How consumers evaluated precise, just-below, and round prices: evidence from two high-powered, preregistered experiments

Abstract

Round, just-below (e.g., 9.99), and precise (e.g., 9.87) prices are widespread in consumer markets, yet evidence on their psychological effects remains inconclusive, at times even contradictory, and heavily concentrated on the contrast between just-below and round prices. Recent work further shows that these price endings differ systematically in their prevalence across countries, underscoring the need to understand the consumer-level mechanisms that may make them effective in the first place. Across two preregistered, high-powered experiments (total N = 729), we therefore examined how round, just-below, and precise prices shape purchase intentions, price image, quality image, and price recall. Across studies, precise prices produced the most favorable price image and were most likely to be underestimated in recall, followed by just-below prices and then round prices. By contrast, price endings did not reliably affect quality image or purchase intentions. Exploratory mediation analyses suggest that the relative advantage of precise prices operates through price image rather than quality image or recall-based underestimation. These findings identify behavioral foundations of price-ending effects at the level of individual consumer judgment and complement recent macro-level evidence on cross-cultural differences in the prevalence of round, just-below, and precise prices.

Introduction

Price endings are a pervasive feature of consumer markets. While just-below, 9-ending prices are highly prevalent (e.g., $9.99; Hung et al., 2021; Madrigal et al., 2025; Martínez-Ruiz et al., 2006), precise ($9.87) and round prices ($10.00) comprise less common pricing strategies. Recent evidence suggests that these endings also differ systematically in their prevalence across real-world E-commerce settings and across countries (Ventura et al., 2025). Yet consumer research has focused mainly on the contrast between just-below and round prices, often assuming that just-below prices increase demand (Levy et al., 2020; see Troll et al., 2024, for a meta-analytical review). Empirical findings, however, remain mixed and inconclusive: while some studies report positive effects of just-below over round prices (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2014), others report null or even reversed effects (e.g., Allred et al., 2010; Carver and Padgett, 2012; Kurz et al., 2023; Wieseke et al., 2016). These mixed findings may result from opposing positive and negative effects of just-below prices (Troll et al., 2024).

Two broad accounts have been proposed to explain price-ending effects. First, level effects assume that consumers underestimate the magnitude of certain prices, especially just-below prices relative to round prices (Manning and Sprott, 2009). Second, according to image effects, just-below prices signal that a price is discounted but also of lower product quality (Schindler, 2006; Schindler and Kibarian, 2001). Accordingly, price endings may shape not only consumers’ purchase intentions, but also the price image, quality image, and price recall (Chan, 2022).

The sole comparison of just-below vs. round prices is incomplete, however. A broader literature on numerical precision shows that precise numbers shape decision-making (Schultze and Loschelder, 2021), estimations (Janiszewski and Uy, 2008), negotiations (Loschelder et al., 2014; Yan and Pena-Marin, 2017), or dieting and goal setting (Frech et al., 2020, 2022). In the pricing domain, by contrast, precise prices have received comparatively little attention in recent years—showing both negative and positive effects so far (Cui et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020).

Following Wieseke et al. (2016), we refer to 9-ending prices as ‘just-below’ prices (e.g., $3.99 instead of $4.00, or $19.95 vs. $20.00; Gonçalves et al., 2025). We use the term ‘precise price’ for prices with non-zero trailing digits (e.g., $9.87 or $10.13 instead of $10.00; Dogerlioglu-Demir et al., 2022; Loschelder et al., 2017), whereas prices ending in one or more trailing zeros (e.g., $4.00 or $4.40) are denoted as round prices. While other strands of the literature have operationalized 9-ending prices as precise prices (Pena-Marin and Yan, 2021; Yan and Pena-Marin, 2017), we distinguish just-below from precise prices because the former are defined by threshold-adjacent charm-pricing cues (i.e., lying close to and ‘just-below’ a salient round price), whereas the latter are intended to convey exactness, calculation, accuracy, and specificity (Loschelder et al., 2014; Mason et al., 2013; Peev and Mayer, 2017; Thomas et al., 2010).

Theoretical accounts and extant empirical evidence

We shall briefly outline two prominent theoretical accounts for psychological price-ending effects. Level effects (also labeled ‘underestimation effects’; Manning and Sprott, 2009; Thomas and Morwitz, 2005) attempt to explain why two prices of essentially the same amount ($14.99 and $15.00) are psychologically perceived as considerably different (Baumgartner and Steiner, 2007; Carver and Padgett, 2012; Wieseke et al., 2016). Three lines of reasoning are relevant: First, consumers round prices down to the next lower whole amount ($14.99 as $14.00; Bizer and Schindler, 2005). Second, consumers compare the digits of a price one by one and stop this comparison as soon as a difference is encountered [comparison between $14.99 and $15.00 stops after the second digit (4 vs. 5); Thomas and Morwitz, 2005]. Third, consumers minimize cognitive effort by memorizing particularly the leftmost digit(s) of a price, which carries the highest monetary value ($14.99 is remembered as $14 “plus something”; Schneider et al., 2025; see also Sokolova et al., 2020). All these cognitive processes are interrelated but consistently lead to a substantial underestimation of the just-below vs. round price. A recent meta-analysis by Troll et al. (2024) found a moderate meta-analytical underestimation effect [g = 0.67, CI_95% (0.04, 1.30)] for just-below compared to round prices.

According to image effects, consumers infer meaning from different price endings that signal distinct price and quality images (Schindler, 2006; Weisstein et al., 2013). First, a just-below price signals the price image that the respective product is on sale or that this is the lowest price on the market (Schindler and Kibarian, 2001). In contrast, quality image effects would assume that a just-below price signals lower product quality than a round price (Schindler and Kibarian, 2001). As suggested by cue-utilization theory, consumers use prices as cues for judging the product's quality (Jaikumar, 2018; Krishnamoorthy and Sainam, 2025; Wang et al., 2022) and have internalized the positive relationship between price magnitude and perceived quality (r = .286; for a meta-analysis, see Völckner and Hofmann, 2007). In stark contrast to price image effects, quality image effects assume a beneficial effect of round over just-below prices. In sum, there is more empirical support for price image effects than for quality image effects (see Troll et al., 2024, for a meta-analytic summary). Based on this theorizing, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1. Just-below (vs. round) prices will lead to higher purchase intention, better price images, worse quality images, as well as more underestimated and less accurate price recall.

The third, massively under-researched category of price endings is that of precise prices. In the last decade, precise price endings became increasingly common. Numeric precision has been shown to affect human decision making in various contexts (e.g., Frech et al., 2022; Janiszewski and Uy, 2008; Jha et al., 2024; Kim et al., 2020; Loschelder et al., 2014; Schultze and Loschelder, 2021; Thomas et al., 2010). Following research from negotiations (Loschelder et al., 2014, 2016), an advertiser who sells a product at a precise price should send a strong signal about the accuracy of the price; potential buyers should assume that the price more accurately reflects the true value of the product (Beracha and Seiler, 2014; see also Kalyanaram and Winer, 2022). Following this attribution-of-competence theorizing, we therefore hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2a. Precise (vs. round) prices will lead to higher purchase intention, more favorable price images, and more favorable quality images.

Other precision research, however, suggests diametrically opposed predictions: Round prices with trailing zeros are more fluently processed than precise ones, which elicits the experience of “feeling right” (Wadhwa and Zhang, 2015). The processing-fluency theory (Reber et al., 2004) suggests that consumers prefer round over precise prices. For example, Wadhwa and Zhang (2015) propose that round (vs. non-rounded) prices “feel right” and thus lead to particularly positive (emotional) responses and purchasing behavior.¹ In contrast to the attribution-based theorizing detailed above and based on processing-fluency theorizing, we therefore hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2b. Round (vs. precise prices) prices will lead to higher purchase intention, more favorable price images, more favorable quality images, and better recall accuracy.

The present research examines these competing theoretical predictions (Hypothesis 2a vs. Hypothesis 2b), which were preregistered as exploratory tests (see Table 1).

This question is especially timely in light of recent evidence that round, just-below, and precise prices differ systematically in their marketplace prevalence across countries (Ventura et al., 2025).² They document macro-level differences in the use of these price endings in E-commerce, and the present research complements that work by testing the behavioral foundations of how individual consumers perceive, recall, and evaluate these same price formats. In other words, if different price endings are used differently across markets, it is important to understand the consumer-level mechanisms that may make these formats more or less attractive.

The present research—overview and contribution

This research advances the field in three ways: First, considering the inconclusive evidence for just-below vs. round prices, we provide preregistered and high-powered³ tests of price-ending effects, which are particularly valuable in a literature marked by mixed findings (Troll et al., 2024). Second, to our knowledge, there is no previous study that has simultaneously examined (or reported) the effects of price endings on central dependent variables in this literature. In contrast to prior studies that focused on selected dependent variables, we examine four key outcomes within the same experimental paradigm: (1) purchase intention, (2) price image, (3) quality image, and (4) price recall. Third, we integrate research on just-below vs. round prices with work on numerical precision, thereby testing consumer responses to three price endings that are all relevant in real-world markets (Ventura et al., 2025).

Study 1

Study 1 provided the initial test of how round, just-below, and precise prices affect purchase intention, price image, quality image, and price recall.

Method

All experimental methods, original data, analyses scripts, and additional material are publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF; see https://osf.io/4qfxu, blinded for peer review). We preregistered the study's design, hypotheses, and the analysis plan (https://osf.io/9f5dc). We report all data exclusions, manipulations, and measures.

