Social Media Marketing and Price Gouging: A Comparative Study of Consumer Attitudes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, And Egypt

Abstract

This study analyzed the role of social media marketing (SMM) in facilitating price gouging from a consumer perspective across three countries-Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. A survey questionnaire was administered to 1372 respondents. The results of regression analysis revealed that various social media marketing approaches contribute to price gouging behaviors. These include targeting specific consumers, spreading misinformation, lack of transparency, and ineffective regulations. Significant differences were also found between countries, with higher price gouging reported in Saudi Arabia. The findings imply that unethical social media marketing practices exploit consumers and enable unfair pricing, especially during crises. Tighter regulations, consumer education, and ethical commercial conduct are needed

Full text

168
ISSN 1816-6075 (Print), 1818-0523 (Online)
Journal of System and Management Sciences
Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp.161-183
DOI:10.33168/JSMS.2024.0611
Social Media Marketing and Price Gouging: A Comparative
Study of Consumer Attitudes in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, And Egypt
Tareq n. Hashem1, Jassim Ahmad Al-Gasawneh1, Fawaz Ali AL Thawabieh2
1Marketing Department, Faculty of Business, Applied Science Private University, Amman, Jordan
2Modern college of Business and Science
t_hashim@asu.edu.jo, J_algasawneh@asu.edu.jo, Fawaz.thawabieh@mcbs.edu.om
Abstract. This study analyzed the role of social media marketing (SMM) in facilitating price
gouging from a consumer perspective across three countries – Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and
Egypt. A survey questionnaire was administered to 1372 respondents. The results of
regression analysis revealed that various social media marketing approaches contribute to
price gouging behaviors. These include targeting specific consumers, spreading
misinformation, lack of transparency, and ineffective regulations. Significant differences were
also found between countries, with higher price gouging reported in Saudi Arabia. The
findings imply that unethical social media marketing practices exploit consumers and enable
unfair pricing, especially during crises. Tighter regulations, consumer education, and ethical
commercial conduct are needed
Keywords: Social Media Marketing SMM, Target, Amplification, Regulation, Transparency,
Price Gouging, Manipulation, Crises, Exploitation

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
169
1. Introduction
Marketing through social media has emerged as an easy, accessible, low-cost marketing method that
guarantees direct access to the consumer. With the development of social media, many organizations
have adopted the method of marketing through these means in order to ensure a low-cost and guaranteed
marketing strategy (Keller, 2021).
Social media has reached a stage where it has become a place for marketing all kinds of products
and services, by many organizations, whether they are licensed or just home production projects. With
the passage of time, social media has become a place for fake advertisements that promote products that
do not meet specifications and standards and at irrational prices. Unsupervised marketing through social
media also led to the publication of false reviews of products and websites with the aim of quick profit,
monopoly or price manipulation (Chen et al., 2019).
Cabral and Xu (2021) aimed to show the relationship between the reputation of the brand and the
seller when practicing price gouging during the Covid-19 pandemic. Market data was collected from
social media platforms that dealt with advertisements for products such as sanitizers and facemasks.
Through the analysis, the researchers found that the merchants who least engaged in price manipulation
had a better reputation than those who took advantage of the pandemic and manipulated prices.
Ruan et al. (2021) aimed to demonstrate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and national
closures on vegetable prices in wholesale markets in China. The researchers adopted a quantitative
method, collecting data from 28 wholesale markets in China. The study concluded that storable
vegetables were less prone to price gouging compared to perishable vegetables whose prices were
excessively manipulated.
Arafat et al. (2020) aimed to analyze the factors responsible for panic buying during the COVID-
19 pandemic, by monitoring social media. The researchers analyzed advertisements and social media
reports for the year 2020, which showed cases of panic buying for consumer goods and food
significantly. The study found that these ads gave a sense of lack of supplies, anxiety and tension, and
informational, social and economic effects that prompted individuals to panic buying, regardless of the
rationality of the prices.
Liu et al. (2022) aimed to analyze the effect of price gouging on financial markets. Researchers
collected data related to the opening and closing prices of shares, trading volume, and financial
indicators of companies listed on the Chinese Stock Exchange during the study period extending from
January 2015 to December 2018, and used logistic regression analysis to analyze the relationship
between opening price manipulation and its impact on the future value of the companies. The study
found that opening price gouging leads to changes in the future value of companies, and affects
investors' investments and behavior in financial markets.
Ampountolas et al. (2019) aimed to demonstrate the impact of social media as a channel that
contributes to defining and framing the pricing strategies of companies in the hospitality and tourism
sector. The quantitative method was adopted by distributing a questionnaire to a sample of (114)
organizations in the field of hospitality and tourism in the United Kingdom. The study concluded that
social media plays a clear role in directing pricing strategies in the hospitality and tourism sector, and
that tourism organizations that practice pricing through social media are usually able to achieve higher
revenues through dynamic pricing, discounts and promotions. In other words, unregulated marketing
helped these organizations achieve illegal gains, which requires the concerned authorities to tighten
control over advertisements and unregulated marketing, and educate consumers about their rights and
methods of protection from fraud and deception in online buying and selling.
Stemming from hypotheses development above, we saw that a literary gap appeared that gathered
between social media marketing and prices gouging. It appeared to us that price gouging is mostly vivid
within SMM advertisement due to the absence of oversight, monitoring and control by the competent
authorities and bodies. We also noted that there appeared to previous studies that examined the role of

