ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

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 shopper feelings.
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.
... Emotions are thus a natural mediator between how an event is appraised in terms of responsibility and the subsequent response that this appraisal triggers. Importantly, prior evidence shows that emotions, whether positive or negative, play a significant mediating role in other similar relationships, such as those between attributions and perceived price unfairness [32] or between attributions and the behavioral consequences of a price discount [7]. Furthermore, given that our framework proposes that the direct relationships between causal attribution, emotion and perceived deceptive pricing are moderated by price inequality (H 1 -H 3 ), this indirect influence of external attribution on perceived deceptive pricing represents a pattern of conditional indirect effects or moderated mediation process [38,60]. ...
... This latter result is consistent with the literature. For instance, [7,32] found that when a consumer is advantaged in price, the external attribution of this to the firm polices was positively related to feelings of gratitude (i.e., positive emotions), with these feelings thus playing a key mediating role. We add to this evidence in two ways: (1) the mediating role of emotions also occurs in a negative scenario (when the consumer is disadvantaged in price), and (2) when additional antecedents (personality factors) are included in the framework, attributions, in addition to emotions, act as partial mediators in the relationship between personality and perceived deception, with this mediation being also moderated by the direction of the inequality. ...
... Definitions of the variables in our framework Variable Definition Source Machiavellianism A personality trait characterized by being strategic, cold, pragmatic and manipulative, and for seeing others as untrustworthy, self-serving and malevolent [16,20] Consumer cynicism An individual consumer's attitude towards the marketplace characterized by seeing companies as opportunistic actors that harm consumers [36] Exaggerated deservingness It represents a self-serving attitude that one is always entitled to the most advantageous outcomes along with the belief that one should never have to suffer disagreeable fates [14,43] Causal attribution-advantaged/disadvantaged scenario It reflects the external ascription of responsibility for an advantaged/disadvantaged price to the online retailer policies [7,32] Negative emotions Negative emotions such as anger, disgust and annoyance experienced by an individual [2,83] Perceived deceptive pricing A perception that occurs when individuals feel that online retailers are using pricing tactics to induce false beliefs about the real value of their offerings [65,66] ...
Article
Full-text available
This research examines the personality, cognitive and emotional antecedents of deceptive price perceptions that occur in price inequalities. We draw on appraisal theories to examine the extent to which these relationships are different depending on two situations: consumers who are exposed to an advantaged situation (lower price) and those exposed to a disadvantaged situation (higher price). Data from 994 individuals in the online hotel booking context show that the direction of the price inequality significantly influences the way in which both personality and the attributional–emotional process affect perceptions of deceptive pricing. Our findings provide a better understanding of this subjective, complex, but also increasingly prevalent phenomena of price inequality and perceived deceptive pricing in online retailing. Implications for theory and management are discussed.
... In the context of large-scale shopping events, such proactive action tendencies are reflected in the impulse of a customer to brag to others about her Page 3954 success (Folkes, 1988). In other words, all these emotions (i.e., smart shopper feelings) increase the motivation to share the own positive experiences with the purchase and the shopping event (Gelbrich, 2011;Bicen & Madhavaram, 2013;Schindler, 1998). Hence, we expect that large-scale shopping events influence the textual content of OCRs due to the emotional aspects of smart shopper feelings. ...
... Here, the buyer not only decides to take advantage of a brand's low price by purchasing it, but also takes additional advantage by purchasing more of the brand at the time. It could also be the case that buyers show behavioral learning in this regard, in other words, they learn to enjoy the psychological payoff from making "smart" money-saving decisions (Bicen & Madhavaram, 2013), and repetitively buy inexpensive brands, and buy more per occasion. ...
Article
This study examines behavioral brand loyalty in a category that, based on industry evidence, is expected to exhibit high loyalty: liquor (distilled spirits). The study aims to extend knowledge of the factors that underlie behavioral loyalty, including brand characteristics of price level and promotion incidence, and buyer characteristics of age and income. Drawing on theory and evidence relating to prospect theory, the “smart shopper” concept, as well as literature pertaining to age and loyalty, we develop a series of hypotheses and test them using extensive consumer panel purchasing data for US households. The analysis confirms that liquor is indeed a high loyalty category in the context of consumer goods, evidenced via high share of category requirements (SCR). The study also identifies that liquor brands follow the double jeopardy pattern, whereby larger‐share brands enjoy somewhat higher loyalty, and that exceptions—brands with unusually high or low volume loyalty for their size—are related to high volume purchased per occasion. In turn, there is a strong negative association between brand price and high average volume purchased per occasion (i.e., cheaper brands are bought in larger quantity or volume than expensive ones). The study also finds that brands with a low price tend to be particularly attractive to low‐income households, and that, in turn, low‐income households exhibit higher brand loyalty. These new findings contribute to the literature on brand loyalty and the links between loyalty, brand characteristics, and demographics.