We applied a 3 (price ending: round vs. just-below vs. precise) × 6 (product: sofa, smoothie maker, bike lock, floor lamp, projector, backpack) mixed-design with repeated measures on the latter factor. Based on a sample size analysis in G*Power (1–β= .90; α= .05; f= 0.25, assumed correlation between products of r = .80; Faul et al., 2007), we recruited 290 German students (67.2% women, 0.3% diverse; M_age= 24.29, SD= 7.61) at {Institution blinded for peer review} for course credit and a chance to win a 50€ online voucher. We excluded participants who exceeded >|2.5| SD from the condition mean of purchase intention (n = 2), price image (n = 1), and quality image (n = 4).⁴ For the assumed effect of f= 0.25, the true power of the final N = 284 was 1–β= 98.91%.

Manipulations

We randomly assigned participants to a condition: round (n = 96), just-below (n = 92), and precise prices (n = 96). In the precise condition, half of the participants saw prices that were slightly lower (e.g., €28.83) vs. slightly higher (e.g., €31.17) than the round prices (e.g., €30.00). We followed prior research in collapsing across this over/under factor to rule out that outcome differences are driven by a difference in price magnitude between the precise and the round condition (see Tables S3, S7–S8; see also Janiszewski and Uy, 2008; Loschelder et al., 2017; Mason et al., 2013). The stimulus materials for all conditions are available on OSF (https://osf.io/5twn4).

Dependent measures

Participants imagined themselves seeking to buy six products in a randomly presented order (sofa, smoothie maker, bike lock, floor lamp, projector, backpack). For each product, we assessed all four key outcomes of the literature: (1) purchase intention, (2) price image (four items; .70 <  < .83⁵; adapted from Schindler and Kibarian, 2001; Carver and Padgett, 2012), and (3) quality image (three items; .79 <  < .87⁶; adapted from Schindler and Kibarian, 2001). All items were rated on 7-point scales (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; see OSF for full item list). After participants had completed (1)-(3), we assessed (4) correct (and underestimated) price recall by asking them to enter the price for all six products (Chan, 2022). We operationalized price underestimation via price recall accuracy and underestimated recall, which capture a memory-based measure of underestimation (see Manning and Sprott, 2009); this differs from the direct comparison-based magnitude-perception paradigm used by Thomas and Morwitz (2005).

Results

Unless noted otherwise, analyses were preregistered (see OSF for preregistered analyses). For brevity, we only report the main effects of price ending from the 3 × 6 mixed ANOVA (see Table 2, detailed results in the SOM).

Effects of price endings

For price image, we found a significant price-ending effect, F(2, 281) = 8.04, p<.001, η_p²= .054. Contrast analyses showed that precise prices (M = 3.70, SD = 0.77) caused better price images than round (M = 3.42, SD = 0.61), t(180.88) = 2.75, p = .007, d = 0.40, and just-below prices (M = 3.26, SD = 0.89), t(179.61) = 3.63, p < .001, d = 0.53. The latter two did not differ, t(160.44) = 1.49, p = .140, d = 0.22. Similarly, a significant price-ending effect, F(2, 281) = 714.83, p<.001, η_p²= .836, showed that round prices (M = 84%, SD = 19%) were recalled more accurately than just-below (M = 13%, SD = 17%), t(183.74) = 26.89, p < .001, d = 3.92, and precise prices (M = 4%, SD = 10%), t(145.92) = 35.31, p < .001, d = 5.10. The latter two also differed, t(152.15) = 4.26, p < .001, d = 0.63. Also, a significant price-ending effect, F(2, 281) = 150.88, p<.001, η_p²= .518, showed that precise prices (M = 65%, SD = 24%) were more likely to be underestimated than just-below (M = 44%, SD = 25%), t(185.40) = 5.93, p < .001, d = 0.87, and round prices (M = 11%, SD = 15%), t(155.92) = 18.61, p < .001, d= ­­2.69. Again, the latter two also differed, t(146.86) = 11.01, p < .001, d = 1.61. Importantly, price endings did not affect purchase intentions or quality image, Fs < 0.45, ps > .640, η_p² < .003 (Table 2).

Mediation analysis

We conducted exploratory multiple mediation analyses (Process Model 4; Hayes, 2013) to jointly illuminate how price image, quality image, and underestimated recall mediate the price-ending effects on purchase intentions (focusing on precise vs. round and just-below prices; see Figure 1). The indirect effect through price image was significant, b = 0.18, SE = 0.05, CI_95% [0.09, 0.29]. The indirect effects through quality image, b = 0.03, SE = 0.04, CI_95%[−0.05, 0.11], and underestimated recall, b = 0.06, SE = 0.07, CI_95%[−0.07, 0.19], were not.