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
170
SMM in increasing price gouging for the sake of profiteering and market gains. This makes a customer
the victim of greed especially during crises and special situations like the spread of a disease, natural
disasters and health related circumstances.
From that, we aim in the current study to examine social media marketing in the field of price
gouging, the study mainly sought to find out whether SMM is merely a fairness for retail traders, or it
is a feed for the greediness of price gouging. Reaching this aim as done through collecting primary data
from three different consuming environment as in the following table1.
The main question that the study seeks to answer is:
Is social media marketing (SMM) a type of fair marketing approach or it is just to feed greediness
in prices?
Reaching the aim of study was done through realizing the following objectives:
- Identify the concept of social media marketing SMM
- Explore the areas of SMM in defining prices and what is considered to be price gouging
- Present some examples of price gouging in related marketing environments
Table 1. Geography of Application
Sample Source
Justification for Choosing
Jordan
Consuming Society in the Middle East
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Consuming Society in GCC
Egypt
Consuming Society in Africa
In order to make things more vivid for reader, researcher built the following model which
highlighted the relationship between variables and from which study hypotheses were extracted:
Fig.1: Study Model (Keller, 2021; Chen et al., 2019)
Based on the above presented mode, researcher was able to extract the following hypotheses:
H1: Social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price gouging from perspective of
consumers.
H2: There are no significant differences in the effect of social media marketing on price gouging
from perspective of consumers due to their nationalities
SMM
Targeting
Amplification
Transparency
Regulation
Price Gouging

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
171
2. Literature Review
2.1. Social Media Marketing SMM
Today, marketing through social media - Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat - is considered
one of the most important and widespread marketing methods due to its low cost and the ability to reach
millions of people with the product or service compared to traditional marketing methods (MacCarthy,
2020; Hashem,2023; Hashem,2016). Jacobson et al. (2020) confirms that marketing through social
media gives the organization access to target customers based on digital data and criteria related to their
preferences, needs and desires. Goanta and Ranchordás (2020) and Hinson et al. (2022) agreed on the
same idea, indicating that marketing through social media promotes Brand awareness and is able to
create a unique marketing experience and thus increase customer loyalty.
Jacobson et al. (2020) stressed that organizations usually adopt social media for marketing and
launching promotional campaigns for various products and services, and they also rely on it to publish
their news, developments and business details. In addition to that, the organization in this way is able
to monitor consumers' reactions to its products directly and without an intermediary and thus be able to
develop and update its products or take appropriate decisions.
The dimensions of social media vary according to the purpose for which it is used. Organized
marketing through these means is regulated by different legislation systems that determine the quantity
and price of the products and services offered. In the current study, the use of social communication
and the achievement of material profits was in an unregulated marketing and pricing method, which
was driven by the following dimensions (Helberger, 2020; Haikal et al., 2020):
Targeting
Targeting refers to price manipulation through social media by targeting a specific category of
consumers who need a product such as medicines, spare parts for machinery and equipment, or even
products for special cases of individuals. Social media uses data and algorithms to identify specific
individuals or groups on social media platforms and target them with higher prices for goods or services
in times of crisis, emergency or need. In some cases, individuals who deal with luxury products are
targeted, and individuals start ordering such products in order to access and obtain these products and
ensure that they are available to them. An example of targeting is what some organizations do after
natural disasters, such as earthquakes and hurricanes, by targeting individuals affected by these disasters
and raising the prices of food, clean water, and temporary tents, or airlines take advantage of the
holidays or pilgrimage seasons to raise ticket prices exaggeratedly.
Amplification
Amplification as one of the dimensions of marketing through social media refers to spreading
rumors and false news about the interruption of a product, its scarcity, or its low quality in order to
manipulate prices. This method takes various forms such as tweets, posts, video clips and audio, which
leads to the feeling of scarcity of the product and the possibility of its non-existence in the markets, and
thus the collective rise in prices appear quickly and on a large scale. An example of amplification in
marketing through social media is the dissemination of news related to the interruption or cessation of
the manufacture of a certain basic drug for people with chronic diseases such as diabetes, pressure, and
many others. Likewise, spreading false news about the interruption of one of the types of infant formula,
which prompts parents to search for the product and offer any price in exchange for obtaining it.
Transparency
Transparency in pricing through social media, or even artificial transparency, refers to price
manipulation through social media by claiming to provide information, quality, source, or quality of a
product, especially in times of crisis and emergency. Examples of claiming transparency include
bullying and criticism of one of the products in the market by one of the parties, and providing evidence

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
172
and evidence of the low quality of this product in order to reduce demand for it and direct it towards a
product of the same quality, but from a different source, in order to achieve profits.
Regulation
Regulations in marketing through social media refers to the set of laws and regulations that can
govern marketing through these means, however, with the large number of marketers, and the diversity
and multiplicity of marketing sources, regulation and oversight have become unenforceable, especially
with the presence of marketing agencies. Unlicensed sourced from homes and various home projects.
These laws include anti-rigging laws, which are laws that prohibit sellers from raising prices excessively
in times of crisis or emergency. In addition to price transparency requirements, these are regulations
that require sellers to provide clear and accurate information about the prices of goods or services,
especially in times of crisis or emergency.
2.2. Price Gouging
Yang and Mason (2022) defined price gouging as providing services and products at exorbitant prices
in times of crises and disasters, or in cases of lack of supply and increased demand in order to achieve
high profits. As for Cabral and Xu (2021) defined price gouging as adopting practices that involve
raising the prices of products and services during a period of crisis. Price manipulation is among the
many maneuvers carried out by the organization in order to ensure the highest possible profit level, and
examples of this are (Beatty et al., 2021; Chakraborti and Roberts, 2021; Buccafusco et al., 2021):
Many organizations stockpiled sterilizers and masks and offered them at exaggerated prices during
the spread of COVID 19, as an example of a retail point of sale in the United States of America buying
18,000 hand sanitizers at $1 per box, and reselling them through social media for $7 per box. About
300 sanitizers were sold before the US authorities closed the store due to price gouging.
Many organizations have manipulated prices during disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes,
exploiting these disasters due to the decrease in supply and the increase in demand, down to achieving
profits up to 450%. An example of this is the increased demand for tents after hurricanes, or the
increased demand for food, clean water and medicine after earthquakes
Egypt
In 2013, in the midst of the political turmoil that accompanied the overthrow of President Mohamed
Morsi, there were reports of food and fuel price gouging, up to twice the normal price. In 2016, the
period of inflation in Egypt and the depreciation of the Egyptian pound, many pharmacies doubled the
prices of basic medicines, which made these medicines unaffordable for Egyptians. In 2020, many
merchants manipulated the prices of sterilizers, facemasks, and gloves due to the increase in demand
and lack of supply that accompanied the spread of Covid-19. In 2021, the month of Ramadan was
accompanied by a major manipulation of the prices of meat and vegetables, reaching up to three times
the normal price.
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
In 2018, during the Hajj season, accommodation and transportation prices were manipulated, so
that some hotels imposed double prices on their services, taking advantage of the high demand by
pilgrims. In 2019, during the Ramadan season, the prices of basic foodstuffs were manipulated, which
led to the objection of Saudi citizens .In 2020, many abuses were reported regarding the prices of hand
sanitizers and face masks, leading to monopolies. In 2021, Saudi Arabia recorded price manipulation
of building materials such as cement and steel, taking advantage of the high demand from construction
projects in the country.
Jordan
In 2018, Jordan went through a period of economic hardship and the prices of basic necessities such
as food and fuel were manipulated. In 2020, the prices of sterilizers and facemasks were manipulated

