Social Value Orientation and Information Level in Selling Prices

Abstract

The concept of social value orientation was used to investigate whether or not individual difference would influence selling price decisions in situations with different information levels. Results of the study indicated that individuals with different orientations reacted differently to selling price under the condition of different information levels. In general, proselfs charged higher prices under the condition of asymmetric information than under the condition of symmetric information when they believed that the prospective buyer lacked information about market prices. However, the selling price disparity between asymmetric and symmetric information conditions was diminished when the buyer was a friend. By contrast, prosocials were not influenced by the manipulation of the information level of the buyer and their relationship with the buyer. In a transaction situation, different parties often have different amounts of information about the transaction. Sometimes, the seller has the information but the buyer lacks it (asymmetric information) or both the buyer and the seller have the same information (symmetric information). Under the condition of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2008, 36(7), 933-940

Do Me a Solid? Information Asymmetry, Liking, and Compliance Gaining Online

“…Again, the social attraction measure [29] was used. The mean response was 4.34 (SD = 0.98; Cronbach's α = 0.80).…”

“…These self-disclosures may be intended to control impressions and maintain social ties but may still leave individuals vulnerable to potential misuse of their personal information [12,29].…”

Transportation Security

“…They were given about 3 minutes to review the information so that they could get familiar with it. Then, they were administered McCroskey and McCain's [29] 8-item social attraction measure to establish a baseline attraction for the experimental condition. Each item was measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree.…”

“…Following the experiment, participants were asked to evaluate their communication partner. Again, the social attraction measure [29] was used. The mean response was 4.34 (SD = 0.98; Cronbach's α = 0.80).…”

“…Some research has suggested that individuals may also be using SNS to actively shape the perceptions of others in the hope that those perceptions may be reflected in subsequent offline interactions [30,43]. These self-disclosures may be intended to control impressions and maintain social ties but may still leave individuals vulnerable to potential misuse of their personal information [12,29].…”