Figure 1

Interim discussion

In sum, Study 1 showed that precise prices produced the strongest underestimation in price recall (see level-effects theorizing) and the best price image (see image-effects and attribution-of-competence theorizing), thus supporting the price-image component of H2a (while contradicting H2b). Exploratory mediation analyses suggested that price image in turn emerged as an indirect pathway to participants’ purchase intentions. Supporting our H1, just-below prices were also more underestimated than round prices, consistent with level-effects theorizing.

Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was twofold: To replicate Study 1 and to extend our findings by examining the impact of comparison prices (Choi and Coulter, 2012; Lowe and Alpert, 2010; Weisstein et al., 2013). These have repeatedly been found to be relevant for purchase decisions in advertising (Jaikumar, 2018), retail (Chen et al., 2024), or auctions (Liu and Popkowski Leszczyc, 2023). We expected price-ending effects to be particularly pronounced when target prices were juxtaposed with non-matching round comparison prices (see Troll et al., 2024).

Method

The design and procedure of Study 2 were similar to Study 1 with one exception: We added comparison prices as an exploratory factor with two levels (round vs. matching comparison prices): Each product was accompanied by four comparable products featuring round prices vs. prices that matched the respective price condition (i.e., just-below, precise, or round). In sum, a 3 (price ending: round vs. just-below vs. precise) × 2 (comparison price: round vs. matching) × 6 (product: armchair, pan, water boiler, vacuum cleaner, plates, mattress) mixed-design with repeated measures for the latter factor emerged. The preregistration document (https://osf.io/8t3sy) and stimulus material is available on OSF (https://osf.io/sr7xz). In total, we recruited 439 German students (66.5% women, 0.5% diverse; M_age = 27.46, SD= 10.10) who were randomly assigned to an experimental condition. As preregistered, we excluded participants >|2.5| SD of their condition mean for purchase intention (n = 5), price image (n = 3), and quality image (n = 14).⁷ The final sample (N = 417) yielded a total power of 1–β = 99.65%. We used the same measures as in Study 1 to assess purchase intention, price image (.65 <  < .72), quality image⁸ (.83 <  < .87), and price recall. By presenting explicit comparison prices alongside the target price, Study 2 moves conceptually closer to comparison-based paradigms of price perception, although our outcome measure for (underestimated) recall remains memory-based rather than a direct judgment of relative price magnitude.

Results

We report preregistered, confirmatory hypotheses for price-ending effects and explored comparison price as a moderator in 3 (Price Ending) × 6 (Product) × 2 (Comparison Price) mixed ANOVAs (see complete results and robustness analyses in the SOM). Because we did not preregister formal hypotheses for comparison-price moderation, these analyses are interpreted as exploratory.

Effects of price endings and comparison prices

In line with Study 1, no price-ending effects on purchase intentions emerged, F(2, 411) = 0.10, p= .907, η_p² = .000. A significant main effect for comparison price, however, F(1, 411) = 13.34, p<.001, η_p² = .031, showed higher purchase intentions when round comparison prices (M = 3.42, SD = 0.92) rather than matching comparison prices (M = 3.07, SD = 1.05) were included (interaction: F[2, 411] = 0.21, p= .808, η_p² = .001).

We replicated the price-ending main effect, F(2, 411) = 12.14, p<.001, η_p² = .056, in that precise prices (M = 2.88, SD = 0.86) evoked better price images than round (M = 2.46, SD = 0.69), t(258.70) = 4.52, p < .001, d = 0.55, and just-below prices (M = 2.57, SD = 0.86), t(265.53) = 3.30, p = .001, d = 0.40. The latter two again did not differ, t(278.88) = 1.30, p = .196, d = 0.16. In addition, a comparison-price main effect, F(1, 411) = 22.25, p<.001, η_p² = .051, showed more advantageous price images for round (M = 2.81, SD = 0.79) compared to matching comparison prices (M = 2.47, SD = 0.73). Both main effects were driven by a particularly positive price-image effect of precise prices that emerged for round comparison prices (interaction: F[2, 411] = 3.00, p= .051, η_p² = .014; Figure 2).

Figure 2

Lee and Wagenmakers, 2013). Error bars show 95% CI. * p < .05, *** p < .001.

As in Study 1, price endings did not impact quality image, F(2, 411) = 0.85, p= .428, η_p² = .004. A significant comparison-price main effect, F(1, 411) = 23.09, p<.001, η_p² = .053, however, revealed higher quality images for round (M = 4.52, SD = 0.68) compared to matching comparison prices (M = 4.19, SD = 0.72; interaction: F[2, 411] = 0.12, p= .887, η_p² = .000).

