Measures consumer perceptions of price fairness and attributions about the seller's underlying motive for setting a given price. Price fairness evaluations are not driven purely by objective price comparisons — the inferred motive behind a price matters enormously. When consumers attribute a price to profit-seeking exploitation (e.g., price gouging during disasters, surge pricing), perceived unfairness is much higher than when the same price is attributed to cost increases or supply constraints. Campbell's two-component model — fairness evaluation plus motive attribution — advances the dual entitlement theory (Kahneman et al., 1986) by capturing the psychological process connecting motive inference to fairness judgment. Particularly relevant for dynamic pricing, personalised pricing, platform surge pricing, and post-disaster price gouging research.
Likert (1–7, strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.
Two subscale scores. Motive inference is the psychological mediator between price information and fairness judgment — consumers who infer exploitative motives judge prices as significantly less fair than those who infer cost-based motives, even for identical prices. Seller motive inference is particularly sensitive to comparison information (e.g., knowing what competitors charge) and to historical price anchors. Widely used in research on ride-sharing surge pricing, hotel yield management, airline dynamic pricing, and event ticket scalping.
Campbell, M.C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(2), 187–205.
Free access to 2455+ psychometric scales at PsychScales