Past research on perceived price fairness has examined outcome fairness, or the fairness of an offered price in respect to other prices (e.g., Campbell 1999a; b). In this research consumers’ perceived fairness of the process used by the retailer to set the price, as well as outcome perceived price fairness (PPF), were examined. In the first of two studies, twelve price-setting practices were evaluated on procedural fairness, pervasiveness (i.e., commonness of price-setting practice in the marketplace), and social acceptability within six contexts. Social acceptability was found to be highest when the price-setting practice was both procedurally fair and perceived to be highly pervasive for a given context. An experiment bridged the two concepts of price fairness by detecting the negative effect of using a socially unacceptable price-setting practice on outcome PPF. Also, evidence of multidimensionality (i.e., a cognitive and an affective dimension) of the PPF construct was confirmed in the second study. Cognitive and affective assessments of PPF were found to bring about greater consumer intention to partake in self-protection behaviors such as complaining, and revenge-seeking behaviors such as posting negative online reviews.