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
173
due to the increased demand for them during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, Jordan faced a state of
inflation, and many cases of price manipulation of electronic and home appliances appeared.
On international levels, the world witnessed some of the highest attempts of price gouging as in table
below:
Table 2. Price Gouging International Examples
Venezuela
The prices gouging of food, medicine and fuel have increased by 1000% in recent
years
Zimbabwe
During the years 2021-2022, a price crisis appeared, so that some basic products
were manipulated by 500%.
Haiti
Due to natural disasters and repeated political crises, Haiti faced gouging of food
and water prices to 300%.
Sudan
Due to political instability from 2020 to 2023, Sudan suffers from massive price
gouging that has reached up to 200%.
The
Philippines
Hurricanes and earthquakes in the Philippines led to price manipulation of basic
materials that reached 100%.
2.3. Dimensions of Price Gouging
Beillahi et al. (2022) indicates that there are several dimensions to price gouging by distinguishing it
from conventional marketing and pricing behaviors, these dimensions include:
Timing
Price gouging is usually associated with timing, as it appears during a crisis or emergency such as
natural disasters, epidemics, or even political unrest, and this timing is what drives many parties to
manipulate prices in order to make profits from the gap between supply and demand.
Size
It cannot be denied that there is price manipulation under normal circumstances, except that this
manipulation varies according to the size of the crisis, and thus the difference in price becomes higher
than the typical market in the event that the crisis is on a local, national, international or even global
level.
Deception or procrastination
This dimension refers to the case in which marketers manipulate prices by deceiving consumers,
such as misrepresenting the quality and quality of products, or their quantity, or attracting customers
through false advertisements, or even promoting the idea of interruption and scarcity of goods.
Target
This dimension refers to targeting a specific category of consumers in cases of price manipulation
under normal circumstances, such as consumers of luxury products and luxuries. However, the targeting
is doubled in the event of crises, as it is directed to all segments of society, including low-income
families.
Regulation
Price manipulation is illegal in most countries of the world - in the event that there is censorship -
but in the case of selling and marketing through social media, it is difficult to enforce and therefore
cannot be controlled.
2.4. Drivers of price Gouging
As it was previously indicated, that price gouging is the difference in prices for a product or service

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
174
from one place to another and from time to time in an excessive and unfair manner (Reese and Pies,
2021). Many motives encourage price gouging. The most important of these motives are what
Chakraborti and Roberts (2020) and Scheitrum et al. (2023) refer to as:
Supply and demand gap
Price gouging appears when there is a lot of demand and little supply for a product, and marketers
tend to raise the price of the product that has demand in order to achieve higher profits.
Natural disasters and emergencies
Price gouging appears in cases of hurricanes, earthquakes, and epidemics, and marketers tend to
raise the prices of basic or necessary items such as water, food, medicine, or even medical supplies.
Limited competition
Price gouging appears when competition is limited in the market for a product, so merchants tend
to raise prices for fear of losing customers to the competitor
Monopoly
The absence of a competitor leads to monopoly and increases the freedom to manipulate and
increase prices unfairly due to the lack of competition.
Psychological factors
Marketers may be tempted to raise prices due to greed, stinginess, or the desire to make higher
profits
2.5. Economical Influence of Price Gouging
Price gouging is among the abuses that lead to dire economic consequences, including that it leads to
ineffective allocation of resources, as when prices are exaggerated, consumers are not encouraged to
buy even if there is a need for the product, which causes waste of resources (Oladosu et al., 2022). On
the other hand, price gouging - according to Fung and Roberts (2021) - can lead to inequality, as those
who are able have access to the required product, while families with limited income cannot access the
product, which exacerbates social inequalities. Sánchez-Cartas et al. (2021) asserted that price gouging
reduces consumer confidence in the market and reduces consumer confidence in the government's
ability to regulate prices.
3. Methodology
3.1. Methodological Approach
Current study adopted the quantitative approach in order to collect data and answer its main question.
The reason for choosing the quantitative approach is due to its ability to deal with larger sample size
that is located in different geographical zones.
A questionnaire was chosen to be the main study tool. The questionnaire was built through the aid
of previous studies including Cabral and Xu (2021); Ruan et al. (2021); Arafat et al. (2020); Liu et al.
(2022); Ampountolas et al. (2019) and contained two main sections, the first took into perspective
demographics of study sample (gender, age, qualification, income, occupation and nationality). The
other section contained paragraphs which were related to study variables (SMM and price gouging).
The questionnaire was uploaded online Google Forms as it guarantees its reach to different geographical
zones. In addition to that, the links were sent to different platforms according to their existence were
researcher made sure that individuals from Jordan, KSA and Egypt had access to the questionnaire. To
validate the questionnaire; we have presented the rough draft of the questionnaire on a group of
academics and specialist in the field for the sake of arbitration and validation of questionnaire items.
After arbitration, we made sure to modify the items as according to arbitrators’ suggestions in order for
the questionnaire to realize its aim.

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
175
Table 3. Distribution of Statements on Variables
Variables # of Statements
SMM
Targeting 5
Amplification 5
Transparency 5
Regulation 5
Price Gouging 6
Population of study consisted of consumers within three different consuming environments
including (Jordan – Middle East / Egypt – Africa/ Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Gulf Countries. A
convenient sample of (500) from each country was chosen to represent the population with total of
(1500) respondent. After application process, researcher was able to retrieve (1372) filled questionnaire,
which indicated a response ratio of (91.4%) as statistically accepted:
Table 4. Sample Distribution according to Country
Country Sample % of Respondents
Jordan 481 35.1
KSA 426 31.0
Egypt 465 33.9
Total 1372 100
Based on the idea that price manipulation is usually related to the purchasing power of the individual,
the current study dealt with the idea of price manipulation through social media in each of (Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, and Egypt). There are significant differences in purchasing power between the three
countries, as Saudi Arabia recorded the highest per capita GDP among these three countries, followed
by Jordan and Egypt. This idea means that individuals in Saudi Arabia are more capable and have higher
purchasing power. In addition, the World Bank indicated that there is a large disparity in income
between the three countries, as Saudi Arabia is the highest-income country and therefore its purchasing
power is stronger, leading to it being more vulnerable to price manipulation and exploitation of social
media compared to other countries (World Bank, 2020).
Statistical package for social sciences SPSS was used in order to screen and analyze gathered
primary data. Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated in order to test reliability and consistency of study tool
as in table below:
Table 5. Alpha Value
variable
Alpha

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
176
Targeting 0.823
Amplification 0.715
Transparency 0.767
Regulation 0.819
Price Gouging 0.785
Other statistical tests used in current study included mean and standard deviation, frequency and
percentage, multiple regression, ANCOVA and multicollinearity test.
4. Results
As it appeared from table below, frequency and percentage indicated that majority of respondents were
males forming (58%) of the total sample. Sample respondent also appeared to be within age range of
29-39 years old forming 44%, majority of them held BA degree forming 37%. In addition to that, table
6 below indicated that majority of respondents had a monthly income that ranged between $ 1000-
$2000 forming 42.2%. Table also was able to highlight that majority of respondents were employees
forming 57.9% of the total sample.
Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Demographics
f
%
Gender
Female
576
42.0
Male
796
58.0
Age
18-28
66
4.8
29-39
604
44.0
40-50
399
29.1
More than 50 years
303
22.1
Qualification
High School or Less
62
4.5
Diploma
122
8.9
BA
507
37.0
MA
435
31.7
PhD
246
17.9
Income/$
1000-2000
579
42.2
2001-3000
308
22.4
Less than 1000
251
18.3
More than 3000
234
17.1
Occupation
House wife
98
7.1
Business Owner
308
22.4
Student
65
4.7
Martial Employee
55
4.0
Retired
51
3.7

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
177
Employee
795
57.9
It can be seen from table below that not all statements and variables were positively accepted in all
countries under examination as there were variable which scored lower than mean of scale 3.00. The
highest mean was scored by the variable (regulation) scoring 4.03/5.00 compared to the lowest mean
2.78/5.00 which was scored by (Amplification) and a mean of 2.86/5.00 scored by (transparency). The
fact that transparency scored lower than the mean of scale indicated that respondents had issue regarding
marketing through social media and its transparency which was highlighted through the table below.
Table 7. Questionnaire Analysis
Mean
Std.
Deviation
I see more ads related to my previous search and personal preferences on my SM
page
4.18
.77
When something happens in my city I begin to see more product related to that
incident
3.82
1.11
Sometimes I am overwhelmed with ads related to a disease that I have Just because
I looked it up
4.10
1.15
Whenever the need for a certain product appears, the prices goes sky high
3.85
.74
I can predict the gap between demand and supply through the continuous changes
in regular prices that I know of
3.93
.67
Targeting
3.98
.50
Social media ads create a sense of urgency and pressure around a product, so I buy
it regardless of the price
2.89
1.38
Social media ads give me a sense of the importance of the product, which makes
me buy it at a higher price
2.29
1.25
Social media takes advantage of the shortage in supplying and orders, which pushes
them to ask for higher prices
3.84
.81
Exploiting influencers and social media personalities makes me think that I am
getting a better product even if it is at a higher price
2.55
1.19
Social media ads give me a sense of the scarcity of the product, so I pay higher
prices to ensure its existence
2.36
1.14
Amplification
2.78
.80
The transparency of social media marketing creates a false sense of confidence in
me, so I buy the product even if it is at a higher price
2.07
1.10
Transparency is a strategy to justify product price differences between different
places
3.14
1.13
Social media convinces me that the higher the price, the higher the quality
2.87
1.07
Social media ads create a sense of social responsibility, manipulating prices under
the umbrella of solidarity, donations and aid
3.70
.92
Social media convinces me that the product is more expensive because it is for me
alone
2.53
1.12
Transparency
2.86
.77
The existence of a law and a regulatory body that protects me as a consumer from
price gouging is evidence that it is illegal
3.76
.97
I think that regulatory authorities such as ministries and agencies should monitor
social media advertisements, especially in times of crisis
4.64
.60
In my country, I don't know where to file a complaint if I discover price gouging in
one way or another
3.46
1.20
The problem with social media is that marketing through it is not monitored
4.23
.92
I think price manipulation through social media is easy and unavoidable
4.06
.78
Regulation
4.03
.58

