When Retailing and Las Vegas Meet: Probabilistic Free Price Promotions

References

• Ailawadi KL, Gedenk K, Langer T, Ma Y, Neslin SA (2014) Consumer response to uncertain promotions: An empirical analysis of conditional rebates. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 31(1):94–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel M, Budescu D (1995) The elusive wishful thinking effect. Thinking Reasoning 1(1):71–103.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berlyne DE (1970) Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception Psychophys. 8(5A):279–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berlyne DE, Parham LCC (1968) Determinants of subjective novelty. PerceptionPsychophys. 3(6):415–423.Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandran S, Morwitz V (2006) The price of “free”-dom: Consumer sensitivity to promotions with negative contextual influences. Pechmann C, Price L, eds. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33 (Association for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN), 250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Darke PR, Chung CMY (2005) Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perception: It depends on how you frame it. J. Retailing 81(1):35–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar SK, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Soman D (1995) Brand promotions as a lottery. Marketing Lett. 6(3):221–233.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar SK, Gonzalez-Vallejo C, Soman D (1999) Modeling the effects of advertised price claims: Tensile versus precise claims? Marketing Sci. 18(2):154–177.Link, Google Scholar
• Dijksterhuis A, Smith PK (2002) Affective habituation: Subliminal exposure to extreme stimuli decreases their extremity. Emotion 2(3):203–214.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA, Wu G (2006) The uncertainty effect: When a risky prospect is valued less than its worst possible outcome. Quart. J. Econom. 121(4):1283–1309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldsmith K, Amir O (2010) Can uncertainty improve promotions? J. Marketing Res. 47(6):1070–1077.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Han S, Gupta S, Lehmann DR (2001) Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds. J. Retailing 77(4):435–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Loewenstein GF, Blount S, Bazerman MH (1991) Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psych. Bull. 125(5):576–590.Crossref, Google Scholar
• IBISWorld (2013) Lotteries and Native American casinos in the U.S.: Market research report, NAICS 71329. Report, IBISWorld, New York.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Markowitz H (1952) The utility of wealth. J. Political Econom. 60(2):151–158.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Newman GE, Mochon D (2012) Why are lotteries valued less? Multiple tests of a direct risk-aversion mechanism. Judgment Decision Making 7(1):19–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nunes JC, Park CW (2003) Incommensurate resources: Not just more of the same. J. Marketing Res. 40(4):26–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Palmeira MO (2011) The zero-comparison effect. J. Consumer Res. 38(1):16–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis PG (2010) Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgment Decision Making 5(5):411–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Loewenstein G (1991) Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach. Management Sci. 37(7):770–786.Link, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5):1281–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reed K (2007) Jordan’s shoppers sitting pretty if Sox win. The Boston Globe (October 23), http://boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/23/jordans_shoppers_sitting_pretty_if_sox_win/.Google Scholar
• Sanders R (2008) Patriots win could mean free TV’s at local store. WBZTV.COM (January 30).Google Scholar
• Seybert N, Bloomfield R (2009) Contagion of wishful thinking in markets. Management Sci. 55(5):738–751.Link, Google Scholar
• Shampanier K, Mazar N, Ariely D (2007) Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Sci. 26(6):742–757.Link, Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U (2009) Direct risk aversion: Evidence from risky prospects valued below their worst outcome. Psych. Sci. 20(6):686–692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stigler G (1965) Essays in the History of Economics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Thaler R (1980) Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 1(1):39–60.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y, Gervey B, Liberman N (1997) Wishful thinking from a pragmatic hypothesis-testing perspective. Myslobodsky MS, ed. The Mythomanias: The Nature of Deception and Self-Deception (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ), 105–131.Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber BJ, Chapman GB (2005) Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 97(1):31–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang Y, Vosgerau J, Loewenstein G (2013) Framing influences willingness to pay but not willingness to accept. J. Marketing Res. 50(6):725–738.Crossref, Google Scholar