72: 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, Ellen, and Olivia F.. Lee. 2003. Dynamic pricing in internet retail: Effects on consumer trust. Psychology and Marketing 20 (6): 495–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbarino, Ellen, and Sarah Maxwell. 2010. Consumer response to norm-breaking pricing events in e-commerce. Journal of Business Research 63 (9): 1066–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerlick, Joshua A.., and Stephan M.. Liozu. 2020. Ethical and legal considerations of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in personalized pricing. Journal of Income and Pricing Management 19 (2): 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliana, Isabella, José Afonso. Mazzon, and Angelika Dimoka. 2017. Impacts of product type and representation type on the perception of justice and price fairness. Journal of Business Research 81: 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graddy, Kathryn, and Diana C.. Robertson. 1999. Fairness of pricing decisions. Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (2): 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guizzardi, Andrea, Marcello M.. Mariani, and Annalisa Stacchini. 2022. A temporal construal theory explanation of the price-quality relationship in online dynamic pricing. Journal of Business Research 146: 32–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallikainen, Heli, Milena Luongo, Amandeep Dhir, and Tommi Laukkanen. 2022. Consequences of personalized product recommendations and price promotions in online grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 69: 103088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haws, Kelly L.., and William O.. Bearden. 2006. Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research 33 (3): 304–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, Andreas, Lan Xia, and Kent B.. Monroe. 2007. The influence of price fairness on customer satisfaction: An empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal of Product and Brand Management 16 (1): 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinz, Oliver, II-Horn. Hann, and Martin Spann. 2011. Price discrimination in e-commerce? An examination of dynamic pricing in name-your-own price markets. MIS Quarterly 35 (1): 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufnagel, Gerrit, Manfred Schwaiger, and Louisa Weritz. 2022. Seeking the perfect price: Consumer responses to personalized price discrimination in e-commerce. Journal of Business Research 143: 346–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobi, Timo, Maximilian von Grafenstein, Patrick Smieskol, and Gunnar Stevens. 2022. A Taxonomy of user-perceived privacy risks to foster accountability of data-based services. Journal of Responsible Technology 10: 100029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kienzler, Mario, and Christian Kowalkowski. 2017. Pricing strategy: A review of 22 years of marketing research. Journal of Business Research 78: 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, Byungwan, Srinivasan Raghunathan, and Barrie R.. Nault. 2017. Is voluntary profiling welfare enhancing? MIS Quarterly 41 (1): 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopalle, Praveen K.., Koen Pauwels, Laxminarayana Yashaswy Akella, and Manish Gangwar. 2023. Dynamic pricing: Definition, implications for managers, and future research directions. Journal of Retailing 99 (4): 580–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krafft, Manfred, Christine M. Arden, and Peter C.. Verhoef. 2017. Permission marketing and privacy concerns—Why do customers (not) grant permissions? Journal of Interactive Marketing 39: 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le, Nhat Quang, and Magne Supphellen. 2017. Determinants of repurchase intentions of real estate agent services: Direct and indirect effects of perceived ethicality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 35: 84–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Jungwoo, Cheong Kim, and Kun Chang Lee. 2022. Exploring the personalization-intrusiveness-intention framework to evaluate the effects of personalization in social media. International Journal of Information Management 66: 102532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Zihao. 2022. Affinity-based algorithmic pricing: A dilemma for EU data protection law. Computer Law & Security Review 46: 105705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Wenjing, David M.. Hardesty, and Adam W.. Craig. 2018. The impact of dynamic bundling on price fairness perceptions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 204–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Xi., Krista J.. Li, and Xin Wang. 2020. Transparency of behavior-based pricing. Journal of Marketing Research 57 (1): 78–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Yi., Ying Huang, Yadong Luo, and Yang Zhao. 2012. How does justice matter in achieving buyer–supplier relationship performance? Journal of Operations Management 30 (5): 355–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, Evandro Luiz, Lucas Zimbres Yunes, Otavio Bandeira de Lamonica Freire, Eliane Herrero, and Luis Hernan Contreras. Pinochet. 2020. The role of ethical problems related to a brand in the purchasing decision process: An analysis of the moderating effect of complexity of purchase and mediation of perceived social risk. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 53: 101970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malc, Domen, Damijan Mumel, and Aleksandra Pisnik. 2016. Exploring price fairness perceptions and their influence on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 69 (9): 3693–3697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Naresh K.., Sung S.. Kim, and James Agarwal. 2004. Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research 15 (4): 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Kirsten. 2018. The penalty for privacy violations: How privacy violations impact trust online. Journal of Business Research 82: 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Kirsten. 2019. Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics 160: 835–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Sarah. 2002. Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase. Journal of Economic Psychology 23 (2): 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S., & Garbarino, E. (2010). The identification of social norms of price discrimination on the internet. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(3), 218-224

  • Michaelidou, Nina, and Milena Micevski. 2018. Consumers’ ethical perceptions of social media analytics practices: Risks, benefits and potential outcomes. Journal of Business Research 104: 576–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miltgen, Caroline Lancelot, Jörg. Henseler, Carsten Gelhard, and Aleš Popovič. 2016. Introducing new products that affect consumer privacy: A mediation model. Journal of Business Research 69 (10): 4659–4666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, Divya, and Shiv Ratan Agrawal. 2016. Price transparency reflects assurance and reliability. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31: 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi-Ghobadi, Somayeh, Jafar Bagherinejad, and Ata Allah Taleizadeh. 2021. A two-generation new product model by considering forward-looking customers: Dynamic pricing and advertising optimization. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 63: 102387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunan, Daniel, and MariaLaura Di Domenico. 2022. Value creation in an algorithmic world: Towards an ethics of dynamic pricing. Journal of Business Research 150: 451–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ötting, Sonja K.., and Günter. W.. Maier. 2018. The importance of procedural justice in Human-Machine Interactions: Intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior 89: 27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palos-Sanchez, P., Saura, J. R., and Martin-Velicia, F. (2019). A study of the effects of programmatic advertising on users' concerns about privacy overtime. Journal of Business Research 96: 61–72.