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
178
Creating shortages and scarcity of products through social communication leads to
price manipulation
4.28
.84
Justifying the price difference as a difference in quality makes me pay more for the
product.
2.91
1.21
Influencers and celebrities are one of the main drivers of product price gouging and
making me pay more for the product than it's actually worth.
2.65
1.16
Price discrepancy Social media marketing creates a sense of urgency about a
product launch
3.25
.95
I think luxury consumers are more vulnerable to price gouging
4.16
1.12
Price manipulation creates a sense of hype around a product, causing prices to rise
in the initial period before prices stabilize.
3.89
.89
Price Gouging
3.52
.55
On the independent variables, VIF and Tolerance calculations were conducted to search for
multicollinearity as shown in table 8 below. The absence of multicollinearity in the data is demonstrated
by the fact that all of the VIF values in the table above are less than 10 and all of the Tolerance values
are greater than 0.10 (Gujarati & Porter, 2009).
Table 8. Multicollinearity Test
variable
Tolerance
VIF
Targeting
.661
1.514
Amplification
.245
4.085
Transparency
.253
3.955
Regulation
.738
1.355
Hypotheses Testing
H1: Social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price gouging from perspective of
consumers.
The hypothesis was examined using multiple regression, the results indicated that the F value was
significant at the 0.05 level. This suggested that “Social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and
feeds price gouging from perspective of consumers”. In addition, it was determined that the correlation
coefficient, r=0.869, was high and that the independent variables accounted for 75.6% of the variation
in the investigated dependent variable.
The coefficient table reveals that the t-values for each variable are statistically significant at the
0.05 level, indicating that:
1. Targeting in social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price gouging
from perspective of consumers, since t- value =12.974 is significant at 0.05 level
2. Amplification in social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price
gouging from perspective of consumers, since t- value =10.898 is significant at 0.05
level
3. Transparency in social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price gouging
from perspective of consumers, since t- value =14.683 is significant at 0.05 level
4. Regulations in social media marketing doesn’t imply fairness and feeds price gouging
from perspective of consumers, since t-value =27.453 is statistically significant at the
0.05 level and has the greatest influence on the price gouging (as measured by
beta=0.427).

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
179
Table 9. Testing H1
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t
Sig.
B
Std. Error
Beta
R
R Square
1
(Constant)
-.392
.071
-5.477
.000
.869
.756
Targeting
.233
.018
.213
12.974
.000
Amplification
.201
.018
.294
10.898
.000
Transparency
.277
.019
.390
14.683
.000
Regulation
.406
.015
.427
27.453
.000
The second hypothesis presented and tested in the study was articulate “H2: There are no
significant differences in the effect of Social media marketing on price gouging from perspective
of consumers due to their nationalities.” ANCOVA test was used to test above hypothesis and
following results were found:
It was found that F= 7.43 was significant at 0.05 level. That means there were no significant
differences in the effect of Social media marketing on price gouging from perspective of consumers
due to their nationalities. These differences tend to increase in the GCC sample because its mean was
the highest mean between the tested samples.
Table 10. Testing H2
Dependent Variable: Price Gouging
national
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Jordan
3.45
.69
481
Gulf
3.57
.52
426
Egypt
3.56
.36
465
Total
3.52
.55
1372
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source
Type III Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected Model
300.301a
3
100.100
1241.529
.000
Intercept
.066
1
.066
.815
.367
Social media marketing
296.393
1
296.393
3676.109
.000
national
1.198
2
.599
7.430
.001
Error
110.297
1368
.081
Total
17452.917
1372
Corrected Total
410.599
1371
a. R Squared = .731 (Adjusted R Squared = .731)
Current study aimed at highlighting customers’ attitudes towards marketing through social media
between a fairness of access to affordable marketing platforms, or just an approach to price gouging. A
sample from three differently located countries were taken to form the sample of the study (Jordan –
Asia / KSA – GCC and Egypt – Africa). A questionnaire was employed in order to collect data from
(1273) customers within these countries as according to liker 5 scale. SPSS was employed and results
indicated that following:
- Majority of respondents were from Jordan forming 35.1% of the total sample followed directly
by Egyptian customers forming 33.9% of the sample and in the last rank came the Saudi
customers who formed 31% of total sample.
- The main idea of study was revealed and it appeared that customers were aware of social media
role in marketing especially in the recent years
It cannot be denied that marketing through social media has represented a way for many

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
180
organizations to reach the target audience at a lower cost and complications compared to traditional
marketing campaigns. It is an effective tool that has helped many organizations to build a huge customer
base with less costly marketing procedures and in a systematic and clear manner. However, you have
two sides of the coin, as it has been noticed recently that social media marketers tend to manipulate
prices and increase them for the consumer by adopting hidden marketing approaches that may not be
understood by the consumer. The current study’s results indicated and answered its main question
through the results. It was found out that social media marketing plays a role in increasing prices on
customer through following an internal agenda from the organization that is not noticed by customers
which leads to an increase in the prices and gaining more credit by the organization.
The study proved that marketing through social media contributed significantly to attracting the
attention of customers by providing various amenities, which include product descriptions, realistic
pictures and videos, prices, and the possibility of delivery to the customer’s door. The existence of these
factors contributed to enhancing consumer acceptance of the idea of marketing through social media
review the product and deliver it to the consumer without the need to move from one place to another
until they make the purchase which agreed with Cabral and Xu (2021) and Ruan et al. (2021).
Through the analysis, it was concluded that marketing through social communication is an effective
means for organizations to manipulate prices, and this was shown in the analysis based on the presence
of variables that were met with negative attitudes by the respondents, which included (amplification
and transparency). This agreed with Arafata et al.., (2020) who argued that marketing through social
media reflects the incorrect reality of products by pressuring the consumer to buy based on manipulation
of emotions and feelings. Such as the idea that the proceeds of the product go to charity, or to contribute
part of the price to help the poor, and many other similar ideas.
Another aspect that contributed to price gouging through social media is the fact that it is
uncontrollable. Marketing operations through these means cannot be controlled, and thus reach the stage
of harming consumers due to the lack of alternative options for obtaining those goods and services. This
agreed earlier with Liu et al. (2022) who argued that the uncontrollable nature of social media marketing
might cause a decrease confidence in the market and a negative impact on the reputation of brands.
Finally, results of study indicated that price gouging within GCC countries was higher compared to
Jordan and Egypt, this can be attributed to the fact that there are many differences between the chosen
countries including the difference in the purchase power which is higher in GCC countries. In addition
to that, GCC mainly depend on rentier economy, which is the economy that depends on natural resource
like oil and petroleum. This has the ability to make GCC higher in purchase power due to the fact that
oil and gas prices change dramatically which affects the prices of other products and services in the
country, and can lead to price manipulation.
5. Conclusion
This study provides empirical evidence that certain social media marketing approaches facilitate price
gouging from a consumer view. Tactics like emotional manipulation, obscuring true costs, and targeting
vulnerable segments appear to feed unfair pricing behaviors. The results highlight the need for better
safeguards to protect consumers, particularly during periods of hardship when unethical price inflation
has dire impacts. Stricter regulations, consumer awareness programs, and ethical business conduct are
critical to curtail price gouging enabled by manipulative social media marketing. While focused on
three countries, the findings have broader implications on harnessing social media for fair versus
exploitative pricing strategies globally. Further research can build upon this work by examining
additional factors and country contexts. Overall, ensuring responsible use of social media marketing to
support equitable pricing is crucial.
Examining the extent to which SMM contributes to the development of price gouging within three
countries with different consumer environments could have many theoretical and practical implications.

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
181
From a theoretical point of view, the study may contribute to clarifying the role of SMM in promoting
price gouging by analyzing SMM strategies in marketing. In addition, environmental factors that
promote and encourage price manipulation can be indicated, such as political, social, intellectual and
cultural factors. It is also possible to find out the best practices that would frame and standardize price
gouging, especially in crises.
Practically speaking, the study could develop effective systems in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt
to ensure that this problem is addressed by developing policies and regulations tailored to unique
challenges and opportunities. The study may also contribute to increasing consumers' awareness of the
practices of marketers and their different methods of price gouging, which leads to an increase in the
responsibility of marketers and various organizations.
From previous conclusion, researcher recommended the following:
- Policy makers and consumers have to come together to prevent this harmful practice and ensure
that all people have access to essential goods and services in times of crisis.
- Follow ethical practices and laws and legislation in force in the field of marketing and business
- Develop strategies to improve public health and social awareness about future crises, and
improve public response to supply and economic crises, to reduce price gouging and better use
of available resources.
The current study was limited to respondents from (Jordan – Middle East / Egypt – Africa/ Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia – Gulf Countries. Each of them represented the geographical area in which they are
found.
Launching from results, discussion and conclusion of study; researcher suggested the following
future studies:
- Examine the effectiveness of the instructions, regulations, and laws in the country in preventing
price manipulation on social media platform
- Explore the role of activating the positive impact of influencers on social media platforms to
mitigate this impact
- Study the impact of analyzing the types of advertisements on social media platforms in order
to ensure the legalization and management of these advertisements in an easy and secure
manner

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
182
References
Ampountolas, A., Shaw, G., & James, S. (2019). The role of social media as a distribution channel for
promoting pricing strategies. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 2(1), 75–91.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jhti-07-2018-0040
Arafat, S. M., Kar, S. K., Menon, V., Alradie-Mohamed, A., Mukherjee, S., Kaliamoorthy, C., & Kabir,
R. (2020). Responsible factors of panic buying: An observation from online media reports. Frontiers in
Public Health, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.603894
Beatty, T. K., Lade, G. E., & Shimshack, J. (2021). Hurricanes and gasoline price gouging. Journal of
the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 8(2), 347–374.
https://doi.org/10.1086/712419
Beillahi, S. M., Keilty, E., Nelaturu, K., Veneris, A., & Long, F. (2022). Automated auditing of price
gouging Tod vulnerabilities in smart contracts. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and
Cryptocurrency ICBC).https://doi.org/10.1109/icbc54727.2022.9805509
Buccafusco, C. J., Hemel, D. J., & Talley, E. L. (2021). Price gouging in a pandemic. SSRN Electronic
Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3758620
Cabral, L., & Xu, L. (2021). Seller reputation and price gouging: Evidence from the covid‐19 pandemic.
Economic Inquiry, 59(3), 867–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12993
Chakraborti, R., & Roberts, G. (2020). Anti-price gouging laws, shortages, and covid-19: Big data
insights from consumer searches. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613726
Chakraborti, R., & Roberts, G. (2021). Learning to hoard: The effects of preexisting and surprise price-
gouging regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Consumer Policy, 44(4), 507–529.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-021-09493-1
Chen, W., Wu, J., Zheng, Z., Chen, C., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Market manipulation of bitcoin: Evidence
from mining the Mt. Gox transaction network. IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer
Communications. https://doi.org/10.1109/infocom.2019.8737364
Fung, S. S., & Roberts, S. (2021). The economics of potential price gouging during Covid-19 and the
application to complaints received by the CMA (No. 2021-02). Centre for Competition Policy,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Goanta, C., & Ranchordás, S. (Eds.). (2020). The regulation of social media influencers. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Gujarati, D.N. & Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic Econometrics. 5th Edition, McGraw Hill Inc., New York.
Haikal, E. K., Freihat, S. M., Adnan, M., Joudeh, J. M. M., & Hashem, T. N. (2020). The role of supply
chain strategy and affiliate marketing in increasing the demand for e-commerce. Social media POV, Int.
J Sup. Chain. Mgt,9(1), 832-844
Hashem,T. (2023). Social Media Strategies: Building Brand Awareness Through Digital Platforms in
Health Care Sector. European Economic Letters,13(4),352-364
Hashem, T. (2016). The impact of social media on customers’ image for mobiles. Journal of Advances
in Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(5), 269-277
Helberger, N. (2020). The political power of platforms: How current attempts to regulate
misinformation amplify opinion power. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 842–854.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888

Hashem et al., Journal of System and Management Sciences, Vol. 14 (2024) No. 6, pp. 161-183
183
Hinson, R. E., Twum, K. K., & Arhin, E. (2022). Ethical Social Media Marketing in Africa. Digital
Business in Africa, 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93499-6_2
Jacobson, J., Gruzd, A., & Hernández-García, Á. (2020). Social Media Marketing: Who is watching the
watchers? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, 101774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.001
Keller, D. (2021). Amplification and its discontents: why regulating the reach of online content is
Hard. J. Free Speech L., 1, 227.
Liu, J., Wu, C., Yuan, L., & Liu, J. (2022). Opening price manipulation and its value influences.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102256
MacCarthy, M. (2020). Transparency requirements for Digital Social Media Platforms:
Recommendations for policy makers and industry. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3615726
Oladosu, G. (2022). Bubbles in US gasoline prices: Assessing the role of Hurricanes and anti–price
gouging laws. Journal of Commodity Markets, 27, 100219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomm.2021.100219
Reese, A., & Pies, I. (2021). What about “price gouging” by employees. Business Ethics Journal Review,
14–20. https://doi.org/10.12747/j1i03
Ruan, J., Cai, Q., & Jin, S. (2021). Impact of Covid‐19 and nationwide lockdowns on vegetable prices:
Evidence from wholesale markets in China. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(5),
1574–1594. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12211
Sánchez-Cartas, J. M., Tejero, A., & León, G. (2021). Algorithmic pricing and price gouging.
consequences of high-impact, low probability events. Sustainability, 13(5), 2542.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052542
Scheitrum, D., Schaefer, K. A., & Saitone, T. (2023). Food retailer response to price gouging litigation.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13341
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: a skill-building approach (7th ed.).
Haddington: John Wiley & Sons.
World Bank. (2020). Purchasing power parities and the size of world economies: Results from the 2017
International Comparison Program. The World Bank.
Yang, Y. T., & Mason, D. J. (2022). COVID-19’s impact on nursing shortages, the rise of travel nurses,
and price gouging. Health Affairs Forefront.. https://doi.org/10.1377/forefront.20220125.695159