Corroborating Study 1, a significant price-ending effect, F(2, 411) = 286.57, p<.001, η_p² = .582, showed that round prices (M = 65%, SD = 23%) were recalled more accurately than just-below (M = 26%, SD = 30%), t(265.49) = 12.23, p < .001, d = 1.46, and precise prices (M = 1%, SD = 4%), t(147.01) = 31.85, p < .001, d = 3.84. The latter two also differed, t(148.32) = 9.68, p < .001, d = 1.15 (all other Fs < 1.98, ps > .139).

A significant price-ending effect, F(2, 411) = 133.19, p<.001, η_p² = .393, showed that precise prices (M = 60%, SD = 23%) were, as in Study 1, more likely underestimated than just-below (M = 38%, SD = 27%), t(273.30) = 7.35, p < .001, d = 0.88, and round prices (M = 15%, SD = 17%), t(252.55) = 18.33, p < .001, d = 2.22. The latter two also differed, t(244.00) = 8.54, p < .001, d = 1.02 (all other Fs < 1.45, ps > .236).

Moderated mediation analysis

We conducted exploratory moderated mediation analyses (Process Model 8; Hayes, 2013; see Study 1) with comparison price as a potential moderator (see Figure 3). Corroborating Study 1, the indirect effects through quality image and underestimated recall were not significant. Also as in Study 1, the indirect effect through price image was significant, but only for round comparison prices, IMM = −0.17, SE= 0.08, CI_95% [−0.34, −0.03], which adds nuance to the only marginally significant omnibus interaction reported above. The conditional indirect effect was significantly stronger for round, b = 0.26, SE= 0.07, CI_95% [0.13, 0.40], than for matching comparison prices, b = 0.08, SE = 0.05, CI_95% [−0.01, 0.19].

Figure 3

Discussion

Despite widespread use in consumer markets (Ventura et al., 2025), research has shown inconsistent effects of just-below ($9.99; Hung et al., 2021; Martínez-Ruiz et al., 2006) vs. round prices ($10.00; Guéguen et al., 2009; Wieseke et al., 2016). A recent meta-analysis also established small-study effects and publication bias; corrected meta-analytical effects are much smaller and close to zero (Troll et al., 2024). Surprisingly, the literature is void of preregistered and high-powered price-ending experiments. In addition, the effects of precise prices ($9.67) have received comparatively little direct attention in the pricing literature (Cui et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2020). To address these gaps, two experiments examined how all three price endings affect key outcomes—price image, purchase intention, quality image, and price recall. In contrast to previous research, our high-powered studies did not replicate the price-ending effects on quality image (e.g., Völckner and Hofmann, 2007; cf. Kurz et al., 2023) or on purchase intentions (e.g., Choi et al., 2014). The absence of direct effects on purchase intentions and quality image may reflect habituation to common pricing practices (Chen et al., 2024; Troll et al., 2024) or the possibility that price endings alone provide insufficient quality information to shape broader product evaluations (Pennesi, 2025). While price endings did not impact quality image and purchase intentions as strongly as was long thought (Gendall et al., 1997; Schindler and Kibarian, 2001; Völckner and Hofmann, 2007), they did impact price images in an interesting way.

Precise prices resulted in the most advantageous price image. This suggests that previous benefits of just-below prices—assuming a true phenomenon and as hypothesized in our H1—are not (or at least not exclusively) due to classical image effects alone (Gonçalves et al., 2025). Other processes (e.g., attribution or expectation effects) come into play, particularly for precise prices (e.g., Kurz et al., 2023; see also Frech et al., 2020). Consumers might infer more diagnostic value from a numerically precise price (Guo et al., 2025) and perceive it as particularly fair and accurate (Kalyanaram and Winer, 2022; Loschelder et al., 2014), thus increasing purchase intention (see H2a).

Our data expand the literature in three more ways: First, our results show that precise prices were indeed more often underestimated in price recall than just-below and round prices—that is, level effects were most pronounced in these prices (Chan, 2022; Manning and Sprott, 2009). Presumably, this is due to distinguishable cognitive processes, such as processing fluency (Reber et al., 2004; Wieseke et al., 2016). Second, our exploratory mediation analyses suggest that the more favorable price image, associated with precise prices, served as an indirect pathway to purchase intentions (Gonçalves et al., 2025). Third, and finally, our study offers preliminary experimental evidence that this mediation is moderated by comparison prices in the direct vicinity of the target price (Choi and Coulter, 2012; Lowe and Alpert, 2010). Juxtaposed to round prices, the image of precise prices was particularly positive, and comparison prices emerged as a significant moderator in the exploratory mediation analysis (Biswas et al., 2002). Note, however, that these findings are based on exploratory analyses and should be interpreted cautiously.

