Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513 – 522

A model of consumer response to two retail sales promotion techniques

Michel Larochea,*, Frank Ponsa, Nadia Zgollia,
Marie-Cécile Cervellonb, Chankon Kimc
a
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8
b
McGill University, Montreal, Canada
c
St. Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada

Abstract

The occurrence and the choice of appropriate retail sales promotion techniques are important decisions for retailers. It is crucial for them
to apprehend the mechanisms involved at the consumer level regarding these sales promotions. Therefore, in the context of consumers’ use of
retail sales promotions, a multidimensional model, which follows a cognitive – affective – behavior pattern, is proposed. This model is based
on two different promotional tools — coupons and two-for-one promotions — supposed to trigger different promotional responses.
Moreover, the potential influences on this pattern of consumers’ traits are included. Variables such as busyness, variety seeking, perceived
financial wellness, market maven, brand loyalty and store loyalty that were previously introduced in research on coupon promotions are
posited to have specific influences on the three components of the pattern. Through contrasting two types of promotional tools, we highlight
commonalities in the process of promotion use, but nonetheless significant and interesting differences, both in the whole process and in the
influence of individual-difference variables. Results and implications for retailers as well as for researchers are discussed.
D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sales promotion; Consumer responses

1. Introduction 1997). However, the lack of distinction made among the

Within the retail marketing mix, sales promotions have
one of the strongest impact on short-term consumption
behavior. Sales promotions are beneficial to retailers in
several aspects: First, promotional variables such as in-store
display and ‘‘two-for-one’’ are often used to trigger
unplanned purchases (Inman et al., 1990; McClure and
West, 1969). Second, sales promotions encourage consum-
ers to purchase nonpromoted merchandise (Mulhern and
Padgett, 1995). Finally, sales promotions accelerate the
number of shopping trips to the store (Walters and Rinne,
1986). In addition, it has been argued that sales promotions
encourage consumers to stockpile, leading to a reduction of
the retailer’s inventory costs (Blattberg et al., 1981).
Accordingly, several studies have focused on consumers’
purchase response to different types of sales promotions and
the factors associated with consumer deal proneness (Shimp
and Kavas, 1984; Henderson, 1987; Lichtenstein et al.,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-514-848-2942; fax: +1-514-848-
8645.
E-mail address: laroche@vax2.concordia.ca (M. Laroche).
attitudinal and behavioral constructs when measuring the
deal proneness concept is a crucial issue in retail sales
promotion studies (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). For instance,
Lichtenstein et al. (1995, 1997) argue that the traditional
behavioral-level measurement of deal proneness was unable
to fully describe the retail sales promotion mechanisms.
Endorsing Blattberg and Neslin’s (1990) opinion, they
acknowledge that some psychological antecedents may vary
across types of deals. Nonetheless, investigations into cog-
nitive and affective effects of sales promotions have been
surprisingly understudied in the past, and the rare studies that
distinguish the constructs (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Mittal,
1994) focus on one type of promotions only, coupons.
In addition, several researchers have suggested that
consumers’ response to promotions is partly determined
by lifestyle and demographic variables, but results have
been somewhat inconsistent (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990;
Mittal, 1994). In fact, the challenge for researchers is
twofold. First, they have to better identify which consumers
are generally prone to sales promotion. But, moreover, they
have to understand how demographics, personality traits and
lifestyles can impact the attitude/behavior process. In addi-

0148-2963/03/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00249-1
514 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
tion, the question of whether traits impact in a different
manner the deal usage process for different promotional
mechanisms has not been answered yet.
The purpose of this study is to define the consumers’ deal
usage process and to examine the potential influences of
traits and self-perception variables on this process. Particu-
larly, we contrast two different promotional tools — cou-
pons and two-for-one promotions — supposed to trigger
different promotional responses.
A multidimensional model, based on the hierarchy of
effects model (Rosenberg, 1956), is drawn and hypothesized.
It is conceptualized in order to integrate all aspects of how and
why consumers use sales promotion and to specify the link-
ages among consumers’ beliefs, attitude and behavior. More-
over, based on previous empirical support, the potential
influence of trait variables is included in the model. The
results are discussed and several implications are detailed.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Generalized and domain-specific deal sensitivity
Sales promotion encompasses all promotional activities
other than advertising, personal selling and public relations.
Blattberg and Neslin (1990) summarize the various defini-
tions offered by several authors (Kotler, 1988; Webster,
1965), and consider sales promotion as ‘‘an action-focused
marketing event whose purpose is to have an impact on the
behaviour of the firm’s customers.’’
Several important aspects of sales promotions should be
highlighted to complete this definition. First, sales pro-
motions involve some type of inducement that provides
an extra incentive to buy (Schultz and Robinson, 1982),
and this represents the key element in a promotional
program. According to Strang (1983), this incentive is
additional to the basic benefits provided by the brand and
temporarily changes its perceived price or value. It is also
primarily seen as an acceleration tool designed to speed-
up the selling process and maximize sales volume (Neslin
et al., 1984).
Schneider and Currim (1991) classify sales promotions as
active or passive. Promotions such as coupons require active
search on the part of consumers, whereas in-store promo-
tions such as ‘‘two-for-one’’ involve a limited search,
restricted to the store environment. Sales promotions have
also been dichotomized into price- and nonprice-oriented
categories (Lichtenstein et al., 1995). The end benefit of
price promotions for the consumer is a lower purchase
price (e.g., coupons), whereas other promotions focus on
other benefits (e.g., value for money, like ‘‘two-for-one’’
promotions).
Several conceptualizations of deal proneness have been
offered in the literature so far. Shimp and Kavas (1984)
contend that there are sufficient similarities in consumers’
behavior from one deal mechanism to another to consider
deal-responsive behavior as a generalized construct. Indeed,
there is some empirical evidence consistent with this per-
spective. For instance, Lichtenstein et al. (1997) identify a
consumer segment, which is deal prone across various types
of sales promotions, giving credit to the assumption that there
are some common characteristics among sales promotions
that lead consumers to be prone, or not, to deals in general.
On the other hand, several researchers suggest that sens-
itivity to different types of sales promotions might explain
different promotional responses (Schneider and Currim,
1991; Henderson, 1987). Several individual characteristics
might be at play: being a smart shopper might lead to be
coupon prone while being an impulsive buyer might lead to
be display prone (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990). Following this
rationale, in our study, two promotional mechanisms, sup-
posed to trigger different consumer responses, were included
in the model: coupons and ‘‘two-for-one.’’ In addition,
according to past research, we test the attitude toward deals
in general and toward specific promotions (coupons and
‘‘two-for-one’’) as separate constructs.
2.2. The cognitive dimension and its impact on
deal sensitivity
Several recent studies tend to support the presence of
mental processing by consumers as the initial stage of
response to sales promotions (Shimp and Kavas, 1984;
Mittal, 1994; Burton et al., 1998). As described in these
studies, it can be an active information search about poten-
tial sales promotions (Kalwani and Yim, 1992). This
information search can lead to an overall evaluation and
calculation of the cost/benefits triggered by the use of a sales
promotion in order to maximize utility (Mittal, 1994; Shimp
and Kavas, 1984).
In particular, several researchers have widely investigated
the impact of different sales promotions on consumers’ price
perception. In a study by Folkes and Wheat (1995), the type
of sales promotion significantly affected consumers’ price
perceptions. Offering a product with a rebate resulted in
higher perceptions as measured by the most one would pay,
expected price, fair price and reasonable price.
In the same line of research, Kalwani and Yim (1992)
explored the field of consumers’ price expectations. Their
study proposes that consumers form expectations of prices,
partly based on the frequency of promotions, and use them in
formulating their response to retail prices. Their findings
reveal that consumers’ reaction depends not only on the retail
price, but also on the comparison they make with the
reservation price. In other words, consumers use the price
they expect to pay for a brand on a given purchase occasion as
reference in forming price judgements. Their study showed
that consumers tended to use the last few purchase prices as a
reference, as well as readily available information from the
environment. This information included circulars as well as
other advertising information that can be considered as
external sources of information. In fact, consumers use
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
information about promotions (frequency and level) to evalu-
ate (compute) the benefits of using the promotions. Conse-
quently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ external information search pos-
itively influences their evaluation of the benefits of promo-
tions.
Moreover, previous studies on coupons have demonstra-
ted that causal paths do exist between cost/benefit evalua-
tions, affect and behavior (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Mittal,
1994). This idea is also developed by Burton et al. (1998)
who find similarities between consumers with a positive
attitude toward private label products and consumers using
price-oriented sales promotions, particularly regarding the
‘‘mental calculation’’ involved. They describe these consum-
ers as ‘‘thoughtful shoppers who take pride in their decision-
making ability.’’ These consumer beliefs positively influence
the purchase intention of private label products through the
liking of these private labels. Consequently, we posit:
Hypothesis 2: Consumers’ evaluations of the promotions
benefits positively influence their liking of these promo-
tions.
Finally, certain promotional mechanisms such as coupons
inherently require ‘‘searching’’ costs (Schneider and Currim,
1991). Indeed, coupon-users are used to engage in coupon
search and sort (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Particularly,
the liking of coupons seems correlated with specific behavior
such as the intensive use of weekly store fliers containing
coupons, as well as information on sales (Lichtenstein et al.,
1995). In addition, to take advantage of the potential savings,
some handling effort is required, in cutting and redeeming
the coupons. Hence, using a coupon is a thoughtful decision
and it involves planning a purchase in advance (Kahn and
Schmittlein, 1992). Other sales promotions for which deci-
sions to buy are made in the store (e.g., ‘‘two-for-one’’ or in-
store display) involve smaller effort and time commitment
(Kahn and Schmittlein, 1992). As a consequence, we draw
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3: (a) Consumers’ information search positively
influences their liking of coupons. (b) Consumers’ informa-
tion search has no direct influence on their liking of ‘‘two-
for-one’’ promotions and deals in general. The impact of
information search is mediated by cost/benefit evaluation.
2.3. The affective dimension and its effects on
purchase intentions
Shoemaker (1979) was one of the first researchers to
investigate the effects of sales promotions on purchase
behavior. He empirically showed that purchase acceleration
515
was due to sales promotion. His findings suggested that sales
promotions were more apt to be associated with increased
quantity than with shorter interpurchase time. Then, Blattberg
et al. (1981) tried to explain the dealing of storable products
based on the idea of transferring inventory-carrying costs
from the retailer to the consumer. For four product classes,
they found statistically significant evidence of purchase
acceleration in terms of both larger quantities and shorter
interpurchase times. At the individual level, however, pro-
motions seemed to function as an effective distracting ele-
ment by inhibiting negative thoughts that might arise about
the brand. Neslin et al. (1984) expanded this empirical line of
inquiry by developing an analytical framework for studying
purchase acceleration. Their main findings concern how
coupons, temporary price cuts, and featured price cuts were
all associated with higher purchase quantities. In summary,
there is a good deal of empirical support for an increase in
purchase quantity due to sales promotions in the consumer
packaged goods area, supporting the concept of potential
stockpiling (Helsen and Schmittlein, 1992). Also, as sug-
gested by Lichtenstein et al. (1995, 1997), deal-prone con-
sumers tend to develop links between their liking of specific
sales promotions and their inclination to buy products using
these promotions. Indeed, the notion of transaction utility
dictates the behavior of the consumer. It allows a particular
psychological inducement (i.e., feeling good about using the
promotion) to play a major role in directing the behavior.
Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4: Consumers’ affect of promotions positively
influences their purchase intentions of the promoted prod-
uct.
Hypothesis 5: Consumers’ affect of promotion positively
influences their stockpiling intentions.
2.4. Trait variables influencing the cognitive – affective–
conative hierarchy
From managerial and academic perspectives, the target-
ing of consumer deals, as well as the understanding of
consumer behaviour, would be improved by the knowledge
of which consumer characteristics relate to deal purchasing.
Mittal (1994) presented a set of explanatory variables to
capture the psychology of coupon-use behavior. His model
regrouped demographic variables and self-perception general
traits (busyness, financial wellness and pride in homemak-
ing). He also reviewed some of the consumer shopping traits,
such as brand loyalty, store loyalty and comparison-shop-
ping. One of his main findings was that demographics were
poor predictors of coupon-use behavior because they are the
farthest in the causal chain. However, general individual
variables as well as shopping-related variables did have a
significant effect in explaining coupon redemption. Particu-
larly, he shows that the more you are financially well off, the
516 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
less you indulge in coupon-use. In addition, busyness induces
less cognitive activity — comparison-shopping and informa-
tion search — and lower redemption rates for coupons.
An additional trait variable, which could significantly
influence the promotional process, is the variety-seeking
trait. In particular, when consumers seek variety, they should
have a special inclination toward promotions that help them
discover new products (Narasimhan, 1984). Hence, the
influence of this trait variable is included in our model.
Price and Feick (1988) included another personality trait
in the study of coupon proneness, i.e., the ‘‘market maven’’
trait. The authors defined market mavens as people who
possess information about products, places to shop and who
provide other consumers with market information. These
consumers are characterized by their expertise, in that they
plan their shopping trips, their expenses and are heavy users
of coupons. They are also likely to be very dynamic in
offering coupons to others. The results of this work indicated
that this type of extra-consumers was likely to engage in
‘‘smart-shopping’’ behaviors. Urbany et al. (1996) also found
a positive effect of market mavenism on search behaviors.
From the previous findings, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6: Financial wellness negatively influences (a)
the purchase intentions of the coupon promoted product, (b)
the purchase intentions of the ‘‘two-for-one’’ promoted
product and (c) the stockpiling intentions of the consumer.
Hypothesis 7: Busyness negatively influences (a) the pur-
chase intentions of the coupon promoted product, (b) the
purchase intentions of the ‘‘two-for-one’’ promoted product,
(c) the stockpiling intentions of the consumer, (d) the
consumers’ external information search and (e) the consum-
ers’ evaluations of the promotions benefits.
Hypothesis 8: Variety seeking positively influences the
consumers’ liking of (a) coupons, (b) ‘‘two-for-one’’ and
(c) deals in general.
Hypothesis 9: Market mavens positively influence (a) the
purchase intentions of the coupon promoted product, (b) the
purchase intentions of the ‘‘two-for-one’’ promoted product,
(c) the stockpiling intentions of the consumer, (d) the
consumers’ external information search and (e) the consum-
ers’ evaluations of the promotions benefits.
We have also included two shopping-related traits in our
model: brand loyalty and store loyalty. The brand loyalty trait
is probably the most studied individual-difference variable in
the promotional literature. Results are consistent in suggest-
ing that brand loyalty negatively affect deal or coupon
attitude and use (Webster 1965; Montgomery, 1971).
An additional trait variable of direct interest to retailers is
store loyalty and its impact on purchase behavior. Interest-
ingly, results are contrasted depending on the promotional
mechanisms used as foci for the research. Whereas store
loyalty negatively impact coupon use (Bawa and Shoe-
maker, 1989), it has no significant influence on deal
behaviors (McCann, 1974). Hence, we posit that store
loyalty will have a significant impact on our conative
dimension, but a differential impact depending on the type
of promotions (coupons and two-for-one). In fact, past
research has demonstrated that loyalty to one store is
generally low (Uncles and Ehrenberg, 1990). Store loyal
consumers are likely to divide their loyalties between a very
limited number of stores, and gain familiarity with their
favorite ones. They would know better the environment and
assortments of the stores in which they shop to and better
plan their purchases. Park et al. (1989), for instance, find
lower levels of unplanned purchase in familiar stores. In
addition, they find that on fill-in trips, a consumer would
spend less time in its favorite store, picking up only the
needed items, which restricts the extent to which he or she
can process in-store promotions. In the same line of studies,
Kahn and Schmittlein (1992) state that the consumer is more
prone to use coupons on major trips when shopping in his or
her favorite store. From the previous results, we derive:
Hypothesis 10: Brand loyalty negatively influences (a) the
consumers’ liking of coupons, (b) the consumers’ liking of
‘‘two-for-one,’’ (c) the consumers’ liking of deals in general,
(d) the purchase intentions of the coupon promoted product,
(e) the purchase intentions of the ‘‘two-for-one’’ promoted
product and (f) the stockpiling intentions of the consumer.
Hypothesis 11: (a) Store loyalty positively influences pur-
chase intentions with coupons. (b) Store loyalty negatively
influences purchase intentions of ‘‘two-for-one’’ promotions.
The hypotheses concerning the potential influence of trait
variables on the components of the attitudinal as well as the
model itself are summarized in Fig. 1.
3. Methodology
3.1. Sample and data collection
The population targeted for this survey consisted in
residents living in the Greater metropolitan area of a North
American city. In order to ensure a representative sample,
the data collection was confined to a selected number of
census tracts located in the city and its surrounding area. A
sample of at least 250 usable questionnaires was deemed
appropriate for this research to give a respectable measure of
validity and reliability.
Based on previous surveys, a usable return rate of 30%
was expected. Within each of the census tracts, a quota of
questionnaires to be distributed was established propor-
tionally to the relative population of the particular census
tract. The questionnaires were deliver door to door and a
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
Fig. 1. Consumers use of promotions: process and traits influence.
prepaid envelope was provided to respondents to allow
them to mail the completed questionnaire at their conveni-
ence. A total of 1662 questionnaires were distributed, 559
usable questionnaires were returned for an average
response rate of 34%. Among the respondents, the initial
repartition of quotas was fairly respected. The majority of
the respondents for this survey were female (about 67%).
This is adequate for the study’s objective since it has been
reported in prior research that women are the primary
shoppers in the family unit.
3.2. Measurement scales
The questionnaire was designed in order to obtain
detailed data concerning the cognitive, affective and con-
ative components of the process related to sales promotion.
The data were collected for two different types of promo-
tions (‘‘coupons’’ and ‘‘two-for-one’’) that can be either
launched by retailers, or by manufacturers and then
approved by retailers. For clarification, a definition of each
deal option was given as a reference in the cover letter
accompanying the questionnaire.
The measures were taken from the study conducted by
Lichtenstein et al. (1997) in which they developed sep-
arate multi-item scales for each specific deal proneness.
The procedures used to develop these scales closely
517
adhered to procedures recommended in the scale devel-
opment literature and support the argument of validity of
these scales. Moreover, other measures previously intro-
duced were included such as economic benefits (Mittal,
1994) and stockpiling (Helsen and Schmittlein, 1992) and
one-item scales to quantify the specific deal usage in the
last month.
The whole set of variables was then separated into three
subsets, namely cognitive, affective and conative variables.
In order to reduce the data into a smaller and more
meaningful set of components, several purification steps
(exploratory factor analyses and deletion of items) were run.
Some sample items are presented in Table 1. The question-
naire also included a section dedicated to the collection of
respondent traits and demographics. The purchase-related
traits included busyness, perceived financial wellness, mar-
ket maven, variety seeking, brand loyalty and store loyalty.
All these measures were chosen from previous studies on
lifestyles and traits (Arnold et al., 1983), and from other
studies related to deal proneness and attitudes of households
towards sales promotion (Mittal, 1994; Price and Feick,
1988). Items were measured on a nine-point Likert scale
(1 = disagree strongly to 9 = agree strongly) for all the
statements. A reliability check was also performed for all
factors and is presented in Table 1. Finally, following the
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) procedure, the discriminant
518 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522

Table 1
Reliability check and items samples
Description
Cognitive
Information search in supermarket
fliers (three items)
Sales promotions benefits (two items)
Item Cronbach a
I use grocery store circular/flier advertisements to decide which store I will patronize. .85
Prior to shopping, I check all the fliers for promoted brands and prices.
Promotions can save me a lot of money. .70
Two-for-one promotions can save a shopper a lot of money.

Affective
Attitude toward ‘‘two-for-one’’
(two items)
Attitude toward coupon (three items)
Attitude toward deals in general
(three items)
When I take advantage of a ‘‘buy-one-get-one-free’’ offer, I feel good. .73
When I buy a product with a ‘‘buy-one-get-one-free’’ offer, I feel that I am getting a good deal.
I enjoy clipping coupons out of newspapers or magazines. .87
Redeeming coupons makes me feel good.
I enjoy buying brands that are promoted. .77
Receiving a promotional offer with a product purchase makes me feel like I am a good shopper.

Conative
Behavioral intention toward
‘‘two-for-one’’ (two items)
Behavioral intention toward
coupons (three items)
Behavioral intention toward
stockpiling (two items)
During the last month, how many times did you buy products offered with a .80
‘‘two-for-one’’ promotion?
I have favorite brands but if I see a ‘‘two-for-one’’ offer for any brand, I will buy it.
I am more likely to buy brands for which I have a coupon. .79
Approximately how many coupons do you redeem in a month?
If a product that I usually buy is being promoted, I will purchase it even if I do not need for .76
immediate use.
If a product that I usually buy is being promoted, I will increase the quantity of my purchases
(i.e., stock up).

Lifestyle and traits

Market maven (three items)
Brand loyalty (four items)
Store loyalty (two items)
Perceived financial wellness
(three items)
Busyness (three items)
Variety seeking (three items)
People come to me more often than I go to them for information on brands. .82
My friends think of me as a good source of information when it comes to new products or sales.
Once I find a brand I like to stick with it. .77
For most supermarket items, I have favorite brands and limit my purchasing to them.
I do most of my shopping in the stores I have always shopped in. .85
Once I get used to where things are in a supermarket, I hate to change stores.
I am generally on a tight budget. .75
I consider myself financially well off.
‘‘So much to do, so little time,’’ this saying applies very well to me. .76
I am too busy to relax.
I often buy other brands to see if they are better than the brand(s) I usually buy. .76
I often try new brands before my friends and neighbors do.

and convergent validity of the measure instrument have
been assessed.
4. Results
4.1. Overview
Based on the literature review, the hypotheses have been
conceptualized in the structural model presented in Fig. 1.
The different paths of the model refer to the various
hypotheses and include the cognitive –affective – conative
model and the potential influence of some trait variables on
this model. Therefore, the overall estimation of the specified
model as well as the paths allows the tests of all the
hypotheses.
Estimation of the model was performed using the EQS
software. Different indicators were used to assess the overall
fit qualities of the model. Due to c2’s sensibility to small
sample sizes and distributions (Bollen, 1989; Browne,
1989), modified versions of this indicator have been adop-
ted in this study (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Tanaka,
1993). The adjusted c2 (c2/df) represents the first fit
indicator, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is also used as
a fit indicator. Finally, the standardized value and the
significance (t value) of the estimated measurement param-
eters (paths) are also given and examined.
4.2. Test of the hypotheses
The fit indicators of the overall model, the estimated
structural parameters and their statistical significance are
reported in Table 2.
The overall fit indicators of the model are good and
therefore we can consider that the proposed model
adequately fits the data. Consequently, the results support
the pertinence of the expected cognitive – affective –conative
hierarchy as well as the potential role played by lifestyle and
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522 519

Table 2
Model fit results and evaluation of the tested structural paths
Fit indicators
CFI 0.910
c2/df 744/308 = 2.41

Path tested Standardized estimate (t value) Test of hypotheses

Cognitive ! affective pattern
Information search on affective coupon .468 (10.2) Hypothesis 3a supported
Cost/benefit estimation on affective coupon .530 (9.18) Hypothesis 2 supported
Cost/benefit estimation on affective two-for-one .680 (11.4) Hypothesis 2 supported
Cost/benefit estimation on affective deals .641 (9.49) Hypothesis 2 supported

Intracognitive path
Information search on cost benefit estimation .470(8.55) Hypothesis 1 supported

Affective ! conative pattern

Affective coupons on behavioral intention for coupons .799 (14.9) Hypothesis 4 supported
Affective coupons on behavioral intention for stockpiling .401 (6.89) Hypothesis 5 supported
Affective two-for-one on behavioral intention for two-for-one .253 (3.9) Hypothesis 4 supported
Affective deals on behavioral intention for coupons .175 (4.2) Hypothesis 4 supported
Affective deals on behavioral intention for two-for-one .265 (3.9) Hypothesis 4 supported
Affective deals on behavioral intention for stockpiling .162 (2.9) Hypothesis 5 supported

Influence of traits variables

Market maven on cost/benefit estimation .220 (4.36) Hypothesis 9e supported
Variety seeking on affective two-for-one .115 (2.5) Hypothesis 8b supported
Variety seeking on affective deals .098 (2.1) Hypothesis 8c supported
Busyness on cost/benefit estimation .159 (4.39) Hypothesis 7e supported
Busyness on behavioral intention for coupons  .121 (  5.41) Hypothesis 7a supported
Brand loyalty on affective deals  .109 (  2.4) Hypothesis 10c supported
Brand loyalty on behavioral intention for coupons  .189 (  5.5) Hypothesis 10d supported
Store loyalty on behavioral intention for coupons .078 (2.4) Hypothesis 11a supported
Store loyalty on behavioral intention for two-for-one  .131 (  2.3) Hypothesis 11b supported
Only significant results are summarized in this table.

traits variables in the use made by consumers of sales
promotions. Nevertheless, several nuances have to be made
concerning hypothesized paths. Detailed results and explan-
ations will be made in the following discussion.
5. Discussion
If the expected cognitive – affective –conative model is
confirmed by the results, some important findings have to
be highlighted regarding the main paths. Indeed, supporting
the hypotheses, there is a differentiation at the cognitive
level between the two constructs (information search and
cost/benefit evaluations). Even if a cognitive construct is
always shaping affect about sales promotions, these con-
structs have different roles, according to the type of sales
promotions, in shaping the whole process. For example, in
the case of coupons and due to the specific nature of this
type of sales promotions, information search plays an
important role in shaping the process (Bawa and Shoe-
maker, 1987) (Hypothesis 3a). On the other hand, for
promotions like ‘‘two-for-one’’ involving less information
search (Kahn and Schmittlein, 1992), this construct has no
significant direct impact on the process, but rather an
indirect impact, through cost/benefit evaluation (Hypothesis
3b). Moreover, as hypothesized (Hypothesis 1), there is a
direct influence of information search on forming cost/
benefit evaluations. This ‘‘intracognitive path’’ supports
the findings of Kalwani and Yim (1992) concerning the
elaboration of judgement about expectation price by using
all usable information. Finally, it is important to notice the
main role played by the cost/benefit evaluation construct
that always influences the consumers’ affective component
about any type of promotion (Hypothesis 2). Globally, these
first results indicate that the more people perceive that they
are doing this cognitive exercise, the more they appreciate it
and feel they are smart and get good deals. This finding is
supported by the results of Schindler (1984) and Shimp and
Kavas (1984).
Following the hypotheses, as consumers express positive
feelings towards coupons, ‘‘two-for-one’’ and deals in
general, the quantity of purchases made using promotions
increases, since the paths coefficients reflect the significance
of the causal relationships between attitude toward promo-
tions and promotion’s usage behavior (Hypotheses 4 and 5).
Nevertheless, an interesting result concerns the absence of a
significant path between affect toward ‘‘two-for-one’’ and
the behavioral intention of stockpiling. Following Helsen
520 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
and Schmittlein findings (1992), all the paths should have
been significant. We found some potential explanation in a
comment by Blattberg and Neslin (1990). Coupons have
expiry dates and might be perceived as temporary reduc-
tions you have to profit. On the other hand, for two-for-one
promotion, like for temporary price cut, consumers might
delay their purchase until they run out-of-stock of the
product category.
Scrutiny of the results concerning the different potential
moderators of the process components also offers some
interesting insights. Contrary to the hypothesis regarding
the financial wellness variable (Hypothesis 6), no meaning-
ful path has been identified. Moreover, there is a positive
relationship between financial wellness and behavioral
intention for ‘‘two-for-one’’ promotions. These results are
somewhat unexpected. However, they corroborate the find-
ing that, for instance, affluent consumers want to be seen as
smart and sophisticated shoppers (Town and Country, 1994)
and are not reluctant in purchasing promoted products to
save money.
The busyness variable negatively affects the behavioral
intention toward coupons in the model (Hypothesis 7).
People who report being busy often have a reduced
opportunity to incur the fixed and the handling costs
required in redeeming coupons (Mittal, 1994). The absence
of a significant path for behavioral intentions toward ‘‘two-
for-one’’ supports the lack of influence of busyness on this
type of sales promotions. They do not need to be planned,
require less personal investment to redeem and therefore
are not affected by the busyness variable (Kahn and
Schmittlein, 1992). Also, busyness does not impact
information search construct. Moreover and more surpris-
ingly, busyness has a positive impact on the cost/benefit
evaluation. This result suggests that the more the consumer
is busy the more he will evaluate sales promotions. The
rationale behind this result can be that in order to avoid
noisy, inefficient, i.e., time-consuming or useless sales
promotions, busy persons study more carefully what pro-
motions they will like and use.
The variety-seeking variable positively influences the
affective component (Hypothesis 8). It supports the concept
of fun seeking (Lichtenstein et al., 1998) and reinforces the
pleasant aspect of sales promotion in itself (positive affect).
In addition, it confirms that sales promotions represent an
incentive to try new products. Nevertheless, the nonsignifi-
cant path for coupon affect tends to support the fact that the
variety-seeking trait would be correlated with the liking of
promotions involving limited search and effort.
The market maven variable affects only one of the two
constructs forming the cognitive component of the pattern
(Hypothesis 9). In fact, more precisely, it influences pos-
itively the cost/benefit evaluation dimension. Surprisingly,
although ‘‘market maven’’ individuals are well-informed
consumers, the relationship between market maven trait
and information search is not significant. This result can
be easily interpreted if we consider that the cost/benefit
evaluation is formed partially with the information previ-
ously acquired and that for market mavens the analysis they
make about the sales promotions and the quality of this
analysis is going to define their market maven status. On the
other hand, contrary to Price and Feick’s quote, it does not
mean that having a market maven status has an influence on
the quantity of promoted products purchased (smart shop-
pers don’t always go for coupons or ‘‘two-for-one’’). In fact,
market mavens do not buy much more promoted products
than nonmarket mavens do.
Our results support the negative relationship between
brand loyalty and coupons redemption, as well as brand
loyalty and affect towards deals (Hypothesis 10). However,
the hypothesized influence on the other affective and
conative constructs is not supported. Brand loyal consumers
seem to differ from nonloyal in their avoidance of promo-
tions involving cognitive efforts (Laroche et al., 1994).
Otherwise, this trait is not significant. Finally, as hypothe-
sized, store loyal consumers tend to buy more products
using coupons than nonstore loyal ones. This result supports
Kahn and Schmittlein’s (1992) findings and suggests that
store loyalty positively moderates the intent to use coupons
in the favorite stores (Hypothesis 11a). Moreover, store
loyalty negatively moderates the behavioral intention to
use two-for-one promotions (Hypothesis 11b). It suggests
that being store loyal reduce the behavioral intention toward
in-store promotion (Park et al., 1989).
6. Conclusion and implications
A cognitive – affective –conative multidimensional model
was conceptualized to integrate all aspects of how and why
consumers use sales promotion. As the results indicated, the
model significantly predicted the resulting behavior towards
deals and significant trait variables moderating the process
were identified.
Through contrasting two types of promotional tools —
coupons and two-for-one promotions — we highlight com-
monalities in the process of promotion use, but nonetheless
significant and interesting differences. In particular, our
hypothesized link between affect toward two-for-one and
stockpiling is not supported. This finding does not support
the literature on stockpiling, and is counterintuitive.
Although we found explanations for this result in the
literature (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990), we hope we open
fruitful avenues for additional researches on noncoupons
promotions. In the same vein, the differential impact of trait
variables on our two promotional mechanisms also high-
lights the interest of considering deal-responsive behaviors
as domain-specific constructs.
From a managerial standpoint, the results of the present
study show that retailers should also take into account that
consumers might enjoy using coupons and two-for-one
(affect component) and treat information and make evalu-
ation as the basis of their future use of sales promotions
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
(cognitive component). Moreover, we believe our model
could be useful to retailers initiating appropriate promotional
tools, depending on their promotional objectives (e.g., two-
for-one promotions would not induce stockpiling). Finally,
our results suggest the importance for retailers to understand
the influence of individual traits on the promotional process.
Particularly, segmenting consumer markets according to the
identified variables would allow managers to select pro-
motional mechanisms more efficiently. For instance, iden-
tifying the relative importance of the store loyal consumers
segment among store patrons will dictate which type of sales
promotions should be implemented.
One shortcoming of this study is the use of self-report
measures. However, self-report measures of information
search and coupon behavior have been extensively used in
past researches (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Mittal, 1994;
Lichtenstein et al., 1990) and the correlation between self-
report measures and observed behaviors has proved sig-
nificant (Shimp and Kavas, 1984). Further research that
combines both survey-based measures with scanner panel
data might be more accurate in measuring the real response
to deals.
Due to the central role played by the cognitive compon-
ent in our model, it would be interesting to dig deeper into
the cognitive processes. A specific focus on the nature of the
cost/benefit evaluation and of the information search would
be of great interest to better understand the underlying
process. Furthermore, this research does not directly exam-
ine the effects of various types of promotions on observable
consumer responses identified in the sales promotion lit-
erature, such as brand choice, purchase intent, repeat pur-
chase, impulse buying and interpurchase time. It would be
crucial to comprehend the responses generated by each of
the specific deals to opt for more efficient promotional
strategies and reach more precise targets. Despite these
limitations, we hope that the issues raised in this study will
stimulate additional research in the field of consumer
responses to sales promotion.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada.
References
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a re-
view and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103:
411 – 23.
Arnold S, Oum T, Tigert D. Determinant Attributes in Retail Patronage:
Seasonal, Temporal, Regional and International Comparisons. J Mark
Res 1983;20(2):149 – 58.
Bawa K, Shoemaker RW. The effects of a direct mail coupon on brand
choice behavior. J Mark Res 1987;24:370 – 6 (November).
521
Bawa K, Shoemaker R. Analyzing incremental sales from a direct mail
coupon promotion. J Mark 1989;53:66 – 78 (July).
Blattberg RC, Neslin SA. Sales promotion: concepts, methods and strat-
egies Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990.
Blattberg RC, Eppen GD, Lieberman J. A theoretical and empirical evalua-
tion of price deals for consumer nondurables. J Mark 1981;45:116 – 29
(Winter).
Bollen K. Structural equations with latent variables New York: Wiley, 1989.
Browne M. Single sample cross validation indices for covariance structures.
Multivariate Behav Res 1989;24:445 – 55.
Burton S, Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Garretson JA. A scale for
measuring attitude toward private label products and an examination
of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Acad Mark Sci
1998;26:293 – 306 (Fall).
Folkes V, Wheat RD. Consumer’s price perceptions of promoted products. J
Retailing 1995;71(3):317 – 28.
Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating Structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18(1):39 – 50.
Helsen K, Schmittlein DC. Some characterizations of stockpiling behavior
under uncertainty. Mark Lett 1992;3(1):5 – 16.
Henderson CM. The interaction of coupons with price and store promo-
tions. Adv Consum Res 1987;15:364 – 71.
Inman JJ, McAlister L, Hoyer WD. Promotional signal: proxy for a price
cut. J Consum Res 1990;17:74 – 81 (June).
Kahn BE, Schmittlein DC. The relationship between purchases made on
promotion and shopping trip behavior. J Retailing 1992;68(3):294 – 315.
Kalwani MU, Yim CK. Consumer price and promotion expectations: an
experimental study. J Mark Res 1992;29:90 – 101 (February).
Kotler P. Marketing management Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1988.
Laroche M, Kim C, Zhou L, Jorizzo JC. An empirical study of the influence
of ethnicity on the consumer brand selection process. Proceedings of
ASAC Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 1994.
Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. Distinguishing coupon prone-
ness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction theory per-
spective. J Mark 1990;54:54 – 67 (July).
Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. Assessing the domain specific-
ity of deal proneness: a field study. J Consum Res 1995;22:314 – 26.
Lichtenstein DR, Burton S, Netemeyer RG. An examination of deal prone-
ness across sales promotion types: a consumer segmentation perspec-
tive. J Retailing 1997;73(2):283 – 97.
McCann JM. Market segment response to the marketing decision variables.
J Mark Res 1974;11:399 – 412 (November).
McClure PJ, West EJ. Sales effects of a new counter display. J Advertising
Res 1969;9:29 – 34.
Mittal B. An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer character-
istics to supermarket coupon redemption. J Mark Res 1994;31:533 – 44.
Montgomery DB. Consumer characteristics associated with dealing: an
empirical study. J Mark Res 1971;8:118 – 20 (February).
Mulhern FJ, Padgett DT. The relationship between retail price promotions
and regular price purchases. J Mark 1995;59(4):83 – 90.
Narasimhan C. A price discrimination theory of coupons. Mark Sci
1984;2:128 (Spring).
Neslin SA, Quelch J, Henderson C. Consumer promotions and the accel-
eration of product purchases, in research on sales promotion: collected
papers. In: Jocz KE, editor. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Insti-
tute, 1984. p. 26 – 33.
Park CW, Iyer ES, Smith DC. The effect of situational factors on in-store
grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time
available for shopping. J Consum Res 1989;15:422 – 33 (March).
Price LI, Feick LF. Couponing behaviors of the market maven: profile of a
super couponer. Adv Consum Res 1988;15:354 – 9.
Rosenberg MJ. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. J Abnorm Soc
Psychol 1956;53:367 – 72 (November).
Schindler R. How cents-off coupons motivate the consumer, in research on
sales promotion: collected papers. In: Jocz KE, editor. Cambridge, MA:
Marketing Science, 1984. p. 47 – 62.
522 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 513–522
Schneider LG, Currim IS. Consumer purchase behaviors associated with
active and passive deal proneness. Int J Res Mark 1991;8:205 – 22.
Schultz DE, Robinson WA. Sales promotion management Chicago: Crain
Books, 1982.
Shimp TA, Kavas A. The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon
usage. J Consum Res 11. Fortworth, TX: Dryden Press, 1984. p.
795 – 809.
Shoemaker R. An analysis of consumer reactions to product promotions in
educators’ conference proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing As-
sociation, 1979. p. 244 – 8.
Strang RA. Sales promotion research: contributions and issues. Unpub-
lished Paper, Presented at the AMA/MSI/PMAA Sales Promotion
Workshop, Babson College, May 1983.
Tanaka J. Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models.
Testing Structural Equation Models Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
1993.
Town and Country. Wealth in America: a study of values and attitudes
among the wealthy today 1994;148(5169):151 – 2.
Uncles MD, Ehrenberg ASC. The buying of packaged goods at US retail
chains. J Retailing 1990;66:278 – 96 (Fall).
Urbany JP, Dickson P, Kalapurakal R. Price search in the retail grocery
market. J Mark 1996;60:91 – 104 (April).
Walters RG, Rinne HJ. An empirical investigation into the impact of price
promotions on retail store performance. J Retailing 1986;62:237 – 66
(Fall).
Webster F. The deal prone consumer. J Mark Res 1965;2:186 – 9 (May).