Content uploaded by Pelin Bicen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pelin Bicen on Dec 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 21, no. 2 (spring 2013), pp. 221–234.
© 2013 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. Permissions: www.copyright.com
ISSN 1069–6679 (print) / ISSN 1944–7175 (online)
DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679210207
Pelin Bicen (Ph.D., Texas Tech University), Assistant Professor of
Marketing, Black School of Business, Penn State University–Erie,
Erie, PA, pxb40@psu.edu.
Sreedhar Madhavaram (Ph.D., Texas Tech University), Associate
Professor of Marketing, Monte Ahuja College of Business, Cleve-
land State University, Cleveland, OH, s.madhavaram@csuohio
.edu.
The authors are thankful to Tillmann Wagner and Naveen Gudi-
gantala for their help on this project.
Re s e a R c h No t e
RESEARCH ON SMART SHOPPER FEELINGS: AN EXTENSION
Pelin Bicen and Sreedhar Madhavaram
Drawing from Weiner’s (1985) attributional theory, this study extends the research on smart shopper
feelings by testing (1) the relationships involving all causal dimensions of attributions and (2) affective
consequences as mediating the relationships between causal dimensions of attributions and behavioral
consequences. The results reveal that consumers feel happier when they attribute a price discount’s cause
to an unstable reason and feel more appreciative if they think that sellers have control over discounts,
and happiness completely mediates the relationship between internal locus and consumers’ behavioral
responses. This research has specific theoretical and practical implications in the context of smart shop-
per feelings.
Sales promotions have increased in popularity over the past
few decades. According to the “2009 Promo Industry Trends
Report” (2009), price discounts count among the top sales
promotion practices and they have increased many compa-
nies’ top-line performance to a considerable extent.
Reflecting the importance of price promotions for firms,
there is burgeoning research that addresses the effect of price
promotions on brand evaluations (e.g., DelVecchio, Henard,
and Freling 2006), repeat purchase (e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann,
and Neslin 2001), brand loyalty (e.g., Balachander, Ghosh,
and Axel 2010), variety seeking (e.g., Lin and Lin 2009), and
purchase amount (e.g., Manning and Sprott 2007). The cen-
tral premise of these research studies is that price discounts
have an effect on consumers who are concerned with only
the economic value of the money saved. However, research
and business practices show us that this is not always the
case (e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin 2001; Chandon,
Wansink, and Laurent 2000; Schindler 1998). This leads
to an important question: Are there benefits other than
monetary savings that motivate consumers to consider
price discounts? Schindler’s (1998) research examines the
nonmonetary motivational effect of price discounts on
consumer behavior, and provides preliminary evidence to
smart shopper feeling. Our research aims to systematically
extend Schindler’s work on smart shopper feelings and con-
tribute to the behavioral pricing literature by (1) showing
that a smart shopper feeling is not a one-of-a-kind event;
(2) examining new, theoretically grounded relationships
regarding retailers’ price discount strategies; and (3) test-
ing a structural model with multiple relationships among
causal attributions, affections, and behaviors. This study is
the first known extension of Schindler’s (1998) research on
smart shopper feelings (see Table 1) and provides practical
implications to retailers in designing and executing price
discount activities.
ATTRIBUTIONAL THEORY PERSPECTIVE
For Schindler (1998), based on attributional theory, consum-
ers who perceive themselves as responsible for obtaining
a discount show positive feelings of getting the discount
and have a high likelihood of repeat purchase and word-
of-mouth (WOM) communication. Contra the attribution
approach, attributional theory mainly focuses on under-
standing the effects of causal attributions on affects and
behaviors rather than the causes themselves.
According to attributional theory, when faced with an
attribution-eliciting event (e.g., price discount), a person
classifies the event’s cause along several dimensions: causal
locus (where cause is internal or external to the person),
222 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
stability (whether the cause is short lived or long lasting),
and controllability (whether the cause is subject to voli-
tional control). The causal ascriptions play a key role in the
emotion process, and each causal dimension is uniquely
related to a set of feelings. Finally, emotional reactions
play a central role in motivated behavior (Weiner 1985).
Specifically, instead of evaluating incentive values in terms
of the objective properties of the goal (e.g., 25 percent
price discount), attributional theory considers incentive
to mean the consequences of the subjective value of the
goal. Although causal attributions do not influence the
objective properties of the goal, they guide the emotional
reactions/subjective consequences of goal attainment (e.g.,
a discount earned by hard work might increase consumer
self-confidence; a discount received by the retailer’s volition
is likely to beget gratitude).
Schindler (1998) focuses on mainly one causal dimen-
sion—locus of causalit y. He combines the other two
dimensions into a single aspect as stable controllability,
considering them closely related in the context of per-
ceived responsibility for obtaining a price discount. Briefly,
Schindler states that if a consumer perceives internal causal
factors to be under control and stable over time, then
perceived responsibility for obtaining a price discount is
likely to be greater. The current study extends Schindler’s
work by taking the focal point from the consumer per se
(e.g., stable controllability of the consumer getting the
price discount) and extending it to the causal attributions
of price discount activities in general (e.g., stability, con-
trollability, and locus aspect of price discounts). Accord-
ingly, the current st udy focuses on firms’ price discount
activities and aims to provide firms with more practical
implicat ions regarding how consumers process price
discount activities and how this process influences their
behavior. Therefore, the current study treats the stability
and controllability dimensions separately and relates them
to price discounts’ causes.
The attributional framework assumes a sequence in
which cognitions enter into the emotion process to further
refine and differentiate an experience. Briefly, depending on
the chosen causal attribution, a different set of emotions
(psychological consequences) is generated that eventually
affects consumers’ behavioral reactions (see Figure 1).
Brief Discussion on Emotions
In this study, by emotion, we mean a mental state of readi-
ness that is triggered by cognitive appraisals of events that
may result in specific actions to affirm or deal with the
emotion, depending on its nature and meaning for the
person experiencing it (Lazarus 1991). Although emotions,
moods, and attitudes are all discussed as valenced feeling
states, they have some subtle differences (Bagozzi, Gopinath,
and Nyer 1999; Beedie, Terry, and Lane 2005). For instance,
emotions differ from moods and attit udes in the way they
arise. Emotions have a specific referent (e.g., self-caused,
other caused, or circumstance caused), and they arise in
response to the evaluative judgments an individual makes
for something of relevance to his or her well-being (e.g.,
a consumer becomes pleased when he or she receives an
instant price discount as a result of a retailer’s rollback price
activity; this way, the consumer can save money). In other
words, emotions occur in response to changes in specific
plans and goal-relevant events. Further, arousal is not neces-
sarily a part of mood and attitude, which are elicited when
the cognitive system is maintained in an emotion mode
for a period (Oatley and Jenkins 1992; Smith et al. 1993). In
addition, strength of felt subjective experience and magni-
tude of response are more direct and stronger in emotions
than they are in moods and attit udes (Bagozzi, Gopinath,
and Nyer 1999; Wierzbicka 1992).
Although there are many emotion types, we focus only
on the ones that are relevant to the current study: happi-
ness, self-confidence, and appreciation. We use Roseman’s
(1991) appraisal theory of emotion for our conceptualiza-
tions. The essence of the theory is that subtle combina-
tions of appraisals lead to discrete emotional responses.
For example, happiness, self-confidence, and appreciation
differ in agency appraisal but have similar traits in motive
consistency and appetitive appraisals. Happiness occurs
when a person sees the circumstance as the source of the
positive outcomes (e.g., circumstance caused), whereas self-
confidence is experienced as a consequence of attributing
a positive outcome to the self (e.g., self-caused) (Bearden,
Hardesty, and Rose 2001; Honea and Dahl 2005), and
appreciation results if and only if the act of the benefactor
Table 1
Replication and Extension Hypotheses
Hypotheses Status Results
H1 Replication Confirmed
H2 Extension Confirmed
H3 Extension Partial support
H4 Extension Confirmed
H5 Extension Confirmed
H6 Extension Rejected
H7 Extension Partial support
Spring 2013 223
was under volitional control and was intended to benefit
the recipient (e.g., other caused) (Adler and Fagley 2005;
Weiner 1985). In other dimensions, all three emotions are
motive consistent (e.g., goal relevant) and appetitive (e.g.,
rewarding).
Locus of Causality
The analysis of the structure of causality begins with the
locus dimension (Weiner 1985). Furthermore, the cause can
be located either in the consumer (internal locus) or in the
seller (external locus). Internal locus of causalit y occurs
when a consumer expects a specific outcome because the
information needed to build that expectation makes the
consumer responsible for that specific outcome (Wagner,
Hennig-Thurau, and Rudolph 2009). Transferring this rea-
soning into the context of price discounts, this paper argues
that consumers who are determined to get a discount will
be involved in an elaborate and persistent price search.
This intensive price search builds certain expectations and
makes them feel responsible when they find a price discount
(Bearden, Hardesty, and Rose 2001).
As mentioned above, particular combinations of
appraisals lead to discrete emotions (Lazarus 1991; Peine,
Heitmann, and Herrmann 2009). Therefore, although hap-
piness is a circumstance-caused emotion (agency appraisal),
it is also triggered by goal relevance and motive consistency
appraisals. Simply, there is more goal relevance in finding
a price discount for consumers who are determined to
find one than for consumers who find it by chance. It is
merely more consistent with internally locused consum-
ers’ motives. Self-confidence is described as a positively
valenced, self-focused emotion. Bearden, Hardesty, and
Rose (2001) conceptualize self-confidence as a feeling, and
define it as the extent to which an individual feels capable
and assured with respect to his or her marketplace decisions
and behaviors. Therefore, we argue that consumers who
attribute price discounts to internal causes not only will
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework of Causal Dimensions and Psychological and
Behavioral Consequences to Price Discounts
224 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
have more self-confidence but will also be more pleased and
happier than consumers who attribute a price discount to
external reasons. This is consistent with Schindler’s (1998)
primary hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The more consumers attribute a price dis-
count’s cause to internal factors, the greater their le vels
of (a) self-confidence and (b) happiness.
Stability of Causality
The causes of price discounts may be relatively temporary
(e.g., cleaning stock, rollback prices) or fairly permanent
(e.g., everyday low price policy [EDLP]). In this study, based
on the behavioral pricing literature and appraisal theory,
we argue that when consumers learn that price is reduced
temporarily, their affective reaction to the price discount
will be more positive than when they learn that the price
reduction is permanent.
According to the behavioral pricing literature, consum-
ers treat consumption and shopping not only as a utilitar-
ian activity but also as a hedonic experience (Chandon,
Wansink, and Laurent 2000; Hirschman 1984; Holbrook
et al. 1984). Briefly, utilitarian benefits are functional and
cognitive and help consumers maximize the economy of
their shopping (e.g., saving money), whereas hedonic ben-
efits are experiential and affective and provide consumers
with intrinsic stimulation, fun, and pleasure. While EDLP
fits into the utilitarian dimension (e.g., Grewal et al. 1998),
temporary price promotions fit into the value expression
benefit, which entails both the utilitarian and hedonic
dimensions (e.g., Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent 2000;
Honea and Dahl 2005; Peine, Heitmann, and Herrmann
2009).
Appraisal theory maintains that appraisals play a cen-
tral role in emotion formation (e.g., happiness) (Bagozzi,
Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Lazarus 1991). In the case of
price promotions, it is not the temporary or permanent
price reductions that produce emotions but, rather, the
psychological appraisal made by the consumers evaluating
and interpreting the promotion event. In this case, while
consumers make an appraisal of increase in acquisition
utility with permanent price reductions, their appraisal of
the temporary price reduction includes an increase in both
their acquisition utility (e.g., saving money) and hedonistic
experience (e.g., fun/pleasure seeking) (Chandon, Wansink,
and Laurent 2000; Gartner|G2 2004). Differences between
these appraisals reflect on the formation of positive emo-
tions (e.g., happiness) (Lazarus 1991). As noted before,
happiness is formed with the particular combination of
different appraisals: motive consistency, goal relevance,
and appetitive (e.g., presence of a reward). In the tempo-
rary price reduction event, the price discount is motive
consistent (e.g., saving money—utilitarian benefits are
met) and appetitive (e.g., discount for a shorter period of
time—need for value expression and hedonistic benefits are
met). However, in the EDLP condition, happiness is formed
only with motive consistency (e.g., economic benefits).
Therefore, we argue that evaluating a temporary price
reduction event has an ability to make consumers more
pleased and happier than does evaluating an EDLP event.
Further empirical support for our argument comes from
Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin (2001) and Garretson and
Burton (2003). Both of those studies found that although
consumers benefited from long-term discount initiatives,
there was a strong negative reaction from many consumers
regarding the conversion of a temporary price reduction
to an EDLP.