Avenues for future research and implications

The present study suggests avenues for future research. First, we acknowledge that—although our experimental material was closely adapted to today's real-world advertising experiences—we provide experimental evidence in imagined buying situations that should be replicated in field settings. The present studies also offer impetus for future investigation of the underlying processes: With the present data, it remains unclear whether the relative advantage of precise prices is due to basic cognitive and emotional processes (e.g., fluency; Wadhwa and Zhang, 2015) or more complex attribution effects known from decision-making and negotiations (e.g., Loschelder et al., 2016). For example, it may be theoretically worthwhile to compare different categories of precise price endings (e.g., $33.97 vs. $33.99). Future research is needed to investigate more thoroughly, and causally, the underlying psychological processes and potential moderators like decision context, price level, or consumer-level factors (Chen et al., 2024; Najafi-Ghobadi and Kalantary, 2026). Finally, although product effects and product × price-ending interactions were beyond the main scope of this brief report and are therefore reported only in the SOM, these analyses suggest that price-ending effects may differ across products. Future research could examine more systematically when and for which product categories round, just-below, and precise prices are most effective.

Our study suggests cautious implications for advertising and E-Commerce. First, it seems plausible that an overabundance of just-below prices may have weakened the price-image effects reported in earlier studies from past decades. More generally, past pricing effects should be interpreted cautiously, as they may have been overestimated in size (Troll et al., 2024) and may depend on the surrounding price context, such as the presence of other products and prices featured around them (Biswas et al., 2002; Thomas and Morwitz, 2005). Expanding the literature beyond just-below prices, our results suggest that scarcely researched precise prices can shape consumer price perceptions and judgments—particularly when presented juxtaposed with round comparison prices (Study 2). At the same time, these implications should not be overstated: Our studies relied on student samples and imagined purchase situations rather than consequential field behavior. The present findings therefore point to potentially relevant consumer-level processes, but stronger managerial conclusions require replication in consequential and field-based market settings. Precise prices may be promising in some contexts, but they are unlikely to constitute a panacea, nor should they be applied indiscriminately. Rather, they should be tested in more naturalistic and field-based settings before stronger managerial conclusions are drawn.

Conclusion

The present research extends the literature by offering a more comprehensive understanding of three common pricing strategies and the perceptual and evaluative processes through which they shape consumer perceptions and subsequent behavior. Our findings identify psychological advantages of thus far understudied precise prices, in that they are frequently underestimated by consumers and generate a more favorable price image than both just-below and round prices. In doing so, we challenge the long-standing assumption that 9-ending prices are consistently the most effective (Study 1). Further expanding extant literature, exploratory mediation analyses suggest that price image serves as an indirect pathway through which precise price endings shape purchase evaluations, especially in the direct vicinity of round comparison prices (Study 2).

References

• 1

  AllredA.ValentinE. K.ChakrabortyG. (2010). Pricing risky services: preference and quality considerations. J. Prod. Brand Manag.19 (1), 54–60. 10.1108/10610421011018392

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  BanerjeeP. J.TripathiS.SahayA. (2016). When less is better than more: just-below discount in tensile price promotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.31, 93–102. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BaumgartnerB.SteinerW. J. (2007). Are consumers heterogeneous in their preferences for odd and even prices? Findings from a choice-based conjoint study. Int. J. Res. Mark.24 (4), 312–323. 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2007.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  BerachaE.SeilerM. J. (2014). The effect of listing price strategy on transaction selling prices. J. Real Estate Fin. Econ.49 (2), 237–255. 10.1007/s11146-013-9424-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  BiswasA.PulligC.YagciM. I.DeanD. H. (2002). Consumer evaluation of low price guarantees: the moderating role of reference price and store image. J. Consum. Psychol.12 (2), 107–118. 10.1207/153276602760078640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  BizerG. Y.SchindlerR. M. (2005). Direct evidence of ending-digit drop-off in price information processing. Psychol. Mark.22 (10), 771–783. 10.1002/mar.20084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  BradleyA.JamesR. J. E. (2019). Web scraping using R. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci2 (3), 264–270. 10.1177/2515245919859535

