ALGILANAN FİYAT ADALETİNİN TÜKETİCİ SATIN ALMA NİYETİNE ETKİSİ: BİR META-ANALİZ ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Bu araştırma, fiyat adaleti algısının tüketicilerin satın alma niyetleri üzerindeki etkisini ve bu etkinin hangi bağlamsal ve kültürel koşullar altında farklılaştığını meta-analitik bir yöntemle incelemektedir. 2015-2025 yılları arasında Web of Science veri tabanında indekslenen ve seçim kriterlerine uyan 18 bağımsız çalışmadan elde edilen veriler, Rastgele Etkiler Modeli (Random Effects Model) kullanılarak sentezlenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, fiyat adaleti ile satın alma niyeti arasında pozitif, istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve güçlü bir ilişki (Fisher’s Z = 0,528; p < 0,001) olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Yapılan moderatör analizlerinde, tüketicilerin kültürel yönelimlerinin (toplulukçuluk vs. bireyselcilik) bu ilişkide kritik bir düzenleyici rol oynadığı saptanmıştır (Qb = 4,758; p = 0,029). Toplulukçu kültürlerde fiyat adaletinin etkisi (0,602), bireyselci kültürlere (0,354) kıyasla anlamlı düzeyde daha yüksektir. Öte yandan, ürün türü (faydacı, hazcı, karma) ve belirsizlikten kaçınma düzeyi (yüksek, orta, düşük) moderatörlerinin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılaşma yaratmadığı görülmüştür (p > 0,05). Elde edilen bulgular, fiyat adaleti algısının evrensel bir tüketici motivasyonu olmakla birlikte, sosyal uyum ve grup normlarının baskın olduğu kültürel yapılarda satın alma kararlarını çok daha güçlü bir şekilde şekillendirdiğini kanıtlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Fiyat Adaleti
• Satın Alma Niyeti
• Meta-Analiz
• Tüketici Davranışı
• Kültürel Boyutlar

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma kapsamında herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş veya projeden finansal ya da ayni destek alınmamıştır.

Ethical Statement

"Algılanan Fiyat Adaletinin Tüketici Satın Alma Niyetine Etkisi: Bir Meta-Analiz Çalışması” başlıklı bu araştırmanın tüm süreçlerinde bilimsel etik ve alıntı kurallarına tam bağlılık gösterilmiştir. Çalışma, yayımlanmış ikincil verilerin dokuman incelemesine dayandığı için etik kurul izni gerektirmemektedir. Veriler üzerinde tahrifat yapılmamış olup çalışma başka bir platforma sunulmamıştır.

Thanks

Bu çalışmanın değerlendirme sürecindeki değerli zamanları ve yapıcı katkıları için Sayın Editör’e ve Editör Kurulu üyelerine, hakemlere şimdiden teşekkürlerini sunarım.

THE IMPACT OF PERCEIVED PRICE FAIRNESS ON CONSUMER PURCHASE INTENTIONS: A META-ANALYSIS REVIEW

Abstract

This research examines the impact of perceived price fairness on consumers' purchase intentions and how this effect differs under various contextual and cultural conditions using a meta-analytic method. Data from 18 independent studies indexed in the Web of Science database between 2015 and 2025 and meeting the selection criteria were synthesized using a Random Effects Model. The analysis results reveal a positive, statistically significant, and strong relationship (Fisher’s Z = 0,528; p < 0,001) between price fairness and purchase intention. Moderator analyses revealed that consumers' cultural orientations (collectivism vs. individualism) play a critical moderating role in this relationship (Qb = 4,758; p = 0,029). The effect of price fairness is significantly higher in collectivist cultures (0,602) compared to individualistic cultures (0.354). On the other hand, product type (utilitarian, hedonic, mixed) and uncertainty avoidance level (high, medium, low) moderators did not create a statistically significant difference ((p > 0,05). The findings demonstrate that while the perception of price fairness is a universal consumer motivation, it shapes purchasing decisions much more strongly in cultural structures where social conformity and group norms are dominant.

Keywords

• Prica Fairness
• Purchase Intention
• Meta-Analysis
• Consumer Behavior
• Cultural Dimensions

Supporting Institution

The author declares that this research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors

Ethical Statement

During all stages of this research, titled 'The Effect of Perceived Price Fairness on Consumer Purchase Intention: A Meta-Analysis Review,' there has been full compliance with scientific ethics and citation rules. Since the study is based on the document analysis of published secondary data, it does not require ethics committee approval. No data falsification has been performed, and the study has not been submitted to any other platform.

Thanks

I would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief, the members of the Editorial Board, and the reviewers in advance for their valuable time and constructive contributions during the evaluation process of this study.

References

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology içinde (s. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
2. Akolaa, A. A., Kosiba, J. P. B., Appiah, F. ve Nyanteh, A. A. (2023). The moderating role of donation-related predispositions on the effectiveness of price and product quality on cause-related marketing participation. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(7), 1632-1649. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2020-1033
3. Aşık, Z. ve Özen, M. (2019). Meta-Analysis Steps and Reporting. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 13(2), 232-240. https://doi.org/10.21763/tjfmpc.569924
4. Awal, R. I. R., Rahayu, A., Hendrayati, H., Heryana, N., Rahman, S. Y., Deny, M. ve Lestari, F. (2025). Digital Value-Based Pricing Strategy in Tourism Marketing: A Systematic Literature Review Approach. Dinasti International Journal of Economics, Finance & Accounting (DIJEFA), 5(6).
5. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R. ve Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656. https://doi.org/10.1086/209376
6. Bechwati, N. N., Sisodia, R. S. ve Sheth, J. N. (2009). Developing a model of antecedents to consumers' perceptions and evaluations of price unfairness. Journal of Business Research, 62(8), 761-767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.09.004
7. Begg, C. B. ve Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
8. Bolton, L. E., Keh, H. T. ve Alba, J. W. (2010). How do price fairness perceptions differ across culture?. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 564-576. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.3.564

9. Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L. ve Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un) fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474-491. https://doi.org/10.1086/346244
10. Bolton, R. N. ve Lemon, K. N. (1999). A dynamic model of customers’ usage of services: Usage as an antecedent and consequence of satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152091
11. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. ve Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
12. Campbell, C. L., Heinrich, D., & Schoenmüller, V. (2015). Consumers' reaction to fair trade motivated price increases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 79–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.02.005
13. Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152092
14. Chandon, P., Wansink, B. ve Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.4.65.18071
15. Chiang, K. P. ve Dholakia, R. R. (2003). Factors driving consumer intention to shop online. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP13-1&2_16
16. Chotisarn, N. ve Phuthong, T. (2025). Logistics service quality and customer behavior in cross-border e-commerce: A thai consumer perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2486581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2486581
17. Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), 101-129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666
18. Dawra, J. ve Katyal, K. (2023). Decoding price promotions: A moderated mediation model of fairness, trust, and deal proneness. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 22(4), 248–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41272-022-00373-y
19. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M. ve Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629-634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
20. Garbarino, E. ve Slonim, R. (2003). Interrelationships and distinct effects of internal reference prices on perceived expensiveness and demand. Psychology & Marketing, 20(3), 227-248. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10069
21. Garbarino, E. ve Maxwell, S. (2010). Consumer Response to Norm-Breaking Pricing Events in E-Commerce. Journal of Business Research, 63(9–10), 1066–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.12.010
22. Gorji, M. ve Siami, S. (2020). How sales promotion display affects customer shopping intentions in retails. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 48(12), 1337-1355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1108/IJRDM-12-2019-0407
23. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. ve Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80099-2
24. Grewal, D., Hardesty, D. M. ve Iyer, G. R. (2004). The effects of buyer identification and purchase timing on consumers’ perceptions of trust, price fairness, and repurchase intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20024
25. Hamzah, M. I. ve Pontes, N. (2024). What drives car buyers to accept a rejuvenated brand? The mediating effects of value and pricing in a consumer-brand relationship. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 32(2), 114-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2022.2129749
26. Haws, K. L. ve Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1086/508435
27. Hedges, L. V. ve Olkin, I. (2014). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
28. Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, B. K. ve Huber, F. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420710731151
29. Higgins, J. P. ve Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
30. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J. ve Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
31. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
32. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage.
33. Homburg, C., Hoyer, W. D. ve Koschate, N. (2005). Customers' reactions to price increases: Do customer satisfaction and perceived motive fairness matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304269953
34. Hunter, J. E. ve Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.
35. Hwang, K. K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944-974. https://doi.org/10.1086/228588
36. Islam, M. M. ve Hani, F. F. (2021). Hopes and reality: Consumers’ purchase intention towards whitening cream. Future Business Journal, 7(1), 57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00098-1
37. Katyal, K., Kanetkar, V. ve Patro, S. (2019). What is a fair fare? Exploring the differences between perceived price fairness and perceived price unfairness. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 18(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41272-018-00182-2
38. Keller, A., Vogelsang, M. ve Totzek, D. (2022). How displaying price discounts can mitigate negative customer reactions to dynamic pricing. Journal of Business Research, 148, 277–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.027
39. Kim, J., Jhang, J., Kim, S. S. ve Chen, S. C. (2021). Effects of concealing vs. displaying prices on consumer perceptions of hospitality products. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102708
40. Korsakul, N., Chen, J. S. ve Tsou, H. T. (2025). Influence of the characteristics of dual-role platforms and streamers on consumer trust and purchase intention in live streaming commerce. Service Business, 19(3), 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-025-00592-4
41. Lee, A., Lambert, C. U. ve Law, R. (2012). Customer preferences for social value over economic value in restaurants. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(5), 473-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.627350
42. Lee, S., Illia, A. ve Lawson‐Body, A. (2011). Perceived price fairness of dynamic pricing. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(4), 531-550. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111133533
43. Lehmann, D. R. (2004). Perceptions of price fairness influence consumer behavior. Marketing News, 38(17), 46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650308316937
44. Li, D. ve Xie, L. (2021). Country-of-origin cues: Effects of country-related affect and product association on consumer responses to hospitality firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1789-1809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-11-2020-1324
45. Lii, Y. S. ve Sy, E. (2009). Internet differential pricing: Effects on consumer price perception, emotions, and behavioral responses. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 770-777.
46. Lim, W. M. (2020). An equity theory perspective of online group buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54, 101729. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.12.013
47. Lynch Jr, J. G. ve Ariely, D. (2000). Wine online: Search costs affect competition on price, quality, and distribution. Marketing Science, 19(1), 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.19.1.83.15183
48. Malc, D., Mumel, D. ve Pisnik, A. (2016). Exploring price fairness perceptions and their influence on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3693–3697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.031
49. Markus, H. R. ve Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. G. R. Goethals & J. Strauss (Ed.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches içinde (s. 18-48). New York, NY: Springer.
50. Markus, H. R. ve Kitayama, S. (2014). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. J. H. Schuh (Ed.), College student development and academic life içinde (s. 264-293). Routledge.
51. Maxwell, S. (2002). Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(2), 191-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00063-6
52. Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889
53. Okur, N., Saricam, C., Iri, A. R. ve Sari, I. (2023). Analyzing the impact of Covid-19 on sustainable fashion consumption with a model based on consumer value perceptions. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 27(1), 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-10-2021-0272
54. Ong, A. K. S. ve Diaz, J. F. T. (2025). Translating sustainable purchase intention to actual action through the incorporation of affecting design factors among products. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2583272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2583272
55. Park, E. Y. ve Jang, J. M. (2020). The interplay of social responsibility consciousness and evaluation mode in consumers’ response toward cause-related marketing-enhanced product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 32(8), 1651-1674. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2019-0413
56. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
57. Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Ghobakhloo, M., Foroughi, B., Asadi, S. ve Rejeb, A. (2024). Determinants of trust and purchase intention in social commerce: Perceived price fairness and trust disposition as moderators. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 64, 101370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2024.101370
58. Son, J. ve Jin, B. E. (2019). When do high prices lead to purchase intention? Testing two layers of moderation effects. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(5), 1516-1531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2018-0271
59. Steenkamp, J. B. E., Ter Hofstede, F. ve Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299906300204
60. The Culture Factor (2025). Country Comparison tool. https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool sayfasından erişilmiştir. Erişim Tarihi: 27.01.2026.
61. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism‐collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
62. White, H. ve Dahl, D. W. (2006). To be or not be? The influence of dissociative reference groups on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 404-414. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_11
63. Xia, L., Monroe, K. B. ve Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.42733
64. Xu, X., Xue, K. ve Li, F. S. (2024). The effect of price perception on tourists’ relative deprivation and purchase intention. Current Issues in Tourism, 27(1), 59-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2150153
65. Yen, Y. S. (2020). Exploring the synergy effect of trust with other beliefs in television shopping. Management Decision, 58(3), 428-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2016-0814