Therefore, as an extension to Schindler’s (1998) work,
which did not hypothesize the effect of the stability of the
cause of a price discount on consumers’ affective responses,
we propose:
Hypothesis 2: The more consumers attribute a price
discount’s cause to an unstable reason, the greater their
levels of happiness.
Building on our discussion of the locus and stability
dimensions, we also hypothesize that when a consumer
makes an internal attribution concerning the cause of
a discount, in addition to attributing instability to that
cause, this internal attribution should further increase the
feeling of happiness and self-confidence. In other words,
if a consumer is persistently looking for a price discount,
that consumer’s feeling of happiness should become stron-
ger if he or she learns that the respective price discount
is for a short period. This is consistent with Holbrook et
al.’s (1984) playful consumption discussion. Consumers
who look for price discounts are motivated to find deals.
Their intrinsic motivation involves seeking and conquer-
ing challenges in a manner that produces a positive affect
(e.g., happiness) associated with the feeling of efficacy
and having done well (e.g., self-confidence) (Bagozzi,
Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Roseman 1991). Schindler (1998)
proposes a similar hypothesis. However, in his case, the
causal attribution is about the stable controllability of an
internal reason. In the current case, it is the stability of a
cause of a price discount. Since the two studies examine
different questions, the following is considered an exten-
sion of Schindler’s study:
Spring 2013 225
Hypothesis 3: When the reason for a price discount is
seen as internal, the attribution that the cause of a price
discount is also unstable will have a greater effect on
(a) self-confidence and (b) happiness.
Controllability of Causality
The controllability component of attribution theory
describes the degree to which the causes of price discounts
are volitional and can be changed or are under no one’s
control. Specific to the context of price wars, firms are more
likely to feel the pressure to retaliate to a competitor’s price
discount with a matching price in order to maintain their
market share. Event ually, firms that are forced to cut their
prices will lower the quality of their services and products
to maintain their profits (Heil and Helsen 2001). Informa-
tion about a retailer’s competitive position can influence
a consumer’s perceptions of his or her controllability of
a price discount event (Hunt, Kernan, and Mizerski 1983).
Accordingly, we suggest that lowering prices due to com-
petitive pressure might create a notion of increased uncon-
trollability over retailer’s prices. Since many consumers
are aware that during price wars the reactions and actions
focus almost exclusively on the competitors instead of the
consumers, and this pricing interplay may not be sustain-
able, the resulting price discounts may affect consumers in a
negative way, leading to negative emotions such as hesitance
and feelings of uncertainty (Heil and Helsen 2001).
Appreciation means acknowledging the value and mean-
ing of something (e.g., event, person) and feeling a positive
emotional connection to it (Adler 2002). Although there
are several aspects of appreciation, we focus on gratitude
and interpersonal aspects. These aspects refer to noticing
and acknowledging a benefit that has been received and
feeling thankful for the efforts and actions of an “other.”
Appreciation is a positive emotional reaction to a benefac-
tor for something good that has been bestowed upon us,
especially including feeling positively about being cared
for (Adler 2002; Adler and Fagley 2005). Therefore, if a con-
sumer knows that price reductions are under the retailers’
control (e.g., passing on the manufacturer’s discount to
the consumers), the consumer may express gratitude and
think that since the discount came at the retailer’s own
volition, similar discounts could be offered in the future
without sacrificing product quality. For example, Honea
and Dahl (2005) found that sales promotions under a
retailer’s control create a perception of its generosity and
consumers’ appreciation toward the retailer. Therefore, as
an extension to Schindler’s (1998) work, which does not
include a hypothesis regarding the effect of controllability
on consumers’ affective responses, we propose:
Hypothesis 4: The more consumers attribute a price dis-
count’s cause to a controllable reason, the greater their
levels of appreciation.
Affective and Behavioral Consequences
The sales promotion literature highlights the relationship
between affective and behavioral consequences. For Folkes
(1998), consumers who feel confident about the price they
paid are more likely to brag and thus spread information
about the purchase. Schindler’s (1998) study confirms that
the perceived discount could have ego-expressive conse-
quences and that confident consumers are more likely to
buy the product and inform others of the purchase. Fur-
thermore, price discounts influence consumers’ purchase
intention and willingness to spread this information to
others through positive feelings (e.g., happiness), which is
a consequence of both acquisition and hedonic values that
consumers derive from their shopping experience (Bagozzi,
Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Grewal et al. 1998). For Sherman,
Schiffman, and Mathur (2001), in addition to cognitive
factors, the positive emotional state of consumers may be
an important determinant of buying behavior. Therefore,
the current study argues that appreciation as a positive
arousal may lead to an increase in consumers’ willingness
to buy and spread the information to other consumers. In
other words, when consumers feel appreciative of a retailer’s
promotion, they may express their gratitude by buying a
product in that store and telling others about their shop-
ping experience. Rather than measuring affective responses
as mediating variables, Schindler (1998) treats them as
dependent variables in his study and does not measure
the relationship between them and consumers’ behavioral
responses. Therefore, the next three hypotheses are exten-
sions of his work:
Hypothesis 5: The affective state of happiness resulting
from price discounts will positively influence consumers’
(a) willingness to buy and (b) WOM communication.
Hypothesis 6 : The affective state of appreciation resulting
from price discounts will positively influence consumers’
(a) willingness to buy and (b) WOM communication.
Hypothesis 7: The affective state of self-confidence
resulting from price discounts will positively inf lu-
ence consumers’ (a) willingness to buy and (b) WOM
communication.
226 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
METHOD
In this study, 200 undergraduate business students were
drawn from a large public university in the Southwestern
United States. The students participated in the experiment
in exchange for course credit. Seventeen participants’
responses were not included in the study because of severe
missing data and nonattentive responses. Consequently,
there were a total of 183 valid questionnaires with a mini-
mum of 21 participants in each cell. In order to extend
and generalize Schindler’s work, both male and female
participants are included in the current study. Of the 183
respondents in this study, 66 were females and 117 were
males (in Schindler’s study, there were 148 female partici-
pants). The ages of the current study’s participants ranged
from 18 to 56 years with a mean age of 21.6 years (standard
deviation [SD] = 3.4). Ninety-four percent of the st udent
sample was age 25 or younger.
Consistent with Schindler’s (1998) work, a digital cam-
era was chosen as the experimental stimuli for the current
study because it is a search product and therefore easy to
use for price verification and comparison with competi-
tors’ products. Furthermore, it is attractive and relevant to
and popular with st udent participants. The current study
employed a 2 (internal versus external locus) × 2 (unstable
versus stable price discounts) × 2 (uncontrollable versus
controllable price discounts) between-subjects design.