... Several studies corroborate the fact that consumers perceive themselves as smart shoppers to a greater extent when price discounts are attributed to internal (vs. external) causes (Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013;de Pechpeyrou, 2013;Garretson et al., 2002;Schindler, 1998). Smart-shopper self-perception pertains to consumers' need for achieving intrinsic reward from shopping (Garretson et al., 2002). ...
... For instance, in co-creation for hospitality services, a consumer eating a meal in a restaurant may believe that the bad taste of the product is due to poor cooking by the chef or due to the incorrect combination of ingredients selected to create the meal. In other words, the consumer will be affected by the locus of causality (Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013) when considering whether the cause of a negative outcome lies in their own action (internal attribution) or the action (cooking) of a third party, i.e. the restaurant (external attribution). Additionally, the so-called self-serving bias refers to individuals' tendency to assign more responsibility to themselves for successful outcomes (their own efforts, abilities, etc.), whereas in the case of failed outcomes, blame is generally given to external factors (Miller and Ross, 1975) as a mechanism to maintain or enhance self-esteem/self-respect and safeguard their ego (Arkin et al., 1980). ...
Article
Nowadays, co-creation is a significant trend in the hospitality industry. Through two experiments, this paper investigates the effects of low and high outcome quality resulting from co-creation on consumer satisfaction. In particular, we examine engagement and emotions as the underlying mechanisms that mediate the relationship between outcome quality and satisfaction. Our findings build upon a service-dominant logic framework and indicate that outcome quality influences customer satisfaction, with emotions acting as a mediator for low-quality outcomes and engagement as a mediator for high-quality outcomes. Interestingly, engagement operates in low outcome quality settings and partly compensates for a suboptimal result, highlighting the key role co-creation can play in the event of a failed encounter. This article contributes to co-creation literature as well as to the ongoing methodological debate on emotion measurement. In addition, it offers managerial insightful directions for hospitality companies.
... However, research and business practices show that this is not always the case. Therefore, it is interesting to ask the fol-lowing question: are there any benefits other than monetary savings that give impetus to consumers (Bicen, Madhavaram 2013). ...
Article
Full-text available
The importance of sales and its promotion is constantly increasing. Technological progress contributes to the constant development of marketing activities of companies and the introduction of innovations. It is necessary to attract customers and establish a long-term relationship with them. Along with changes in consumer tastes and new preferences, it is necessary for companies to correctly select sales promotion tools and use them effectively. Sales promotion tools can influence consumer buying behavior and loyalty. Companies today focus on existing and new customers. Smart leaders try to focus their business not only on short-term success, but also on long-term results. Relationship marketing influences customer loyalty. Organizations are pooling their efforts to achieve this goal in terms of products, pricing, distribution, incentives and services. In relationship marketing, special attention is paid to loyal buyers. The task of finding and retaining a client becomes increasingly individual. In the face of competition , it is important to know and constantly study your client. Not only to discover its advantages, to guess the hidden desires, but also to understand the reasons why the company is losing its customers. Study of these issues is important in modern conditions. The author discusses the opinions, definitions and views of various researchers regarding the mentioned problem, and then draws conclusions and offers some recommendations .
... HiLo stores, on the other hand, attract price-conscious, value-conscious consumers who like the excitement involved with buying products on a deal (Ailawadi et al. 2001). Discounts offer monetary benefits to customers and non-monetary benefits like the feeling of being a 'smart shopper' (Schindler 1998;Bicen and Madhavaram 2013). Researchers like Bell and Lattin (1998) and Singh et al. (2006) have shown that large basket buyers are more likely to choose EDLP stores while cherry pickers are likely to choose HiLo stores (Ortmeyer et al. 1991). ...
Article
Full-text available
Store pricing policy helps consumers to form perceptions about the products as well as the store. We study two commonly used pricing policies, EDLP and HiLo from the customers’ point of view. We break down these policies based the amount of variability and the degree of predictability. Consumers form perceptions of price fairness and store trust based on these pricing policies and consequently decide their purchase intentions. We observe that price fairness perceptions mediate between variability of pricing and purchase intention. Different pricing policies are likely to attract different types of consumers. Some customers are likely to be driven by deals and discounts while others are not. We show that trust mediates between variability and predictability of pricing and purchase intention only for customers who are low on deal proneness. Our study contributes to the literature of pricing policy by viewing promotion policy from the perspective of its elements—variability and predictability.
... Because retailer brands often offer the best price-quality balance, when consumers purchase SB as the outcome of their evaluative efforts, they feel self-confident and proud of their purchasing capability (Bicen & Madhavaram, 2013). Moreover, their smart shopper feelings are directly and positively related to SB attitude (Gómez-Suárez et al., 2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship of Schwartz's theory of basic individual values to smart shoppers' predisposition to purchase store brands, considering the mediating role of the smart shopper self-concept and the moderating role of the country of origin. After an initial qualitative analysis, survey data were collected from a sample of 868 shoppers in four western countries (Spain, France, Germany and the United States). Then, a series of statistical estimations was developed through structural equation modelling. The results of these sequential models showed metric equivalence, providing a basis for generating valid comparisons among the four countries. The final findings corroborate the idea that the individual’s value structure has a direct and positive effect on the smart shopper self-concept and that this effect in turn influences the shopper’s attitude towards store brands. The results also show that although the dimensions of the buyers’ value structures are cross-country invariant, the set of values that best define smart shoppers differs significantly by country. Mixed results are found when the relationship between the smart shopper self-concept and the attitude towards store brands is analysed for each individual country. These outcomes offer international retail managers guidance on how to best stimulate smart shoppers’ positive responses towards store brands.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Companies today focus on existing and new customers. Thus, business makes calculations over the long run rather than the short run. Relationship marketing influences customer loyalty. Organizations are pooling their efforts to achieve this goal in terms of products, pricing, distribution, incentives and services. Relationship marketing is based on the idea that important customers for a company need constant and special attention. The task of finding and retaining a client becomes increasingly individual. In the face of competition, it is important to know and constantly study your client; Not only to discover its advantages, to guess the hidden desires, but also to understand the reasons why some clients go to competitors. Research on these issues is important at the modern stage. The author discusses the different views of researchers-scientists regarding the mentioned problem, and also makes conclusions. The article contains several recommendations of the author.
Article
The current research considers dual branding, where national brand manufacturers produce store brands against which they compete. Although agreements are confidential, rumors about the practice emerge. Thus, the authors examine the influence of dual branding rumor exposure on consumers’ respective national and store brand evaluations. The results support positive (negative) serial indirect effects of rumor exposure on participants’ store (national) brand evaluations through dual branding beliefs and comparative quality perceptions. In addition, smart shopper perceptions amplify the indirect effects of dual branding rumor exposure on store, but not national, brand outcomes.
Data
Full-text available
In recent years, some consumer products' firms have made attempts to replace or sharply reduce the use of sales promotion, including coupons and sales, with everyday low prices (EDLP). While consumers can benefit from EDLP initiatives, the strong negative reactions from many consumers suggest they do not necessarily favor the reduction of sales promotion activities. Their negative response raises concern that consumers who are very highly involved with sales promotion have strong underlying reasons for their resistance. This article attempts to develop a broader understanding of the differences between those consumers highly coupon and sale prone and those less prone to sales promotion across a variety of economic and shopping-related dimensions. Results from three studies reveal that highly prone consumers are drawn to reduced prices, but they also enjoy shopping and gain a sense of achievement by purchasing products on special. Implications of findings are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
Hierarchical loyalty programs award elevated customer status (e.g., "elite membership") to consumers who meet a predefined spending level. However, if a customer subsequently falls short of the required spending level, firms commonly revoke that status. The authors investigate the impact of such customer demotion on loyalty intentions toward the firm. Building on prospect theory and emotions theory, the authors hypothesize that changes in customer status have an asymmetric negative effect, such that the negative impact of customer demotion is stronger than the positive impact of status increases. An experimental scenario study provides evidence that loyalty intentions are indeed lower for demoted customers than for those who have never been awarded a preferred status, meaning that hierarchical loyalty programs can drive otherwise loyal customers away from a firm. A field study using proprietary sales data from a different industry context demonstrates the robustness of the negative impact of customer demotion. The authors test the extent to which design variables of hierarchical loyalty programs may attenuate the negative consequences of status demotions with a second experimental scenario study and present an analytical model that links status demotion to customer equity to aid managerial decision making.
Article
Full-text available
With the growing competition and complexity of marketing information,interpersonal communication is becoming increasingly important to marketers and consumers (mavens) who can act as disseminators of marketing communications and play an important role. Previous research, which has found that mavens are more likely to be female, has ignored the way in which these consumer communicators make decisions and process information. As male product markets grow and gender roles in shopping become blurred, identifying male mavens could be a useful promotional tool. Sixty male and 78 female market mavens were identified from a survey of 455 German consumers, which differed only marginally in terms of age and education. The prime decision-making traits of male mavens differed from females and were related to brand consciousness, shopping avoidance/satisficing, impulsiveness, speedy fashion seeking, perfectionism, price–value consciousness, confused by overchoice and quality brand loyal. Implications and recommendations for marketers targeting male product markets in Germany are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
The authors report a study of the effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' perceptions of product quality and value, as well as their willingness to buy. Hypotheses are derived from a conceptual model positing the effects of extrinsic cues (price, brand name, and store name) on buyers' perceptions and purchase intentions. Moreover, the design of the experiment allows additional analyses on the relative differential effects of price, brand name, and store name on the three dependent variables. Results indicate that price had a positive effect on perceived quality, but a negative effect on perceived value and willingness to buy. Favorable brand and store information positively influenced perceptions of quality and value, and subjects' willingness to buy. The major findings are discussed and directions for future research are suggested.
Article
The statistical tests used in the analysis of structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error are examined. A drawback of the commonly applied chi square test, in addition to the known problems related to sample size and power, is that it may indicate an increasing correspondence between the hypothesized model and the observed data as both the measurement properties and the relationship between constructs decline. Further, and contrary to common assertion, the risk of making a Type II error can be substantial even when the sample size is large. Moreover, the present testing methods are unable to assess a model's explanatory power. To overcome these problems, the authors develop and apply a testing system based on measures of shared variance within the structural model, measurement model, and overall model.
Article
Consumer researchers have recently begun to focus on the experiential aspects of consumption in general and on intrinsically motivated hedonic enjoyment in particular. Within this broad class of consumer behavior, play (as in sports, games, and other leisure activities) constitutes a particularly familiar and important type of consumption experience. This study investigates some phenomena involved in playful consumption. The results suggest that performance, perceived complexity, and personality-game congruity determine emotional responses and that performance itself depends both on previous performance and on various ability-related individual characteristics. Though still tentative, such findings indicate an important role for the competence motive in the enjoyment of games.
Article
Much research has focused on how consumers and competitors respond to short-term changes in advertising and promotion In contrast, the authors use Procter & Gamble's (P&G's) value pricing strategy as an opportunity to study consumer and competitor response to a major, sustained change in marketing-mix strategy. They compile data across 24 categories in which P&G has a significant market share, covering the period from 1990 to 1996, during which P&G instituted major cuts in deals and coupons and substantial increases in advertising. The authors estimate an econometric model to trace how consumers and competitors react to such changes. For the average brand the authors find that deals and coupons increase market penetration and surprisingly have little impact on customer retention as measured by share-of-category requirements and category usage. For the average brand, advertising works primarily by increasing penetration, but its effect is weaker than that of promotion. The authors find that competitor response is related to how strongly the competitor's market share is affected by the change in marketing mix and the competitor's own response and to structural factors such as market share position and multi-market contact. The net impact of these consumer and competitor responses is a decrease in market share for the company that institutes sustained decreases in promotion coupled with increases in advertising.
Article
The results of two studies, using different methods, converged to provide evidence for a noneconomic component to the affective consequences of a price promotion. Keeping constant the size of the discount, the consumer's perception of responsibility for obtaining a discount increased positive feelings. Perceived responsibility for a discount also increased the likelihood of behavioral consequences (repurchase and word-of-mouth communication about the product). These results are discussed in the context of better understanding the nature and implications of this noneconomic component of a price promotion's effects.