  • Paraschiv, Corina, Sarah Benmoyal-Bouzaglo, Monica Turinici, and Xavier Rousset. 2022. Conceptual anchoring and analysis of the challenges of dynamic online pricing. Recherches En Sciences De Gestion 151 (4): 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paraschiv, Corina, Nawel Ayadi, Xavier Rousset, and Monica Turinici. 2023. Consumer vulnerability to dynamic pricing in online environments. Applied Economics: 1–16.

  • Priester, Anna, Thomas Robbert, and Stefan Roth. 2020. A special price just for you: Effects of personalized dynamic pricing on consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Income and Pricing Management 19 (2): 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauschnabel, Philipp A.., Jun He, and Young K.. Ro. 2018. Antecedents to the adoption of augmented reality smart glasses: A closer look at privacy risks. Journal of Business Research 92: 374–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarpi, Daniele, Gabriele Pizzi, and Shashi Matta. 2022. Digital technologies and privacy: State of the art and research directions. Psychology & Marketing 39 (9): 1687–1697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seele, Peter, Claus Dierksmeier, Reto Hofstetter, and Mario D.. Schultz. 2021. Mapping the ethicality of algorithmic pricing: A review of dynamic and personalized pricing. Journal of Business Ethics 170 (4): 697–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Jatinder J.., Oriol Iglesias, and Joan Manel Batista-Foguet. 2012. Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics 111 (4): 541–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, Etye. 2020. Big data and personalized pricing. Business Ethics Quarterly 30 (1): 97–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steppe, Richard. 2019. Algorithmic pricing and tacit collusion under competition law. Revue Internationale De Droit Economique 3: 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svantesson, Dan, and Roger Clarke. 2010. Privacy and consumer risks in cloud computing’. Computer Law and Security Review 26 (4): 391–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomczyk, Arkadiusz T.., Dimitrios Buhalis, Daisy X.F.. Fan, and Nigel L.. Williams. 2022. Price-personalization: Customer typology based on hospitality business. Journal of Business Research 147: 462–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallmark, Marie, Eyal Greenberg, and Dan Engels. 2018. Consumer welfare and price discrimination: A fine line. SMU Data Science Review 1 (1): 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Ruijie, Reece Bush-Evans, Emily Arden-Close, Elvira Bolat, John McAlaney, Sarah Hodge, Sarah Thomas, and Keith Phalp.2022. Transparency in persuasive technology, immersive technology, and online marketing: Facilitating users’ informed decision making and practical implications. Computers in Human Behavior: 107545.

  • Weisstein, Fei L.., Kent B.. Monroe, and Monika Kukar-Kinney. 2013. Effects of price framing on consumers’ perceptions of online dynamic pricing practices. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (5): 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wottrich, Verena M.., Eva A.. Reijmersdal, and Edith G.. Smit. 2018. The privacy trade-off for mobile app downloads: The roles of app value, intrusiveness, and privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems 106: 44–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Chi-Cheng., Yi-Fen. Liu, and Ying-Ju. Chen. 2012. Consumer responses to price discrimination: Discriminating bases, inequality status, and information disclosure timing influences. Journal of Business Research 65 (1): 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Zhiyan, Yuan Yang, Jiahui Zhao, and Youqing Wu. 2022. The Impact of Algorithmic Price Discrimination on Consumers’ Perceived Betrayal. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 825420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Lan, and Monika Kukar-Kinney. 2014. For our valued customers only: Examining consumer responses to preferential treatment practices. Journal of Business Research 67 (11): 2368–2375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, Lan, Kent B.. Monroe, and Jennifer L.. Cox. 2004. The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing 68 (4): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanker, Markus, Laurens Rook, and Dietmar Jannach. 2019. Measuring the impact of online personalisation: Past, present and future. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131: 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris Cité, LIRAES, F-75006, Paris, France

    Corina Paraschiv

  2. ISG Tunis, Université de Tunis, Tunisia & Université Paris Cité, LIRAES, F-75006, Paris, France

    Nawel Ayadi

Authors
  1. Corina Paraschiv
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nawel Ayadi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nawel Ayadi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6, 7, 8.

Table 5 Control variables
Full size table
Table 6 Correlation matrix
Full size table
Table 7 Gender effect in ethicality perceptions
Full size table
Table 8 OLS regressions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paraschiv, C., Ayadi, N. Ethicality of online dynamic pricing: an empirical investigation of consumer perception of ethical risks. J Revenue Pricing Manag 24, 285–299 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-024-00497-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-024-00497-3

Keywords