In attribution research, there are two research paradigms:
one simulational and reactive and the other retrospective
and operant (Weiner 1985). In the current research, we
used the first approach: participants were asked to imagine
themselves in a particular price discount situation and
then report the intensity of their affective and behavioral
reactions that they thought would be experienced in the
stated situation. Therefore, each of the eight scenarios asked
participants to envision themselves buying a digital camera.
After presenting the manipulations, we asked the subjects to
indicate their attributional reactions, level of positive emo-
tions (i.e., happiness, self-confidence, and appreciation),
and behavioral reactions (purchase intention and WOM).
In order to control the effect of a price discount size, we
fixed the percentage of the price discount in the scenarios
and also included price sensitivity as a control variable.
Further, due to the common happiness context in all
eight of the scenarios and the potential effects of priming
and transfer of affect, we ran three tests to be sure that
those factors do not inflate the correlational values and
path coefficients in the model. First, Harmon’s one-factor
test shows that there is no general factor that accounts for
most of the covariance among the latent constructs. Second,
the marker variable assessment technique recommended by
Lindell and Whitney (2001) shows that partialling out the
effect of the marker variable (e.g., price sensitivity) did not
change the significance of partial correlations among the
constructs, and 95 percent sensitivity analysis also validated
the result. Finally, a technique offered by Malhotra, Kim,
and Patil (2006) that is a variant of the marker variable
analysis was used to test the possible inflation factor. The
results of these three tests reveal no differences in sign or
significance levels. Collectively, the results of these three
tests suggest that priming and transfer of affect do not pose
a serious threat to the interpretation of the results from this
study. Two sample scenarios are in Appendix A.
Measures
In extension research, measurement is a critical issue. This
study used scales identical to or slightly adapted from
those in Schindler’s (1998) work, as well as scales from the
behavioral-pricing literature (see Appendix B).
Manipulation and Realism Checks
Since each independent variable has two conditions, we
employed t-tests for manipulation checks. There were
significant differences between the internal locus and
external locus groups (Minternal = 2.59, Mexternal = 6.05,
t(1,158) = –26.85, p < 0.001), stable and unstable discount
groups (Mstable = 2.42, Munstable = 6.44, t(1,134) = –24.16,
p < 0.001), and controllable and uncontrollable discount
groups (Muncontrollable = 0.96, Mcontrollable = 6.21 t(1,112) = –10.41,
p < 0.001). To investigate the realism of our manipulations,
we also included two realism check items at the end of the
questionnaire: “I could imagine an actual retailer doing the
things described in the price discount situation earlier,” and
“I believe that the described situation could happen in real
life” (α = 0.87, Mcomposite score = 5.17, SD = 1.72).
Validity Assessment
A confirmatory factor analysis was performed using
LISREL 8.71 to assess the measurement properties for locus,
stability, controllability, happiness, appreciation, self-
confidence, willingness to buy, WOM communication, and
price sensitivity. Since the variables appreciation and self-
confidence have only one indicator, they are not included in
the measurement model. The results indicate a good overall
fit of the model (χ2 (209) = 283.79, p < 0.001; RMSEA [root
mean square error of approximation] = 0.04; NNFI [non-
normed fit index] = 0.98; CFI [comparative fit index] = 0. 98)
Spring 2013 227
as well as strong psychometric properties of the measures.
Specifically, all of the standardized factor loadings are sta-
tistically significant at p < 0.001, which indicates convergent
validity. The factor scores ranged from 0.63 to 0.98, with
positive signs. Evidence of internal consistency stems from
composite reliability (values ranging from 0.70 to 0.98),
alpha scores (values ranging from 0.70 to 0.98), and average
variance extracted (AVE; values ranging from 0.60 to 0.96).
Because the square root of the AVE value for each construct
is higher than the interconstruct correlations, adequate
discriminant validit y exists (Fornell and Larcker 1981). We
also analyzed whether the three emotions of happiness,
self-confidence, and appreciation are distinct from one
another. The results show that they are distinct emotions
(λhappiness-item1 = 0.97, φhappiness-item1 = 0.06; λhappiness-item2 = 0.95,
φhappiness-item2 = 0.10; λappreciation-item1 = 0.09, φappreciation-item1 = 0.99;
λself-confidence-item1 = 0.33, φself-confidence-item1 = 0.89). Descriptive
information and bivariate correlations are provided in
Table 2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This research investigates the consumers’ affective reactions
through which consumers’ causal attributions to price
discounts may influence their behavioral responses. Fol-
lowing Bagozzi and Yi (1994), we used the distribution-free
approach of PLS (partial least squares) structural equation
modeling to analyze the experimental data. We used Smart
PLS 2.3 for our statistical analysis. Table 3 summarizes the
estimation results.
Supporting Schindler’s (1998) primary hypothesis,
our study found that consumers who believe that they
receive the discount for internal reasons experience strong
self-confidence (H1a: γ = –0.35, t = 4.80) and happiness
(H1b: γ = –0.69, t = 20.19). Through H1a and H1b, the
current study successfully replicates Schindler’s primary
hypothesis.
Regarding the link between stability and the feeling
of happiness, our findings suggest that when consumers
attribute a price discount to an unstable reason in general,
they have a tendency to feel happier (γ = 0.15, t = 3.02),
supporting H2. With respect to H3a, the results show that
when a consumer attributes a price discount to an internal
reason, the attribution that the price discount’s cause is
also unstable has a greater effect on the consumer’s self-
confidence (γ = –0.15, t = 1.75). However, with respect to
H3b, our findings reveal that the relationship has the oppo-
site directionality and is significant. In other words, our
results show that consumers feel happy when they attribute
a price discount to an unstable and external cause (γ = 0.11,
t = 2.16). The rationale for this conflicting result may have
to do with the nature of the emotion. The emotion of hap-
Table 2
Correlation Matrix
M
(SD) LCS STAB CONT WTB WOM HAPP APP SC PS
Locus (LCS) 4.6
(1.9)
1
Stability (STAB) 4.5
(2.3)
–0.02 1
Controllability (CONT) 5.3
(1.8)
0.007 0.03 1
Willingness to Buy
(WTB)
5.9
(0.8)
–0.23** –0.02 –0.02 1
Word of Mouth
(WOM)
4.3
(1.2)
–0.24** 0.60** –0.02 0.11 1
Happiness (HAPP) 5.2
(1.4)
–0.70** 0.17* –0.02 0.28** 0.30** 1
Appreciation (APP) 4.9
(1.4)
–0.09 0.02 0.42** 0.08 0.02 0.09 1
Self-Confidence (SC) 5.1
(1.5)
–0.34** 0.02 –0.08 0.33** 0.10 0.32** 0.06 1
Price Sensitivity (PS) 4.9
(1.4)
0.09 –0.06 –0.10 0.08 –0.03 –0.04 –0.06 0.15* 1
Notes: M = mean; SD = standard deviation. ** p < 0.05 (t wo-tailed); * p < 0.01 (two tailed).
228 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
piness is not necessarily associated with a specific agent
(e.g., self, other), it is more of a circumstance-caused emo-
tion. Therefore, consumers may feel happy when they find
a short-term price discount irrespective of the agent source
of the cause of the discount. However, since self-confidence
is more of a self-referent emotion, when the cause of the
discount is perceived as internal, this emotion may have
suppressed the feeling of happiness. Since happiness is a
circumstance-caused emotion, it may be more apparent
when consumers attribute the reason for the discount to
an external cause (e.g., there is no other emotion that may
suppress the feeling of happiness when the reason is per-
ceived as external). With regard to H4, when consumers
attribute a price discount to a reason that is controllable
by the retailer, they are more likely to feel appreciative
(γ = 0.42, t = 7.02), supporting H4.
Regarding the relationships between affective dimen-
sions and consumers’ behavioral responses, our findings
suggest that when consumers experience happiness in a
price discount situation, they are more likely to be willing
to buy (WTB) the product and share this experience with
others (βWTB = 0.19, t = 2.75; βWOM = 0.30, t = 3.92), support-
ing H5a and H5b. Whereas, the feeling of appreciation
does not have an effect on either willingness to buy or
WOM communication, rejecting H6a and H6b (βWTB = 0.09,
t = 1.09; βWOM = 0.02, t = 0.36). The rationale for this lack
of impact of appreciation may be that although consum-
ers feel appreciative of retailers’ initiatives to reduce the
price, this may not be a sufficient reason for them to take
such actions. Finally, regarding H7a, our findings suggest
that the link bet ween self-confidence and willingness to
buy is strongly supported, meaning that when consum-
ers feel confident about obtaining a discount, they are
more likely to buy the product. However, the relationship
between self-confidence and WOM communication (H7b)
is insignificant (βWTB = 0.25, t = 3.36; βWOM = 0.00, t = 0.04).
The rationale for this finding may be that feeling confident
about obtaining a discount is more of an introverted and
self-referent feeling. Consequently, perceiving responsibil-
ity for getting a discount as a personal victory, consumers
may prefer to keep this experience to themselves.
Mediation Analysis
Extending Schindler’s (1998) work, our proposed model
includes several potential mediation effects. Specifically,
this research proposes that (1) happiness mediates the
relationship between locus and stabilit y and WOM and will-
ingness to buy; (2) appreciation mediates the relationship
between controllability and WOM and willingness to buy;
and (3) self-confidence mediates the relationship between
locus and WOM and willingness to buy. In order to test the
mediation effects, the product of coefficients strategy was
employed (Preacher and Hayes 2008). This approach was
preferred to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal step approach
because (1) it ignores both the estimate of the indirect effect
and the effect’s standard error, which hampers the direct
investigation of statistical significance, and (2) testing the
Table 3
Path Coefficients from PLS Analysis
Structural Path Estimate t-Value R2
Effects on Consumers’ Affective Responses
Locus → Happiness –0.69** 20.19 0.52
Stability → Happiness 0.15** 3.02
Locus × Stability → Happiness 0.11** 2.16
Locus → Self-Confidence –0.35** 4.80 0.14
Locus × Stability → Self-Confidence –0.15* 1.75
Controllability → Appreciation 0.42** 7.02 0.18
Effects on Consumers’ Behavioral Responses
Happiness → Willingness to Buy 0.19** 2.75 0.19
Self-Confidence → Willingness to Buy 0.25** 3.36
Appreciation → Willingness to Buy 0.09 1.09
Happiness → WOM 0.30** 3.92 0.11
Self-Confidence → Word of Mouth 0.00 0.04
Appreciation → Word of Mouth 0.02 0.36
** p < 0.05 (two-tailed); * p < 0.01 (two tailed).
Spring 2013 229
null hypothesis that the indirect effect is equal to zero
means one less hypothesis test, which eventually lessens
the likelihood that a type II error would occur. Mediation
analysis was conducted with the SAS macro (Preacher and
Hayes 2008). The bootstrapped 95 percent confidence inter-
val and the product coefficient approach with a standard
error estimate were used to test the significance of indirect
effects in the models. As can be seen in Table 4, happiness
mediates the relationship between locus and stability and
WOM and willingness to buy; appreciation does not medi-
ate the relationship between controllability and WOM and
willingness to buy; and finally, self-confidence mediates the
relationship between locus and willingness to buy but does
not mediate the relationship between locus and WOM.
THEORETICAL AND MANAGERIAL
IMPLICATIONS
The current study extends Schindler’s (1998) research on
smart shopper feelings, which provides preliminary evidence
that price discounts that are designed to evoke attributions of
responsibility enhance the promotions’ affective appeal and
behavioral consequences. As part of our extension effort, the
replication of Schindler’s primary hypothesis finds full sup-
port. According to the results of our study, seeing oneself as
responsible for getting a price discount triggers heightened
affective responses. Specifically, consumers who perceive
themselves as responsible for obtaining a discount have a
tendency to feel happier and more self-confident than the
consumers who attribute price discounts to external reasons.
Therefore, price promotions that are designed to evoke attri-
butions of responsibility with a specific emphasis on hap-
piness and self-confidence could become critical to retailer
strategies. One specific example is referral price discounts
(e.g., Biyalogorsky, Gerstner, and Libai 2000). Customers
who refer retailers’ services to their friends get significant
price discounts on their next purchase and may feel happy
and confident about what they have accomplished.
In his study, Schindler found that the effect of internal
locus on WOM communication is not statistically signifi-
cant. However, in our extension efforts, treating affective
responses as mediators rather than dependent variables
reveals some interesting results. Consumers’ perception
of responsibility for obtaining a discount increases their
willingness to buy that product and talk about the shopping
experience only through the feeling of happiness, whereas
self-confidence mediates only the relationship bet ween
internal locus and willingness to buy. This empirical evi-
dence is consistent with the suggestion that consumers who
are feeling smart about their shopping experiences transfer
this feeling into positive emotions that eventually influence
purchase intention and WOM communication. For example,
delighted customers, who get significant discounts because
of their referral to friends, not only feel happy but also
eventually carry over this positive feeling for buying and
talking about this positive experience to others.
Further, our results show that happiness explains most of
the variance in WOM communication. Bagozzi, Gopinath,
and Nyer (1999) state that coping with positive emotions
(e.g., happiness) often involves sharing one’s good fortune
and positive experience with others. Similarly, self-confi-
dence explains most of the variance in consumers’ willing-
ness to buy. Consistent with Schindler’s (1998) findings,
monetary gain and having won an implied game against the
seller could serve as a token of a victory, which eventually
leads to willingness to purchase the discounted product.
Interestingly, in this study, the fact that happiness explains
most of the variance in WOM communication and that self-
Table 4
Test of Mediation: Bootstrap Results for Indirect Ef fects
Path
Indirect
Effect
Standard
Error LL 95% CI HL 95% CI
Locus → Happiness → Willingness to Buy –0.07** 0.03 –0.01 –0.145
Locus → Confidence → Willingness to Buy –0.04** 0.02 –0.02 –0.01
Locus → Happiness → Word of Mouth –0.11** 0.04 –0.19 –0.04
Locus → Confidence → Word of Mouth –0.006 0.017 –0.04 0.03
Stability → Happiness → Willingness to Buy 0.018** 0.009 0.003 0.037
Stability → Happiness → Word of Mouth 0.018** 0.01 0.002 0.04
Controllability → Appreciation → Willingness to Buy 0.02 0.02 –0.01 0.06
Controllability → Appreciation → Word of Mouth 0.012 0.023 –0.03 0.06
Notes: LL = lower level; HL = higher level; CI = confidence interval. Values are calculated through a bootstrapping routine with 183 cases and 1,000
samples. ** p < 0.05.
230 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
confidence explains most of the variance in willingness to
buy emphasizes the importance of the causal attribution
of internal locus in price discount situations (e.g., internal
locus is the only causal attribution that leads to both hap-
piness and self-confidence). Briefly, among the three causal
attributions to price discounts, internal locus (e.g., seeing
oneself as responsible for getting the discount) is the most
critical one explaining the behavioral aspect of price dis-
counts. Therefore, consistent with Schindler’s (1998) find-
ings, retailers should design price promotions that combine
both monetary and nonmonetary incentives. Furthermore,
as noted earlier, retailers should design price promotions
in a way that they evoke attributions of responsibility. One
specific example is the use of QR (quick response) codes.
Retailers can use QR codes to engage customers in instant
in-store price promotions. Customers with smartphones
can scan QR codes to get instant price reductions, and their
active involvement can make them feel responsible for get-
ting the price discount.
Another interesting finding from the current study is
that consumers feel happier when they take advantage of
a price discount caused by an unstable reason (e.g., tem-
porary price cuts) rather than a fixed and stable reason
(e.g., EDLP). Extending Schindler’s (1998) work, this find-
ing reinforces the findings that even though consumers
find an EDLP strategy helpful, they still would like to visit
multiple stores to get good deals because they want to
have an adventurous and hedonistic shopping experience
(Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent 2000). The mediation
analysis shows that happiness completely mediates the rela-
tionships between unstable price discounts and WOM and
purchase intention. This finding implies that it is not the
temporary price discounts that lead to purchase intention
and WOM communication, it is the feeling of happiness
that is created by the adventurous and hedonistic shopping
experience that increases consumers’ intention to purchase
and their WOM communication. In other words, retailers
should design in-store promotion activities in ways that
can provide adventurous experiences (e.g., in-store price
promotion games). The interaction between internal locus
and instability reinforces the previous finding. The finding
suggests that retailers that design temporary price cuts in
a way that consumers will attribute finding these discounts
to themselves would increase retailers’ sales. As the last
component of the attributional theory, controllability has
a positive effect on appreciation, meaning that consumers
are more appreciative when they know that price discount
activity is volitional and under the seller’s control. Our find-
ings, however, show that appreciation does not lead to either
purchase intention or WOM communication. For example,
Target frequently announces that the temporary price cuts
are due to rollback prices (voluntarily passing on the manu-
facturers’ discount on consumer prices). But during price
wars, in order to survive the competition, many firms are
forced to reduce the prices below their previously set price
levels and retaliate against competitors’ price cuts. However,
this may result in consumer hesitance and uncertainty. For
example, when Amazon.com announced that it reduced the
prices of the previous Kindle models because of the new
Kindle Fire, manufacturers of other e-book readers retaliated
against Amazon.com’s price cuts and drastically lowered
their prices. But the sales results were in the favor of Amazon
.com and drastically reduced prices did not attract more
customers to other e-book readers. The mediation analysis
results also confirm this finding that appreciation does
not mediate the relationship between controllability and
purchase intention and WOM. This finding suggests that
although consumers positively evaluate controllable price
discounts and appreciate being taken care of, it is not a suf-
ficient reason for them to consider buying the discounted
product and share this experience with others. Consistent
with Schindler’s (1998) st udy, our research argues that
consumers’ affective and behavioral responses to price
discount activities will be robust to their price sensitivity.
Therefore, price sensitivity is controlled (e.g., by fixing the
discount rate to 25 percent in the scenarios and including
price sensitivity as a control variable). Based on our results,
price sensitivity does not explain much of the variance in
willingness to buy (γ = 0.08, t = 0.80) or WOM communica-
tion (γ = 0.02, t = 0.17). Furthermore, as part of our effort to
extend Schindler’s study, we included gender as a control
variable. Interestingly, the findings indicate that females
are more likely to be willing to purchase the discounted
product (γ = –0.20, t = 3.2). This finding is consistent with
previous research that shows that women have more of a
tendency to buy discounted products (Blackwell, Engel, and
Miniard 2005). However, our results also show that gender
does not have a significant effect on WOM communication
(γ = –0.12, t = 1.55). This is consistent with research that
shows that males and females act similarly regarding their
WOM communication behavior (Wiedmann, Walsh, and
Mitchell 2001).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Our study is not without limitations. The study was con-
ducted in controlled experimental conditions where the
retailer store brand and product brand names were elimi-
Spring 2013 231
nated by using hy pothetical brand names. If store brand
loyalty effects had been taken into account, the results
might have been different. Therefore, future studies could
include the store and brand loyalty constructs. In order
to get more robust and generalizable findings, future
research could use more than one product. As metrics
of emotions, we utilized single-item appreciation and
self-confidence measures. Using more than single-item
measures for these constructs may provide more stable
and concrete results.
CONCLUSION
The current study successfully extends Schindler’s (1998)
research. It fully supports his primary finding—the distinct
phenomenon of smart shopper feelings. Furthermore, the
current study, drawing from attributional theory, extends
Schindler’s work by testing new relationships and pro-
vides more practical implications regarding how to design
price discount activities to increase sales. Briefly, the cur-
rent study goes beyond the focal point of smart shopper
feelings and investigates the more comprehensive causal
attributional framework. As Berthon et al. (2002) noted,
extension research can facilitate further theory develop-
ment. The purpose of our research will be fulfilled if it acts
as a catalyst that sparks further research with reference to
smart shopper feelings in the area of causal attributions to
price discounts and consumers’ affective and behavioral
responses.
REFERENCES
Adler, Mitchel G. (2002), “Conceptualizing and Measuring
Appreciation: The Development of a Positive Psychology
Construct,” Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ.
———, and Nancy S. Fagley (2005), “Individual Differences in Find-
ing Value and Meaning as a Unique Predictor of Subjective
Well-Being,” Journal of Personality, 73 (1), 79–114.
Ailawadi, Kusum L., Donald R. Lehmann, and Scott A. Neslin
(2001), “Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the
Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble’s Value
Pricing Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (1), 44–61.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi (1994), “Advanced Topics in
Structural Equation Modeling,” in Advanced Methods of
Marketing Research, Richard P. Bagozzi, ed., Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell, 1–52.
———, Mahesh Gopinath, and Prashanth U. Nyer (1999), “The Role
of Emotions in Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Market-
ing Science, 27 (2), 184–206.
Balachander, Subramanian, Bikram Ghosh, and Stock Axel (2010),
“Why Bundle Discounts Can Be a Profitable Alternative to
Competing on Price Promotions,” Marketing Science, 29 (4),
624–638.
Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator-
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), 1173–1182.
Bearden, William O., David M. Hardesty, and Randall L. Rose
(2001), “Consumer Self-Confidence: Refinements in Concep-
tualization and Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research,
29 (June), 121–134.
Beedie, Christopher, Peter Terry, and Andrew Lane (2005), “Distinc-
tions Between Emotion and Mood,” Cognition and Emotion,
19 (6), 847–878.
Berthon, Pierre, Leyland Pitt, Michael Ewing, and Christopher
L. Carr (2002), “Potential Research Space in MIS: A Frame-
work for Envisioning and Evaluating Research Replication,
Extension, and Generation,” Information Systems Research,
13 (4), 416–427.
Biyalogorsky, Eyal, Eitan Gerstner, and Barak Libai (2000), “Cus-
tomer Referral Management: Optimal Reward Programs,”
Marketing Science, 20 (1), 82–95.
Blackwell, Roger D., Paul W. Miniard, and James F. Engel (2005),
Consumer Behavior, 10th ed., Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
College.
Chandon, Pierre, Brian Wansink, and Gilles L aurent (2000), “A
Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effective-
ness,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 65–81.
DelVecchio, Devon, David H. Henard, and Traci H. Freling (2006),
“The Effect of Sales Promotion on Post-Promotion Brand
Preference: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Retailing, 82 (3),
203–213.
Doods, William B., Kent B. Monroe, and Dhruv Grewal (1991),
“Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Informat ion on Buyer’s
Product Evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28 (3),
307–319.
Folkes, Valerie S. (1998), “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer
Behavior: A Review and New Direction,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (4), 548–565.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measure-
ment Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382–388.
Garretson, Judith A., and Scot Burton (2003), “Highly Coupon
and Sale Prone Consumers: Benefits Beyond Price Saving,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (2), 162–172.
Gartner|G2 (2004), “Both EDLP and Hi-Lo Retail Pricing Can
Work If Executed Properly,” Stamford, CT, June (available
at http://efox.cox.smu.edu/mktg6211/both_edlp_and_hilo
.pdf).
Grewal, Dhruv, R. Krishnan Krishnan, Julie Baker, and Norm Borin
(1998), “The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price
Discounts on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Inten-
tions,” Journal of Retailing, 74 (3), 331–352.
Hartline, Michael D., and Keith C. Jones (1996), “Employee Per-
formance Cues in a Hotel Service Environment: Influence
on Perceived Service Quality, Value, and Word-of-Mouth
Intention,” Journal of Business Research, 35 (3), 205–217.
Heil, Oliver P., and Kristiaan Helsen (2001), “Toward an Under-
standing of Price Wars: Their Nature and How They Erupt,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18 (1–2),
83–98.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1984), “Experience Seeking: A Subjectiv-
ist Perspective of Consumption,” Journal of Business Research,
12 (1), 115–136.
232 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
Holbrook Morris B., Robert W. Chestnut, Terence A. Olivia, and
Eric A. Greenleaf (1984), “Play as a Consumption Experi-
ence: The Roles of Emotions, Performance, and Personality
in the Enjoyment of Games,” Journal of Consumer Research,
11 (2), 728–739.
Honea, Heather, and Darren W. Dahl (2005), “The Promotion Affect
Scale: Defining the Affective Dimensions of Promotions,”
Journal of Business Research, 58 (4), 543–551.
Hunt, James M., Jerome B. Kernan, and Richard W. Mizerski
(1983), “Causal Inference in Consumer Response to Inequi-
table Exchange,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 10,
Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds., Ann Arbor, MI:
Association for Consumer Research, 136–141.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1991), “Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-
Relational Theory of Emotion,” American Psychologist, 46
(8), 819–834.
Lin, Chien-Huang, and Hung-Chou Lin (2009), “The Effect of
Mood States on Variet y-Seeking Behavior: The Moderating
Role of Price Promotion,” Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 37 (10), 1307–1311.
Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Whitney (2001), “Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross Sectional Research
Design,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–121.
Malhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and Ashutosh Patil (2006),
“Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison
of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research,”
Management Science, 52 (12), 1865–1883.
Manning, Kenneth C., and David E. Sprott (2007), “Multiple Unit
Price Promotions and Their Effects on Quantit y Purchase
Intentions,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (4), 411–421.
Oatley, Keith, and Jennifer M. Jenkins (1992), “Human Emotions:
Function and Dysfunction,” Annual Review of Psycholog y,
43, 55–85.
Peine, Klaus, Mark Heitmann, and Andreas Herrmann (2009),
“Getting a Feel for Price Affect: A Conceptual Framework
and Empirical Investigation of Consumers’ Emotional
Responses to Price Information,” Psychology & Marketing,
26 (1), 39–66.
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes (2008), “Asymptotic
and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indi-
rect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research
Methods, 40 (3), 879–891.
Roseman, Ira J. (1991), “Appraisal Determinants of Discrete Emo-
tions,” Cognition and Emotion, 5 (3), 161–200.
Russell, Dan (1982), “The Causal Dimension Scale: A Measure of
How Individuals Perceive Causes,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42 (6), 1137–1145.
Schindler, Robert M. (1998), “Consequences of Perceiving One-
self as Responsible for Obtaining a Discount: Evidence for
Smart-Shopper Feelings,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7
(4), 371–392.
Sherman, Elaine, Leon G. Schiffman, and Anil Mathur (2001), “The
Influence of Gender on the New Age Elderly’s Consumption
Orientations,” Psychology & Marketing, 18 (10), 1073–1089.
Smith, Craig, Kelly N. Hayness, Richard S. Lazarus, and Lois K.
Pope (1993), “In Search of the ‘Hot’ Cognitions: Attribu-
tions, Appraisals, and Their Relation to Emotion,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (5), 916–929.
“2009 Promo Industry Trends Report” (2009), Chief Mar-
keter, December 1 (available at www.chiefmarketer.com/
promotional-marketing/2009-promo-industry-trends-
report-01122009/).
Wagner, Tillmann, Thorsten Hennig-Thurau, and Thomas Rudolph
(2009), “Does Customer Demotion Jeopardize Loyalty?”
Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 86–98.
Wakefield, Kirk L., and J. Jeffrey Inman (2003), “Situational Price
Sensitivity: The Role of Consumption Occasion, Social Con-
text, and Income,” Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 99–102.
Weiner, Bernard (1985), “An Attribution Theory of Achievement
and Motivation,” Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548–573.
Wiedmann, Klaus-Peter, Gianfranco Walsh, and Vincent-Wayne
Mitchell (2001), “The Man Maven: An Agent for Diffusing
Market Information,” Journal of Marketing Communications,
7 (4), 195–212.
Wierzbicka, Anna (1992), “Defining Emotion Concepts,” Cognitive
Science, 16 (4), 539–581.
Spring 2013 233
APPENDIX A
Sample Scenarios
Experimental Scenario for Internal Locus, Stability, and Controllability Conditions
You are in the process of making arrangements to attend your best friend’s wedding this summer. You are quite excited
about the wedding and decide to look into buying a digital camera so that you can take pictures of the event and make
your friend’s happiest day memorable. Since your money is tight, you have decided that you will continuously search
until you find a place that offers the best deal for the camera that you want. For weeks, you have continually searched the
Internet, studied the ads in your local newspaper, and compared prices at various retail stores. You think that deals are
bound to exist somewhere, and you are keen to find a deal. You have spent a lot of time searching. But you are very set
on finding the best deal ever! Today, you are again out comparing prices at various stores across town. Finally, at the local
retailer Power-Mart, you find one of the cameras you have been interested in at a substantial 25 percent price discount. You
feel relieved to have found the camera at a reduced price at last and think that without such an elaborate search on your
part you would not have found such an offer. A sign inside the store says that the price reduction offered by Power-Mart is
permanent. The price is guaranteed not to increase for a long time. One of the store employees tells you that Power-Mart
offers this price decrease as a special treat to its customers.
Experimental Scenario for External Locus, Instability, and Uncontrollability Conditions
You are in the process of making arrangements to attend your best friend’s wedding this summer. You are quite excited
about the wedding and decide to look into buying a digital camera so that you can take pict ures of the event. The past
few weeks have been extremely busy for you. Consequently, you did not search at all for a camera. Today, purely by coin-
cidence, you walk by the retailer Power-Mart at a local strip mall and see one of the cameras you have been interested in
at a substantial 25 percent price discount. A sign inside the store says that the price reduction offered by Power-Mart is
temporary, for two days only. After tomorrow, the price reduction will no longer be offered. One of the store employees
tells you that Power-Mart was forced to reduce the price of the camera because of high competition with other retailers.
Power-Mart had no choice but to reduce the price.
234 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
APPENDIX B
Constructs and Items
Factor
Loadings CR/AVE Based on
Locus (semantic scale from 1 to 7) 0.95/0.91 Russell (1982)
The reason I obtained the price discount . . .
. . . is something internal (e.g., myself)/external (e.g.,
Power-Mart)
0.95
. . . reflects an aspect or attribute of me/of Power-Mart 0.96
. . . is about my behavior/is about Power-Mart 0.94
Stability (semantic scale from 1 to 7) 0.98/0.93 Russell (1982)
This price reduction is . . .
. . . permanent/temporary 0.97
. . . not going to change/going to change 0.97
. . . stable over time/unstable over time 0.96
. . . valid in the long term/valid in the short term 0.96
Controllability (semantic scale from 1 to 7) 0.95/0.90 Russell (1982)
This price reduction . . .
. . . was not controllable/controllable by Power-Mart 0.95
. . . is something Power-Mart had no power over/had
power over
0.96
. . . could not have been regulated/could have been
regulated by Power-Mart
0.95
Happiness (Likert scale: 1 = “highly disagree,” 7 = “highly
agree”)
0.96/0.96 Honea and Dahl (2005)
Happy 0.98
Pleased 0.98
Willingness to Buy (Likert scale: 1 = “low,” 7 = “high”) 0.85/0.68 Doods, Monroe, and Grewal
(1991)
The likelihood that I would purchase the camera would
be . . .
0.88
My willingness to buy the camera would be . . . 0.87
The certainty that I would plan to purchase the camera
is . . .
0.82
The likelihood that I would consider buying the camera
is . . .
0.72
Word of Mouth (Likert scale: 1 = “highly disagree,” 7 = “highly
agree”)
0.88/0.73 Hartline and Jones (1996)
I would tell a lot of people about this discount . . . 0.76
I would encourage my friends and relatives to take
advantage of this discount
0.89
I would suggest to my friends and relatives to benefit from
this discount
0.90
I would share my knowledge of this discount with other
people
0.86
Price Sensitivity (Likert scale: 1 = “highly disagree,” 7 = “highly
agree”)
0.70/0.60 Wakefield and Inman (2003)
I am generally willing to make extra effort to find a low
price for a camera
0.63
I will generally change what I had planned to buy in order
to take advantage of a lower price for a camera
0.83
I am generally sensitive to differences in prices of a camera 0.85
Notes: CR = composite reliabilit y; AVE = average variance extracted.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.