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  CarverJ. R.PadgettD. T. (2012). Product category pricing and future price attractiveness: 99-ending pricing in a memory-based context. J. Retail.88 (4), 497–511. 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.05.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  ChanF. F. Y. (2022). Consumer recall and recognition of co-appearing brands in TV media: the moderating roles of product congruity and brand familiarity. J. Advert. Res.62 (1), 18–34. 10.2501/jar-2022-003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  ChenM.BurkeR. R.HuiS. K.LeykinA. (2024). Understanding shoppers’ attention to price information at the point of consideration using in-store ambulatory eye-tracking. J. Retail.100 (3), 439–455. 10.1016/j.jretai.2024.06.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ChoiJ.LiY. J.RanganP.ChatterjeeP.SinghS. N. (2014). The odd-ending price justification effect: the influence of price-endings on hedonic and utilitarian consumption. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.42, 545–557. 10.1007/s11747-014-0369-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ChoiP.CoulterK. S. (2012). It’s not all relative: the effects of mental and physical positioning of comparative prices on absolute versus relative discount assessment. J. Retail.88 (4), 512–527. 10.1016/j.jretai.2012.04.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  CuiY. G.KimS. S.KimJ. (2021). Impact of preciseness of price presentation on the magnitude of compromise and decoy effects. J. Bus. Res.132, 641–652. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  Dogerlioglu-DemirK.AkpinarE.Gurhan-CanliZ.KoçaşC. (2022). Are 1-endings the new 9-endings? An alternative for generating price discount perceptions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.66, 102912. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102912

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods39, 175–191. 10.3758/BF03193146

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  FrechM.-L.FrieseM.LoschelderD. D. (2022). My goal is to lose 2.923 kg!”—efficacy of precise versus round goals for body weight reduction. Front. Psychol.13, 793962. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.793962

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  FrechM.-L.LoschelderD. D.FrieseM. (2020). How attribution-of-competence and scale-granularity explain the anchor precision effect in negotiations and estimations. Soc. Cogn28 (1), 40–61. 10.1521/soco.2020.38.1.40

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  GendallP.HoldershawJ.GarlandR. (1997). The effect of odd pricing on demand. Eur. J. Mark.31 (11–12), 799–813. 10.1108/03090569710190541

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  GonçalvesM. G.BarbosaB.SauraJ. R.MarianiM. (2025). Exploring the role of product attributes in 9-ending pricing strategies: a study on online retailing. J. Bus. Res192, 115285. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115285

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  GuéguenN.JacobC.LegoherelP.NgoboP. (2009). Nine-ending prices and consumer’s behavior: a field study in a restaurant. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.28 (1), 170–172. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  GuoW.TianJ.LiM. (2025). Reputation vs. Price: sequential recommendations based on cue diagnosticity theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.83, 104157. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  HungH.-H.ChengY.-H.ChuangS.-C.YuA. P.-I.LinY.-T. (2021). Consistent price endings increase consumers’ perceptions of cheapness. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.61, 102590. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102590

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  JaikumarS. (2018). How do consumers choose sellers in e-marketplaces? The role of display price and sellers’ review volume. J. Advert. Res.58 (2), 232–241. 10.2501/JAR-2018-028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  JaniszewskiC.UyD. (2008). Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychol. Sci.19 (2), 121–127. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02057.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  JhaS.BiswasA.GuhaA.GauriD. (2024). Can rounding up price discounts reduce sales?J. Consum. Psychol.34, 343–350. 10.1002/jcpy.1384

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  KalyanaramG.WinerR. S. (2022). Behavioral response to price: data-based insights and future research for retailing. J. Retail.98 (1), 46–70. 10.1016/j.jretai.2022.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  KimJ.CuiY. G.ChoiC.LeeS. J.MarshallR. (2020). The influence of preciseness of price information on the travel option choice. Tour. Manag.79, 104012. 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  KrishnamoorthyA.SainamP. (2025). Pricing cues and retail competition. J. Retail.101 (1), 55–67. 10.1016/j.jretai.2024.12.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  KurzJ.EfendićE.GoukensC. (2023). Pricey therefore good? Price affects expectations, but not quality perceptions and liking. Psychol. Mark.40 (6), 1115–1129. 10.1002/mar.21799

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  LeeM. D.WagenmakersE.-J. (2013). Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139087759

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  LevyD.LeeD.ChenH.KauffmanR. J.BergenM. (2011). Price points and price rigidity. Rev. Econ. Stat.93 (4), 1417–1431. 10.1162/REST_a_00178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  LevyD.SnirA.GotlerA.ChenH. (2020). Not all price endings are created equal: price points and asymmetric price rigidity. J. Monet. Econ.110, 33–49. 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.01.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  LiuX.Popkowski LeszczycP. T. L. (2023). The reference price effect of historical price lists in online auctions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.71, 103183. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  LoschelderD. D.FrieseM.SchaererM.GalinskyA. D. (2016). The too-much-precision effect: when and why precise anchors backfire with experts. Psychol. Sci.27 (12), 1573–1587. 10.1177/0956797616666074

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  LoschelderD. D.FrieseM.TrötschelR. (2017). How and why precise anchors distinctly affect anchor recipients and senders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.70, 164–176. 10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  LoschelderD. D.StuppiJ.TrötschelR. (2014). “€14,875?!”: precision boosts the anchoring potency of first offers. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.5 (4), 491–499. 10.1177/1948550613499942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  LoweB.AlpertF. (2010). Pricing strategy and the formation and evolution of reference price perceptions in new product categories. Psychol. Mark.27 (9), 846–873. 10.1002/mar.20361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  MadrigalR.SouleC. A. A.KingJ. (2025). Manipulating consumers with the truth: relative-difference claims in advertising and inferences of manipulative intent. J. Advert.54 (1), 99–116. 10.1080/00913367.2024.2306401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  ManningK. C.SprottD. E. (2009). Price endings, left-digit effects, and choice. J. Consum. Res.36 (2), 328–335. 10.1086/597215

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  Martínez-RuizM. P.Mollá-DescalsA.Gómez-BorjaM. A.Rojo-ÁlvarezJ. L. (2006). Using daily store-level data to understand price promotion effects in a semiparametric regression model. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.13 (3), 193–204. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  MasonM. F.LeeA. J.WileyE. A.AmesD. R. (2013). Precise offers are potent anchors: conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.49 (4), 759–763. 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  Najafi-GhobadiS.KalantaryM. R. (2026). Optimizing pricing in an online marketplace: the role of buy-now, pay-later option and return policies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.88, 104493. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2025.104493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  PeevP. P.MayerJ. M. (2017). Consumer perceptions of precise vs. Just-below prices in retail settings. J. Promot. Manag.23 (5), 673–688. 10.1080/10496491.2017.1297984

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Pena-MarinJ.YanD. (2021). Reliance on numerical precision: compatibility between accuracy versus efficiency goals and numerical precision level influence attribute weighting in two-stage decisions. J. Consum. Psychol.31 (1), 22–36. 10.1002/jcpy.1178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  PennesiD. (2025). A behavioral model of consumer response to price information. J. Econ. Behav. Organ.230, 106872. 10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106872

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.8 (4), 364–382. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  SchindlerR. M. (2006). The 99 price ending as a signal of a low-price appeal. J. Retail.82 (1), 71–77. 10.1016/j.jretai.2005.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  SchindlerR. M.KibarianT. M. (2001). Image communicated by the use of 99 endings in advertised prices. J. Advert.30 (4), 95–99. 10.1080/00913367.2001.10673654

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  SchneiderG.ParkT.GuhaA. (2025). Getting the most for a penny: how retailers can best use left-digit effects. J. Retail.101 (2), 217–226. 10.1016/j.jretai.2025.02.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SchultzeT.LoschelderD. D. (2021). How numeric advice precision affects advice taking. J. Behav. Decis. Mak.34 (3), 303–310. 10.1002/bdm.2211

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  SokolovaT.SeenivasanS.ThomasM. (2020). The left-digit bias: when and why are consumers penny wise and pound foolish?J. Mark. Res.57 (4), 771–788. 10.1177/0022243720932532

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ThomasM.MorwitzV. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: the left-digit effect in price cognition. J. Consum. Res.32 (1), 54–64. 10.1086/429600

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  ThomasM.SimonD. H.KadiyaliV. (2010). The price precision effect: evidence from laboratory and market data. Mark. Sci.29 (1), 175–190. 10.1287/mksc.1090.0512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  TrollE. S.FrankenbachJ.FrieseM.LoschelderD. D. (2024). A meta-analysis on the effects of just-below versus round prices. J. Consum. Psychol.34 (2), 299–325. 10.1002/jcpy.1353

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  VenturaA.TrollE. S.SolimanM.LoschelderD. D. (2025). Round, just-below, or precise prices? Cultural differences in the prevalence of price endings in E-commerce. Front. Behav. Econ.4, 1296207. 10.3389/frbhe.2025.1296207

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  VölcknerF.HofmannJ. (2007). The price-perceived quality relationship: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Mark. Lett.18, 181–196. 10.1007/s11002-007-9013-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  WadhwaM.ZhangK. (2015). This number just feels right: the impact of roundedness of price numbers on product evaluations. J. Consum. Res.41 (5), 1172–1185. 10.1086/678484

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  WangX.GuY.XinH.QiuP.WangJ. (2022). The role of product cues and regulatory focus in the consumers’ response to green products: the mediation effects of green attitudes. Front. Psychol.13, 918248. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.918248

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  WeissteinF. L.MonroeK. B.Kukar-KinneyM. (2013). Effects of price framing on consumers’ perceptions of online dynamic pricing practices. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.41 (4), 501–514. 10.1007/s11747-013-0325-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  WiesekeJ.KolbergA.SchonsL. M. (2016). Life could be so easy: the convenience effect of round price endings. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.44 (4), 474–494. 10.1007/s11747-015-0428-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  YanD.Pena-MarinJ. (2017). Round off the bargaining: the effects of offer roundness on willingness to accept. J. Consum. Res.44 (2), 381–395. 10.1093/jcr/ucx046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar