Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543 – 551

The Promotion Affect Scale: Defining the Affective

Dimensions of Promotion
Heather Honeaa,*, Darren W. Dahlb
a
College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
b
Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z2

Abstract

This article examines the psychometric properties of consumer affect that is produced by a sales promotion offer, e.g., price discount,
coupon redemption, free gift, etc. Building from the existing sales promotion and emotion literature, we propose a new 28-item scale
instrument, the Promotion Affect Scale (PAS), which measures affective response to promotion. Five phases of data collection are reported,
which systematically refine the instrument and assess the resulting dimensionality and discriminating ability of the proposed scale. Results
indicate that the 28-item PAS is a parsimonious and effective measurement tool of the affect produced by a sales promotion. This research
contributes towards a better theoretical understanding of the consumer affect resulting from promotional purchase and provides a readily
usable measurement instrument for theoretical researchers and marketing practitioners.
D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Promotion Affect Scale; Promotion; Consumer

1. Introduction consumer contexts. For example, affective response to

Over the last two decades, affect has taken hold as a key
explanatory construct in the field of consumer behavior. A
growing stream of research shows that affective reactions
are generated in response to the purchase environment (e.g.,
Yoo et al., 1998), consumption of products and services
(e.g., Oliver, 1994), and marketing mix variables such as
advertisements (e.g., Aaker et al., 1988). These affective
responses have been shown to influence attitudes, evalua-
tions, and behavior (e.g., Burke and Edell, 1989). As the
importance and influence of affect become more recognized
in consumer research, the next challenge is to develop more
appropriate and context-relevant measurement instruments
to capture the specific affective reactions elicited by con-
sumption activities and marketing stimuli.
Efforts to develop affect measures specific to the domain
of consumer research have resulted in instruments that
measure affective responses to advertising (e.g., Edell and
Burke, 1987) and consumption activities (Richins, 1997).
These instruments are effective in measuring affect in their
specific domain of interest. However, these instruments may
not provide the best measure of affective response in all
consumer promotion activities—‘‘action-focused marketing
events whose purpose is to have a direct impact on the
behavior of the firm’s customers’’ (Blattberg and Neslin,
1990, p.3)—may differ from that of advertising.
The purpose of this research is to broaden the investiga-
tion of affect in consumer behavior by exploring the
affective reactions to consumer promotion activities. We
study the affect generated by promotions and psychometri-
cally define its dimensions. Five phases of data collection
are reported, which systematically develop the proposed
Promotion Affect Scale (PAS). Results indicate that the 28-
item PAS is an effective tool to measure the affect produced
by consumer promotion activities and can parsimoniously
capture diverse affective reactions. The affect descriptors
used in the scale are shown to differentiate key aspects of
the promotional purchase environment. The article con-
cludes with a discussion of how PAS can be used to support
promotion research and help managers develop effective
promotion campaigns.
2. Consumer promotions

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-619-594-4308. Consumer promotions (e.g., coupons, sweepstakes) now
E-mail address: hhonea@mail.sdsu.edu (H. Honea). account for almost a quarter of the marketing budgets of

0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00145-0
544 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
consumer product companies, and expenditures have been
increasing at almost twice the rate of advertising (Breen,
2000). Past research in this area examines the economic
aspects of a promotion where an immediate economic
incentive to purchase a product is provided (for a review,
see Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Research also focuses on
the informational aspects of consumer promotions (e.g.,
Raghubir and Corfman, 1999), and although there is sug-
gestive evidence that affective reactions are also a relevant
part of consumer response to promotion, there is very little
research in this vein.
Many researchers have hinted at a feelings-based route
through which promotions may impact consumers. Scott
(1976) was the first to suggest that the effectiveness of a
deal might be explainable by the affect generated by that
promotional offer. Regret (Inman and McAlister, 1994) and
hedonic enjoyment of a deal (see Chandon et al., 2000) have
also appeared in promotion research. Promotions are shown
to reduce feelings of guilt associated with consumption of
certain products (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998), and the
outcome of promotional purchases is predicted to result in
specific pride-related responses such feeling like a ‘‘smart
shopper’’ (Schindler, 1989). Despite indications of affect-
based reactions to promotions, there has not been a system-
atic delineation of the dimensions of affect as they pertain to
promotional response.
3. Affect measurement in consumer behavior
Affect is defined as a ‘‘valenced feeling state’’ (Cohen
and Areni, 1991) and consumer behavior research generally
relies on typologies from psychology, such as Izard’s (1977)
Differential Emotion Scale (DES), Plutchik’s (1980) work
on ‘‘primary’’ or ‘‘basic’’ emotions, and Mehrabian and
Russell’s (1974) Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance (PAD). How-
ever, DES and Plutchik’s (1980) work do not provide an
easy mechanism to identify everyday emotions such as
pride, and PAD’s 18 semantic differential scales make it
difficult to draw inferences about the existence of specific
affect states (Richins, 1997).
Instruments developed for the specific purpose of mea-
suring affective responses to marketing stimuli largely
address advertising-induced emotions. Aaker et al. (1988)
identify an extensive range of emotions elicited by adver-
tisements; however, this 180-word battery of descriptors is
too long to be employed as a reasonable measurement
instrument. Batra and Ray (1986) identify a range of
affective responses to advertising that can be categorized
as follows: (1) surgency, elation, and vigor/activation
(SEVA); (2) deactivation; and (3) social affection. SEVA
is interesting in that it identifies outward-focused affect but
it is limited in that it measures only positive affect
responses. Holbrook and Batra (1987) on the other hand
identify pleasure, arousal, and dominance dimensions that
are consistent with PAD. Dominance represented an inward/
outward-focused dimension that included negative affective
responses. Edell and Burke (1987) identify upbeat, warm,
and negative feelings as the general categories of affective
response to advertisements. They find that these feeling-
based responses are important predictors of advertising
effectiveness and consumer beliefs.
Richins (1997) moves away from advertising-based
measurements to examine consumption-related affect. She
finds that the Consumption Emotion Set (CES) is a more
appropriate instrument to measure consumption-related af-
fect than DES, Plutchik, and PAD because these instruments
do not represent the diversity of emotions elicited by
consumption situations. Even though Holbrook and Batra
(1987) and Edell and Burke (1987) provide more extensive
emotion lists, they fail to include some critical consumption
emotions. However, Richins (1997) acknowledges that the
Edell and Burke (1987) instrument is able to provide a
reasonable measure of consumption-related affect.
In the context of consumer promotions, we define the
affect towards a promotion as how consumers feel about
buying (or not buying) something on deal in terms of (1) the
overall encounter, (2) the product, (3) the seller, (4) the
components of the deal (e.g., price or purchase require-
ments), or (5) themselves. We expect that measurement in
this context will capture three main categories of affective
response. Affective responses directed towards the self,
other parties (e.g., the product, the seller), and the situation
in general. In the following sections, a series of studies are
reported that examine affective reactions elicited by oppor-
tunities and missed opportunities to take advantage of
different types of promotions.
4. Study 1
An initial study, using two exploratory research ap-
proaches, was conducted to identify a range of affective
responses consumers might experience in response to pro-
motional offerings.
4.1. Methods
4.1.1. Literature review
Following the methodology used in the previous scale
development (e.g., Richins, 1997; Zaichkowsky, 1985), we
first identified affect descriptors through a review of the
affect literature, standard inventory measures of affect, and
prior promotion research. Two trained research assistants
evaluated the affect descriptors and determined how repre-
sentative the adjectives were of actual affective responses
elicited by a promotional context. Items were judged in
terms of either being ‘‘not at all representative’’ or ‘‘some-
what/likely representative’’ of an affective reaction to a
promotional offer. Agreement between the two research
assistants was 97%. Disagreements were resolved through
discussion with one of the authors.
 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
4.1.2. Focus groups
To complement the literature review, six focus group
sessions were used to identify potential descriptors. Each
session contained a mix of male and female participants
drawn from graduate/undergraduate classes. Drawing from
Smith and Ellsworth’s (1985) key appraisal dimensions for
emotion, participants were first prompted to recall promo-
tion experiences that varied in the effort they expended to
take advantage of the offer, the certainty of receiving the
promotion, the amount of personal responsibility in obtain-
ing the promotion, and whether or not the outcome was
viewed as positive or negative. Participants were then asked
to assess a specific promotional situation and relate their
affective response. Next, we prompted participants to imag-
ine promotion situations that varied by product type, in-
volvement, and promotion type and convey the emotional
responses these situations would elicit. Throughout the
session, the focus group moderator utilized laddering tech-
niques and chain analysis to drill down to the affective
responses generated. A trained research assistant examined
the focus group transcripts and recorded the specific affect
descriptors used by participants across each of the sessions.
4.2. Results
4.2.1. Literature review
Of the 195 initial affect descriptors identified in the
literature review, 94 items were judged to be representative
of affective reactions experienced in a promotional context.
One hundred and one items were judged to be nonrepresen-
tative and were thus eliminated from the listing. Examples of
eliminated items include traditional measures of arousal (e.g.,
sleepy, sluggish, jittery) and other more extreme emotions
that are unlikely to be experienced in response to promotion
activity (e.g., afraid, loving, sorrowful).
4.2.2. Focus groups
Analysis of the focus group transcripts revealed 83 distinct
affect adjectives that were used to describe feelings experi-
enced during a promotion. Importantly, participants identi-
fied both feelings of positive affect from taking advantage of
an offer (e.g., happy, proud) and also feelings of negative
affect when they missed out on an offer or an offer did not
meet their expectations (e.g., unhappy, annoyed).
The two separate listings were combined to form an
overall battery of descriptor adjectives pertinent to affect
generated by promotional experiences. After eliminating
matching terms across the two listings, the reduced list
contained 124 prospective items.
5. Study 2
Study 2 attempted to reduce the set of 124 adjective
descriptors by eliminating items that are unfamiliar, shared
similar meanings, and rarely used.
545
5.1. Methods
Using popular marketing textbooks (e.g., Kotler, 2000)
and Blattberg and Neslin’s (1990) review of sales promo-
tions, we identified seven different categories of promotion:
sale (e.g., percent/price off), price reduction certificate (e.g.,
coupon/rebate), value pack (e.g., bundled/bonus pack),
contests (e.g., sweepstakes/games), continuity program
(e.g., frequent buyer/loyalty rewards), free offer (e.g., sam-
ple/trial), and premium offer (e.g., free gift/product with
purchase). Drawing exemplars from each of the identified
categories, survey forms presented each type of promotion.
A sample of 104 undergraduate students were assigned to
one of the survey scenarios and received instruction that
they were to imagine/recall situations in which they had
received the type of promotion outlined. To capture nega-
tively valenced affect, a second sample of 105 undergrad-
uate students was assigned to one of the seven scenarios
and asked to imagine/recall situations in which they had
‘‘missed out’’ on the promotion. Across both samples,
subjects rated their affective response to the specific pro-
motion scenario using the 124 adjective descriptors and a
four-point scale (never/often). Only one subject in the
second sample indicated an inability to recall/imagine and
was thus eliminated from the analysis. Finally, subjects were
asked to indicate their sex, age, and language spoken—
responses to these questions had no effect on the results
reported below.
5.2. Results
Frequency counts of scale item response were used to
identify items for elimination. Collapsing across the seven
promotion scenarios, if a descriptor item did not achieve a
rating of 3 or 4 on the four-point scale, by more than 50% of
the subjects, in at least one of the two samples, it was
eliminated. We utilized this cutoff approach to identify
descriptor adjectives that had wide use and applicability
across a variety of promotion contexts. This approach
resulted in 64 adjective descriptors being eliminated from
the scale battery.
Following Richins (1997) (see also Shaver et al., 1987),
the remaining 60 items were grouped into subcategories and
their synonymy was assessed. When descriptors were close
in meaning and one of the descriptors had received a lower
frequency count across both samples, the adjective with the
lower frequency count was eliminated. In total, these two
reduction techniques resulted in 81 affective descriptors
being eliminated, leaving a battery of 43 scale items for
further analysis.
6. Study 3
The third study utilized multidimensional scaling (MDS)
to better understand the relationship between the affect
546 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
measures in a promotion context and search for cooccur-
rence in the identified affective reactions. To ensure we
examined affective reactions relevant to both positive and
negative promotion experiences, we provided subjects with
specific promotional scenarios.
6.1. Methods
To ensure that the battery of items retained were
appropriate across a range of promotion situations, the
scenarios varied by promotion type, product type, product
price, and outcome. The same promotion types were used
as in Study 1; however, immediate (coupon) and future
(rebate) price reduction certificates were separated into
different scenarios [in Study 2, when subjects imagined/
recalled a rebate (vs. coupon), they commented on the fact
that taking advantage of a rebate placed additional require-
ments on them. Based on this subtle differentiation, it
seemed appropriate to present these promotions separately
in Study 3]. This resulted in eight different promotions,
half of which are considered monetary and the other half
nonmonetary (Lichtenstein et al., 1997). In each promotion
category (monetary vs. nonmonetary), one promotion was
combined with one of the four product type/price options.
These options were generated from a pretest identifying (1)
hedonic expensive, (2) hedonic inexpensive, (3) utilitarian
expensive, and (4) utilitarian inexpensive products. To
provide additional variance in the promotional situations,
we presented participants with scenarios where they were
able and were not able to take advantage of the promotion
situation described. In total, this design resulted in 16
different promotional scenarios.
Three hundred and eighty-nine adult consumers were
randomly assigned to one of the scenario conditions, asked
to read through the scenario, and imagine experiencing the
event. They then indicated their affective reactions towards
the situation using the 43 affect adjectives. Subjects indi-
cated the degree to which they experienced each emotion by
responding to a four-point scale (not at all/very strongly). To
control for possible order effects, the scale items were
reverse ordered for half of the sample subjects. Subjects
were asked to indicate their sex, age, and area of resi-
dence—responses to these questions had no effect on the
results reported below.
6.2. Results
6.2.1. Dimensions of affective response to promotion
Following Richins (1997), we elected to utilize MDS to
assess redundancy across our scale items. Given our
objective to better define the range of specific affective
reactions to promotion, it was deemed that the data
reduction approach inherent in a factor analysis approach
would not be appropriate for our purposes (Richins, 1997).
Additionally, the design of the survey instrument allowed
us to examine the promotion emotion space for monetary
versus nonmonetary promotions, hedonic versus utilitarian
products, and expensive versus inexpensive products, to
determine which clusters of adjectives held together re-
gardless of how the space was partitioned. This was useful
in eliminating redundant terms as well as identifying terms
that would make appropriate scale item sets. The received
opportunity group (individuals that imagined that they
received the promotion) and missed opportunity group
(individuals that imagined that they did not receive the
promotion) were analyzed separately to ensure interpret-
ability of the emotion space. Euclidean distance measures
were calculated for each subsample and were used in the
MDS analysis.
For the received opportunity group, stress coefficients
and interpretability criteria suggested a two-dimensional
solution to the promotion emotion space regardless of
whether the group was divided into subsamples based on
promotion category, product type, or product price. Stress
coefficients for the one-, two-, and three-dimensional
solutions ranged between .18– .21, .11 – .13, and .08 – .10,
respectively, with solutions accounting for 88.1– 91.4%,
94.0 – 95.3%, and 96.0 – 97.0% of the variance (see Table
1). Across subsamples, the first dimension represented the
positivity – negativity of affect generally found in emotion
research. The second dimension appeared to differentiate
the ‘‘focus’’ of the emotional responses. More outward-
focused emotion descriptors, such as hesitant, deceived,
fortunate, and thankful, tended to fall on one pole. The
other pole was anchored by inward-focused emotion
descriptors, such as proud, discouraged, victorious, and
disappointed.
The stress coefficients for the missed opportunity group
also suggest that a two-dimensional solution provides the
best interpretation. The stress coefficients for the one-, two-,
and three-dimensional solutions ranged between .07 – .08,
.05 – .06, and .04– .05, respectively, with solutions account-
ing for 98.4– 99.6% of the variance (see Table 1). The
minimal changes in explained variance as dimensionality
increased are probably attributable to the fact that the
scenario represented a ‘‘missed’’ outcome, and as a result
there was little differentiation in participants’ positive af-
fective responses. Examining the derived emotion space
confirms that in the negative domain, affective responses
are clustering in a similar manner to negative affective
responses in the received group. The more outward-focused
descriptors (such as deceived, mislead, and skeptical) cluster
in one area, while frustrated, disappointed, and regret tended
to cluster in another area.
6.2.2. Adjective clusters
As expected, the valence of emotion dimension emerged
in the emotion spaces. The other dimension that displayed
some similarities to dimensions found in other emotion
spaces, such as the dominance dimension in PAD, the
intensity dimension of Shaver et al. (1987), and Richin’s
(1997) receptivity/activity dimension, really appears to
 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551 547

Table 1
Stress coefficients and variance explained for dimensional solution of emotion space
One dimensional Two dimensional Three dimensional
Stress Percent of Stress Percent of Stress Percent of
coefficient variance coefficient variance coefficient variance
explained explained explained
Received promotion opportunity subsample
Promotion category
Monetary .18 90.8 .13 94.0 .08 96.9
Nonmonetary .21 88.1 .13 94.2 .09 96.1
Product type
Hedonic .19 89.6 .13 94.0 .09 97.0
Utilitarian .18 91.4 .12 94.9 .09 96.7
Product price
Expensive .18 90.6 .11 95.3 .08 96.8
Inexpensive .19 90.4 .13 94.5 .10 96.0

Missed promotion opportunity subsample

Promotion category
Monetary .08 98.8 .05 99.4 .04 99.6
Nonmonetary .08 98.6 .05 99.3 .04 99.6
Product type
Hedonic .07 98.9 .06 99.2 .04 99.6
Utilitarian .09 98.4 .05 99.3 .05 99.4
Product price
Expensive .08 98.5 .05 99.3 .04 99.6
Inexpensive .07 98.9 .05 99.4 .04 99.6

differentiate responses based on focus. This interpretation of
the space appears quite reasonable, given the agency of
focus has been shown to be an important differentiator for
the experience of different types of emotions (e.g., Smith
and Lazarus, 1993). Furthermore, previous research in the
domain of promotions suggests that when ascriptions re-
garding a deal are focused internally, emotions such as pride
or shame will likely result and when an individual attributes
an outcome externally, emotions such as anger and gratitude
will result (Schindler, 1989).
Using the item locations defined by the dimensional
spaces in the subsample, redundant terms were eliminated
from certain clusters. Items retained were judged to have
clear meanings and to have higher likelihood of usage and
occurrence (as determined by Study 2). Further, two to three
descriptor items were retained in each cluster to ensure less

Fig. 1. Derived stimulus configuration for Study 4 emotion descriptors.

548 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551

measurement error and that the diversity represented in a Table 2

The Promotion Affect Scalea
cluster was maintained. We also eliminated certain activa-
tion items that did not cluster on the outward/inward focus
dimension and appeared alongside other unrelated adjective
clusters. This reduction resulted in the elimination of 19
items and a listing of 24 adjective descriptors in the scale
battery.

7. Study 4

While Study 3 was successful in refining the list of

adjectives, the context of Study 3 involved the ‘‘anticipa-
tion’’ of receiving or not receiving a promotional offer. A
fourth study was conducted to ensure that the reduced list of
adjective descriptors provided an appropriate listing of
affective responses occurring as a result of an actual
purchase.

7.1. Methods

One hundred and sixteen undergraduate students partic-

ipated in the study. They were asked to recall a recent
promotion experience and to indicate to what extent the
identified promotion experience made them feel each of the
24 descriptors using a five-point scale (not at all/very
strongly). To control for possible order effects, the scale
items were reverse ordered for half of the sample subjects.
Subjects also responded to an open-ended question that
asked them the specific details of the promotion experience
they recalled. Subjects were asked to indicate their sex, age,
and language spoken—responses to these questions had no
effect on the results reported below.
7.2. Results
The stress coefficients (.07, .05, and .04 for one-, two-,
and three-dimensions explaining 98.8%, 99.1%, and 99.3%
of the variance) suggested that interpretability of the space
could be best achieved with two dimensions (Fig. 1 shows a
plot of the MDS weights for a two-dimension solution). An
assessment of the promotion experiences recalled by sub-
jects indicated that they had focused almost exclusively on
memories involving positive promotion experiences. This
would partially explain the minimal changes in explained
variance as dimensionality increased and also the lack of
dispersion in the negative affective descriptors (see Fig. 1).
However, the adjective list seems to do a reasonable job of
covering the stimulus space.
Similar to Study 3, there appeared to be certain catego-
ries of affective response differentiated by their inward/
outward focus. Affect descriptors clustered in the outward-
focused categories of appreciative, fortunate, annoyance,
and distrust. The inward-focused categories included self-
confident and regret. The more sparse areas that define the
U-shaped pattern in our analysis commonly emerge in this
a
Values in parentheses represent the Pearson correlation for two-item
scales and Cronbach’s alpha for scales with more than two items. Reported
statistics are based on Study 5 data.
type of emotion research (Richins, 1997). Additionally, as
indicated by Morgan and Heise (1988), an examination of
the dimensional structure of emotions in several studies
shows a large gap in the structure when physical states are
eliminated, even though it has been argued that these may
not be appropriate affect measures (Ortony and Clore,
1981). Therefore, it is expected that a gap might emerge
in the negative affect side of the space. To verify that we
had not eliminated any critical inward-focused negative
affect responses, we examined the open-ended responses
for negative affect adjectives that had also appeared in the
initial battery lists in Studies 1 and 2. Four omitted descrip-
tors relevant to our purposes appeared in these responses—
feelings of being embarrassed, ashamed, or cheap, and
feelings of guilt regarding the promotion experience. These
descriptors were (re)added to the scale battery. The final
listing of the 28-item scale is found in Table 2.
8. Study 5
A final study was conducted to test the proposed PAS
instrument by comparing its effectiveness with other scale
batteries currently used in consumer behavior research.
 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
These instruments were the CES—47 items (Richins, 1997)
and the Edell and Burke Feeling Scale (EBFS)—56 items
(Edell and Burke, 1987).
8.1. Methods
Six hundred and seventy-nine adult consumers re-
sponded to an open-ended questionnaire that asked them
to recount a situation when they were either able to take
advantage/or missed taking advantage of a promotion. They
then indicated their affective reactions towards the reported
situation by responding to a list of adjectives. Subjects
indicated the degree to which they experienced each emo-
tion by using a five-point scale (not at all/very strongly). To
control for order effects, half of the questionnaires contained
the battery lists for PAS and the CES instrument while the
other half contained the battery lists for PAS and the EBFS
instrument. Within those sets, PAS appeared first, half of the
time, and the other instrument appeared first, half of the
time. In addition, each battery list was reverse alphabetically
ordered half of the time.
After responding to the adjective lists, subjects were
asked about their (1) assessment of the promotion, (2)
responsibility in receiving the promotion, and (3) perception
of the firm’s generosity in providing the promotion. These
variables were used to assess whether PAS could differen-
tiate between different promotion-related outcomes as well
as other affect scales. Finally, subjects were asked to
indicate their sex, age, and area of residence—responses
to these questions had no effect on the results reported
below and therefore are not discussed further.
8.2. Results
8.2.1. The affect solution space
Consistent with Studies 3 and 4, the stress coefficients
suggest that a two-dimensional solution is sufficient to
describe the space (stress values for the one-, two-, and
three-dimensional solution were .08, .05, and .04; explain-
ing 98.5%, 99.1%, and 99.4% of the variance).
8.2.2. Discriminant ability of PAS
Using a median split, we broke individuals up by
whether they had a good/bad assessment of the promotion,
perceived their responsibility in obtaining the promotion to
be high/low, and whether they perceived the firm providing
the promotion to be generous/not generous. PAS was
Table 3
Comparison of discriminant abilities of affect measures
EBFS
Canonical R2 P value
Assessment of the deal .59 .001
Responsibility in obtaining the deal .44 >.10
Perception of the firm’s generosity .58 .001
549
evaluated using the subsample sets that either included the
EBFS or the CES measures. Separate discriminant analyses
were performed for each scale instrument. CES and EBFS
instruments produced significant functions for each of the
different grouping variables, with the exception of the
responsibility discriminant grouping (EBFS did not yield a
significant function for this variable). Impressively, even
though PAS involves a much smaller battery of items, it
produced significant functions for all grouping variables
except the responsibility grouping in the EBFS subsample.
Results are shown in Table 3.
In both the CES and EBFS subsamples separating
individuals based on their assessment of the deal, the
PAS discriminant function had high positive loadings for
items in the happy, enthused, and self-confident measures
and reasonably high negative loadings for the unhappy,
annoyed, and self-doubt measures. Both CES and EBFS
had high loadings for similar items such as joy, excite-
ment, pride, and sad. In both analyses using PAS measures
to separate individuals based on their perceptions of the
firm’s generosity, functions had high positive loadings for
items in the happy, enthused, self-confident, appreciation,
and favored measures and high negative loadings for items
in the annoyed, self-doubt, and unhappy measures. The
function for CES showed parallel results with high load-
ings for items such as joy, excitement, surprise, afraid, sad,
and discontent. The EBFS discriminant function showed
reasonable size loadings for feeling pleased and content. In
the CES subsample, the PAS measures separating individ-
uals based on their perceptions of responsibility for re-
ceiving the deal resulted in functions that had relatively
high positive loadings for items in the self-doubt and
unhappy measures. The function for CES showed parallel
results with high loadings for items such as humiliated and
miserable.
Finally, when the two PAS subsamples were combined,
PAS produced significant discriminate functions for all
grouping variables. Table 4 provides the canonical corre-
lations and classification accuracies for each of the derived
discriminate functions. In addition to the measured ap-
praisal variables, subjects’ responses to the type of pro-
motion and their ability to take advantage of the offer were
used to examine the ability of PAS to discriminate between
promotion types and outcomes. PAS was shown to effec-
tively discriminate between monetary (e.g., coupon, sale)
and nonmonetary promotions (e.g., free trial, frequent
buyer), as well as promotional outcomes. Significant
PAS CES PAS
Canonical R2 P value Canonical R2 P value Canonical R2 P value
.44 .001 .57 .001 .55 .001
.33 >.10 .43 .10 .43 .001
.47 .001 .52 .001 .49 .001
550 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
Table 4
Canonical correlation and classification accuracy for the PAS scale
Canonical R2 Classification
accuracy (%)
Assessment of the deal .48 70
Responsibility in obtaining the deal .28 61
Perception of the firm’s generosity .47 68
Get or miss promotional offer .53 78
Type of promotion .27 58
(monetary, nonmonetary)
Total Sample N = 679, all P < .05.
canonical correlations for discriminant functions (promo-
tion type: Canonical R2=.27, P < .05; outcome of offer:
Canonical R2=.53, P < .05) showed primarily positive load-
ings on the more outward-focused positive affective
descriptors. At the subsample level, none of the scale instru-
ments (i.e., the EBFS, CES, and PAS) were able to produce
a significant discriminant function for these grouping
variables.
9. General discussion
The purpose of this research was to develop a context-
relevant measurement instrument to assess consumers’ af-
fective reactions to sales promotion activity. The PAS
indicates that promotion-related affect is a multidimensional
construct with both positive and negative dimensions rang-
ing in their degree of specificity. Thus, there are general
positive and negative valenced affective responses such as
feeling pleased or unhappy due to a promotional purchase.
There are also more specific valenced feelings that can be
differentiated by agency of focus. The more outward-fo-
cused positive affect items describe feelings of appreciation
and feeling favored/optimistic. The more outward-focused
negative affect items describe feelings of being annoyed and
distrustful/skeptical. The inward-focused positive affect
items describe feeling self-confident and negative items
describe feeling self-conscious and self-doubt.
As well as identifying the different dimensions of pro-
motion-related affect, the results of this research show that
these different dimensions can discriminate between differ-
ent promotional outcomes and experiences. The fact that
both CES and the EBFS had high positive loadings on
adjective descriptors that fell in the identified positive/
negative and inward/outward dimensions provides strong
convergent support for the validity of the PAS as a mea-
surement instrument. The ability of the PAS affect catego-
ries to discriminate between individuals who vary in terms
of their assessment of the firm, the promotion itself, and the
responsibility for receiving a promotion, as well as the
ability to identify the category of the promotional offer
and whether or not an individual was able to take advantage
of the offer, suggests that the PAS will be a useful tool in
promotion research.
The PAS offers different categories of affect that may be
useful when researchers attempt to measure specific types of
reactions. For instance, research focusing on reactions to the
firm could incorporate more outward-focused measures,
whereas research investigating personal satisfaction or im-
pulsive behavior might incorporate more inward-focused
measures from the scale. Further, the fact that the PAS
differentiated between various sales promotion types and
individuals’ perceptions regarding the firm suggests that the
PAS can be used to understand the potential effectiveness of
different types of promotions and help identify instances
when a firm will or will not receive some positive benefit
from offering a promotion to consumers.
9.1. Limitations and future research
Although the methodology used in the construction of
the PAS was patterned after recent scale papers in the
consumer behavior field, one limitation to the methodology
of these papers is that the instruments are commonly
developed ‘‘after’’ an actual store or purchase experience.
Clearly, a real time validation of the PAS instrument using
the consumers’ immediate affective responses would be an
interesting next step. It would also be fruitful to test for
relationships between the scale items and important con-
sumer attitudinal and behavioral responses. Future research
should test the relation shared between the PAS and theo-
retically related constructs such as ‘‘deal proneness’’ (Lich-
tenstein et al., 1997) and ‘‘hedonic promotion benefits’’
(Chandon et al., 2000).
Examining the interaction of promotion type and product
price, product sales price, and product type provides other
opportunities for future research. These variables will likely
moderate the intensity of different affective responses.
Perhaps, certain promotions and environmental aspects tend
to elicit certain categories of affect, such as appreciation or
distrust, while others tend to produce feelings of self-
confidence or self-doubt. Identifying the manner in which
these categories of affect are triggered will provide insights
into the final impact of promotional offers and contexts on
purchase intentions, attitudes, behaviors, and satisfaction.
Acknowledgements
The comments and helpful advice of Cristel Russell and
Raj Manchanda are gratefully acknowledged. The authors
would particularly like to extend their appreciation to Priya
Raghubir for her part in the development of the ideas for
this paper.
References
Aaker DA, Stayman DM, Vezina R. Identifying feelings elicited by
advertising. Psychol Mark 1988;5:1 – 16 [Spring].
 H. Honea, D.W. Dahl / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 543–551
Batra R, Ray ML. Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising.
J Consum Res 1986;13:234 – 49.
Breen P. Seeds of Change. Promotion Trends 2000. Annual Report of the
Promotion Industry Report Compiled by Promo; 2000. p. A3. May.
Burke MC, Edell JA. The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cog-
nition. J Mark Res 1989;26:69 – 84 [February].
Blattberg RC, Neslin SA. Sales promotion: concepts, methods and strat-
egies. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1990.
Chandon P, Wansink B, Laurent G. A benefit congruency framework of
sales promotion effectiveness. J Mark 2000;64:65 – 81 [October].
Cohen JB, Areni CS. Affect and consumer behavior. In: Robertson TS,
Kassarjian H, editors. Handbook of consumer behavior. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1991. p. 188 – 240.
Edell JA, Burke MC. The power of feelings in understanding advertising
affects. J Consum Res 1987;14:421 – 33 [December].
Holbrook M, Batra R. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of
consumer responses to advertising. J Consum Res 1987;14:404 – 20
[December].
Inman JJ, McAlister L. Do coupon expiration dates affect consumer
behavior. J Mark Res 1994;31(3):423 – 9 [August].
Izard CE. Human emotions. New York: Plenum; 1977.
Kotler P. Marketing management. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-
Hall; 2000.
Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. An examination of deal prone-
ness across sales promotions types: a consumer segmentation perspec-
tive. J Retail 1997;73(2):283 – 97.
Mehrabian A, Russell JA. An approach to environmental psychology.
Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1974.
Morgan RL, Heise D. Structure of emotions. Soc Psychol Q 1988;51(1):
19 – 31.
Oliver RL. Conceptual issues in the structural analysis of consumption
emotion, satisfaction, and quality. In: Allen CT, John DR, editors. Ad-
551
vances in consumer research, vol. 21. Provo (UT): Association for
Consumer Research; 1994. p. 16 – 22.
Ortony A, Clore GL. Disentangling the affective lexicon. Proceedings of
the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Berke-
ley; 1981. August.
Plutchik R. Emotion: a psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper;
1980.
Raghubir P, Corfman K. When do price promotions affect pretrial brand
evaluations? J Mark Res 1999;36(2):211 – 23 [May].
Richins ML. Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. J Con-
sum Res 1997;24:127 – 46 [September].
Schindler RM. The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses con-
cerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. Adv Consum
Res 1989;6:447 – 53.
Scott CA. The effects of trial and incentives on repeat purchase behavior.
J Mark Res 1976;13(3):263 – 70 [August].
Shaver P, Schwartz J, Kirson D, O’Connor C. Emotion knowledge: further
exploration of a prototype approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987;52:
1061 – 86 [June].
Smith CA, Ellsworth PC. Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. J Pers
Soc Psychol 1985;48(4):813 – 38 [April].
Smith CA, Lazarus RS. Appraisal components, core relational themes, and
the emotions. Cogn Emot 1993;7(3/4):233 – 69 [May – July].
Strahilevitz MA, Myers JG. Donations to charity as purchase incen-
tives: how well they work may depend on what you are trying to
sell. J Consum Res 1998;24(4):434 – 46 [March].
Yoo C, Park J, MacInnis D. Effects of store characteristics and in-store
emotional experiences on store attitude. J Bus Res 1998;42:253 – 63
[July].
Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res
1985;12(3):341 – 52 [December].