File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: “Not me” consumer justifications for not reporting suspected price‐fixing activities: Neutralization techniques & counterstrategies

Title“Not me” consumer justifications for not reporting suspected price‐fixing activities: Neutralization techniques & counterstrategies
Authors
Issue Date29-Aug-2023
PublisherWiley
Citation
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2023 How to Cite?
Abstract

Price-fixing, an anti-competitive activity by firms, raises consumer prices, limits consumer choices, and violates the law. Drawing on the neutralization theory, this study aims to investigate consumer participation in anti-price-fixing efforts. This is important as the government's strategy of combating price-fixing often relies on tip-offs from the public. Accordingly, this study examines consumer willingness to come forward to file a complaint of suspected price-fixing cases to authorities and the justifications provided by participants for their reluctance. Focus group interviews were conducted with twenty-three participants. The findings revealed that although the participants agreed that price-fixing is unethical and unjust, they were reluctant to file a complaint to report suspected price-fixing activities to authorities. This study makes theoretical contributions to uncover five neutralization techniques used by the participants to reconcile their negative feelings. Three new counterstrategies have not been explored or discussed in previous studies. This contributes to a new line of inquiry about consumer responses to price-fixing.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/332058
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.4
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.235
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, Phoebe-
dc.contributor.authorVanharanta, Markus-
dc.contributor.authorWan, Calvin-
dc.contributor.authorLo, Man Fung-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-28T05:00:34Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-28T05:00:34Z-
dc.date.issued2023-08-29-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Consumer Behaviour, 2023-
dc.identifier.issn1472-0817-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/332058-
dc.description.abstract<p> Price-fixing, an anti-competitive activity by firms, raises consumer prices, limits consumer choices, and violates the law. Drawing on the neutralization theory, this study aims to investigate consumer participation in anti-price-fixing efforts. This is important as the government's strategy of combating price-fixing often relies on tip-offs from the public. Accordingly, this study examines consumer willingness to come forward to file a complaint of suspected price-fixing cases to authorities and the justifications provided by participants for their reluctance. Focus group interviews were conducted with twenty-three participants. The findings revealed that although the participants agreed that price-fixing is unethical and unjust, they were reluctant to file a complaint to report suspected price-fixing activities to authorities. This study makes theoretical contributions to uncover five neutralization techniques used by the participants to reconcile their negative feelings. Three new counterstrategies have not been explored or discussed in previous studies. This contributes to a new line of inquiry about consumer responses to price-fixing. <br></p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Consumer Behaviour-
dc.title“Not me” consumer justifications for not reporting suspected price‐fixing activities: Neutralization techniques & counterstrategies-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cb.2242-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85169019657-
dc.identifier.eissn1479-1838-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001063821200001-
dc.identifier.issnl1472-0817-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats