Concept discovery, process explanation, and theory deepening in e-marketing research: The case of online auctions

Marketing Theory

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 117-124

  Dholakia, Utpal M ^a  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

concept discovery; consumer behaviour; digital marketing theory; e marketing theory; online auctions; process explanation; theory deepening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990350900     PISSN: 14705931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1470593105049604     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Ariely, D. and Simonson, I. (2003) ‘Buying, Bidding, Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment andDecision Dynamics in Online Auctions’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 13(1–2): 113–123.
2. Ariely, D., Ockenfels, A. and Roth, A.E. (2002) ‘An ExperimentalAnalysis of Ending Rules in Internet Auctions’, Unpublished manuscript,Harvard University.
3. Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998) ‘Constructive Consumer Choice Processes’, Journal of Consumer Research 25 (December): 187–217.
4. Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992) ‘A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change asInformational Cascades’, Journal of Political Economy 100(5): 992–1026.
5. Dholakia, U.M. (2004) ‘A Proposal for Increasing Usefulness ofBidders’ Reputation Ratings to Sellers in OnlineAuctions’, Working paper, Rice University.
6. Dholakia, U.M. and Simonson, I. (2004) ‘The Effect of Explicit Reference Points onOnline Bidding Behavior’, Working paper, Rice University.
7. Dholakia, U.M. and Soltysinski, K. (2001) ‘Coveted or Overlooked? The Psychology of Bidding for ComparableListings in Digital Auctions’, Marketing Letters 12(3): 225–237.
8. Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Gopinath, M. (2004) ‘The Role of Desires in Sequential ImpulsiveChoices’, Working paper, Rice University.
9. Dholakia, U.M., Basuroy, S. and Soltysinski, K. (2002) ‘Auction or Agent (or Both)? A Study of Moderators of the HerdingBias in Digital Auctions’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 19: 115–130.
10. Häubl, G. and Popkowski-Leszcyc, P. (2002) ‘Bidding Frenzy and Product Valuation in Online Auctions’, Working paper, University of Alberta.
11. Häubl, G. and Popkowski-Leszcyc, P. (2003) ‘Bidding Frenzy: Intensity of Competitive Interaction amongBidders and Product Valuation in Online Auctions’, Paper presented at 2003 ACR Conference, October, Toronto, Canada.
12. Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996) ‘Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments:Conceptual Foundations’, Journal of Marketing 60 (July): 50–68.
13. Kalyanam, K. and McIntyre, S. (2002) ‘The E-Marketing Mix: A Contribution of the E-Tailing Wars’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30(4): 487–499.
14. Ku, G., Malhotra, D. and Murnighan, J.K. (2003) ‘Competitive Arousal in Live and InternetAuctions: Emotional Decision Making in Action’, Working paper, Northwestern University.
15. Marcoux, A.M. (2003) ‘Snipers, Stalkers, and Nibblers: Online Auction Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 46(2): 163–173.
16. Milgrom, P. and Weber, R.J. (1982) ‘A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding’, Econometrica 50(5): 1089–1122.
17. Ofek, E., Yildiz, M. and Haruvy, E. (2002) ‘Sequential Decision Making: How PriorChoices Affect Subsequent Valuations’, MIT Department ofEconomics Working paper no. 02–40.
18. Roth, A.E. and Ockenfels, A. (2002) ‘Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-PriceAuctions: Evidence from Ebay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet’, American Economic Review 92(4): 1093–1103.
19. Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., Dhar, R., Drolet, A. and Nowlis, S.M. (2001) ‘Consumer Research: In Search of Identity’, Annual Review of Psychology 52: 249–275.
20. Smith, C.W. (1989) Auctions: The Social Construction of Value. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21. Vickrey, W. (1961) ‘Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Tenders’, Journal of Finance 16(1): 8–37.
22. Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1999) Digital Marketing: Global Strategies from theWorld’s Leading Experts. New York: Wiley.