When companies raise the prices of necessities such as staple foods, prescription drugs, or medical devices, they may see their profits rise quickly. Yet the gain can come with a cost that is less visible but more enduring. The research proposed by Margaret C. Campbell at UC Riverside demonstrates that when people depend on something essential and then feel priced out of it, they do not respond only with frustration or disappointment. Instead, they experience the situation as a kind of harm, because access to these goods is tied to health, dignity, and daily functioning. When consumers feel that a company has knowingly profited from their vulnerability, the company’s reputation suffers in a way that can last for many years and ultimately become more damaging than any short-term revenue boost.

The study highlights that consumers do not evaluate prices for essential items with the same logic they might apply to non-essential goods. For luxury items or those seen as optional, people may accept high prices as part of market dynamics. But when the product in question is necessary for physical well-being or basic participation in society, such as hearing aids, insulin, eyeglasses, or lifesaving allergy devices, the emotional stakes are entirely different. Campbell explains that consumers look at such pricing not only in economic terms but also in moral ones. They ask themselves whether the company is being fair. If they conclude that the company is taking advantage of their need, they will often withdraw their goodwill and avoid future purchases, even if doing so inconveniences them. In effect, the firm loses trust, and once lost, it is difficult to regain.

One of the most significant ideas to emerge from the research is what Campbell and her colleagues call the “moral harm model of price fairness.” Across eight controlled experiments involving more than 3,000 participants, the researchers examined how people infer harm from prices that limit access to essential goods. To capture this response, they developed a measure called “inferred harm,” which represents the psychological and emotional costs consumers feel when they believe someone is being prevented from accessing something necessary. The idea is that the price itself becomes a sign of how a company views human need: as either something to respect or something to exploit. This does not require the company to be intentionally cruel; consumers may still feel the effect even when the company insists it is merely following standard market logic.

The study also found that consumers view not only price increases as unfair but also situations where companies fail to lower prices when their production costs fall. This was demonstrated in an experiment involving eyeglasses. When participants were told that the cost of producing the glasses had decreased but the company continued charging the same amount, many interpreted the pricing as unethical, even though the company had not raised its price. The moral element became even stronger when the hypothetical retailer served low-income communities. The idea that a company could reduce harm but chose not to do so deepened the sense of wrongdoing. This demonstrates that fairness is not only about the amount charged but also about what consumers believe the company could have done differently.

Interestingly, the research shows that consumers are not opposed to pricing differences when they believe those differences support fairness rather than undermine it. In one experiment, participants who were placed in the role of retailers chose to lower prices for vulnerable customers, even at personal cost. In another, participants viewed senior discounts positively, even when it resulted in slightly higher prices for others, including themselves. These responses suggest that consumers are not simply looking for the lowest price; instead, they are looking for signs that the company recognises human need and is willing to act with care. When companies act in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to vulnerability, they strengthen trust. When they act in ways that disregard it, they weaken the social contract that allows businesses to function sustainably.

Campbell notes that these ideas map onto real-life controversies such as the pricing of insulin and the dramatic price increase of the EpiPen several years ago. When the price of a two-pack of EpiPens rose from $100 to $600, public response was immediate and fierce, prompting media scrutiny, lawsuits, and congressional hearings. The company eventually introduced a lower-cost generic version to ease the backlash, but the reputational damage had already been done. The lesson, according to Campbell, is that pricing is not just about numbers or market calculations. When the product is essential and the price affects people’s well-being, consumers see the decision through an ethical lens. If they believe a company is causing harm or failing to prevent it when it easily could, they will turn away. Ultimately, fairness in pricing is not only a financial matter. It is a reflection of values, and values are remembered far longer than price tags.

More information: Margaret C Campbell et al, Painful Prices: The Moral Harm Model of Price Fairness, Journal of Consumer Research. DOI: 10.1093/jcr/ucaf045

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Research Provided by University of California – Riverside