Researchers have found that people evaluate the fairness of prices not only based on economic logic but also on moral values. This is particularly true when basic needs are involved. The study, which was published on 4 November 2025 in the Journal of Consumer Research, explains why consumers perceive some pricing behaviors as immoral rather than simply unfair.
When Prices Become Moral Questions: A Study Showed Perceived Moral Harm Drives Consumers To Label Essential Goods Pricing As Unfair
Economics alone cannot explain why consumers condemn some prices. A new framework, the Moral Harm Model of Price Fairness, shows that people see high prices for essentials as morally wrong when they cause avoidable harm.
The research, conducted by Margaret C. Campbell, Justin Pomerance, and Erin Percival Carter, introduces the Moral Harm Model of Price Fairness. This framework describes how consumers infer harm from pricing decisions and how those moral inferences influence trust, loyalty, and regulatory attitudes toward businesses that sell essential goods.
A total of 8 controlled experiments involving more than 3000 adult participants were designed and carried out. Each experiment examined how individuals reacted to different pricing scenarios involving essential and nonessential goods. Participants were asked to evaluate fairness, perceived harm, and their willingness to purchase from or support each firm.
The experiments changed product types, production costs, and consumer conditions. Participants responded to situations such as companies keeping prices high after costs dropped or charging the same amount to both wealthy and vulnerable customers. Each variation revealed how moral thinking shaped fairness judgments and consumer intentions.
Results consistently showed that moral reasoning drives price perceptions for products linked to survival and well-being. When pricing restricted access to essentials, consumers imagined harm to others and viewed companies as unethical. Prices for luxury or discretionary items were evaluated only in financial terms, not moral ones. Take note of the following:
• Moral Concern for Essentials
Prices for essential goods like medicine, eyeglasses, and medical devices triggered strong moral evaluations. Consumers perceived high prices for these items as harmful and unethical because they limited access to basic health or safety needs.
• Perceived Harm Drives Fairness
Judgments were guided by inferred harm. This means that the participants imagined how others suffered from those prices. This sense of harm, rather than personal loss, explained why people labeled certain pricing decisions as unfair or immoral.
• Static Prices After Cost Drops
When production costs decreased but firms did not lower prices for essentials, these prices are judged as morally wrong. Keeping profits while maintaining high prices suggested unnecessary harm and exploitation of dependence on vital goods.
• Fairness Toward Vulnerable Groups
Discounts for seniors, low-income families, or other vulnerable groups were considered ethical. Participants acting as sellers often chose to provide discounts, even at a financial cost, showing a moral expectation for compassionate pricing.
• Low Prices For Harmful Products
The study found an opposite effect for harmful goods like alcohol and cigarettes. Lowering prices for these items was perceived as morally wrong because it encouraged increased consumption and possible damage to individual and public health.
• Moral Harm as the Key Factor
Moral harm proved to be the strongest predictor of fairness judgments across all eight experiments. People viewed a price as unjust not because of market conditions but because they believed it caused suffering or social harm to others.
• Business and Reputational Risks
Participants were less willing to support or purchase from firms that charged unfair prices for essentials. Perceived moral violations reduced trust, increased anger, and heightened support for governmental regulation or punishment of those firms.
These aforementioned results from the experiments demonstrate that people apply moral standards to pricing decisions involving essentials but not luxuries. Access to medicine or health-related goods is a moral right rather than an economic transaction for most participants. Pricing that appears to violate that expectation leads to outrage and distrust.
Pricing behavior also has long-term effects beyond short-term revenue. Companies that ignore moral expectations risk public backlash, reputational harm, and eventual regulation. Transparent communication, cost-based price adjustments, and empathy toward vulnerable groups can protect both consumer trust and business reputation or public perception.
The researchers underscore that prices are not only economic signals based on market conditions but also moral statements. When people believe that pricing decisions cause preventable harm, they perceive those actions as unethical. Understanding this moral dimension may help businesses align profit goals with public expectations of fairness and care.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Campbell, M. C., Pomerance, J., and Percival Carter, E. L. 2025. “Painful Prices: The Moral Harm Model of Price Fairness.” Journal of Consumer Research. DOI: 1093/jcr/ucaf045h