Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260

Consumers use of price promotions: a model and its potential

moderators
Michel Laroche *, Frank Pons , Nadia Zgolli , Chankon Kim

Department of Marketing, Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve West, Montreal,
Que& bec, Canada H3G 1M8

Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Abstract

In the context of consumers' use of price-oriented promotions, a multidimensional model, which follows a cognitive}a!ective-
behavior pattern was proposed. This model integrates all the aspects of how and why consumers use sales promotions and speci"es
the linkage between consumers' beliefs, attitude and behavior. The cognitive component of the pattern included two dimensions: (a)
the overall evaluation of the bene"ts triggered by the use of the promotion and (b) the information search about the potential price
promotions. It is posited to in#uence the degree of liking of speci"c price promotions as well as the liking of deals in general. This
a!ective component is then posited to in#uence behavioral intentions towards price promotions and stockpiling. A structural
equation modeling analysis (SEM) o!ers relatively strong support for the expected paths. Moreover, the potential in#uences on this
pattern of consumers' traits are included. Busyness, variety seeking, perceived "nancial wellness, market maven and brand loyalty are
posited to have speci"c in#uences on the three components of the pattern. Results are presented and discussed.  2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Price-oriented; Promotions; Sales promotion; Lifestyle; Structural equation modeling

1. Introduction an attempt to identify and understand the deal-prone

Sales promotions have constituted an increasing pro-
portion of the promotional budgets in recent years. Don-
nelley's survey (Donnelley Marketing, 1994) found that
packaged goods manufacturers' spending on consumer
sales promotions now exceeds the amount spent on
advertising and that "rms are using on average more
than eight di!erent types of consumer sales promotions.
Several authors (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Schneider
and Currim, 1991; Lichtenstein et al., 1995) identi"ed
di!erent categories of consumer-oriented sales promo-
tions and price promotions were often considered as the
main focus of these studies. Indeed, price reduction is the
most cited bene"t of consumer sales promotions and
a substantial variance can be found across sales promo-
tions with respect to this bene"t (Blattberg and Neslin,
1990; Lichtenstein et al., 1995). Because of the continuous
growing importance of sales promotions, considerable
research has been directed to study their mechanisms in
* Corresponding author. Tel.:#1-514-848-2942; fax:#1-514-848-4576.
E-mail address: laroche@mercato.concordia.ca (M. Laroche).
consumer. Nevertheless, "ndings pertaining to the sales
promotions context have somewhat failed to clarify
correlates of deal proneness. The main criticisms lie in
the inability of previous studies to consider deals from
the consumer's perspective (Shimp and Kavas, 1984),
but also in the fact they use single-product categories
for the assessment of deal proneness (Henderson, 1987)
and "nally in their failure to treat deal proneness as
a latent construct (Lichtenstein et al., 1990) that may
be domain speci"c. Moreover, the lack of distinction
made among the attitudinal and behavioral constructs
when measuring the deal proneness concept is also a
crucial issue in sales promotion studies (Lichtenstein
et al., 1990).
In fact, Lichtenstein et al. (1995, 1998) argue that the
traditional behavioral-level measurement of coupon
proneness was unable to fully describe the consumer's
perspective on coupon's use and that a psychological-
level of measurement would be more desirable in order
to provide a better understanding of the coupon re-
demption process. More speci"cally, investigations
into cognitive and a!ective e!ects of coupons have been
surprisingly understudied in the past (Shimp and Kavas,

0969-6989/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 3 1 - X
252 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
1984; Hahn et al., 1995) but would certainly give a clearer
hint on how the promotion use is initiated.
Furthermore, results of previous studies indicate that
ambiguity surrounds the impact of traits and demo-
graphic variables on the portrait of the deal prone
consumer (Bawa and Shoemaker, 1989; Blattberg et al.,
1978). The extent of relationships that are reported in
most of these studies tend to be inconsistent and unclear.
As stated by Blattberg and Neslin (1990), `the deal prone
literature has yielded some important de"nitive results,
but they are far from completely understooda. Therefore,
the challenge for researchers is twofold. First, they have
to better identify those consumers who possess the deal-
prone trait; but moreover, they have to understand how
demographics and lifestyles can impact the coupon atti-
tude/use process.
The purpose of this study is to de"ne the consumers'
deal usage process and to examine the potential in#uen-
ces of traits variables on this process. A multidimensional
model, based on the hierarchy of e!ects model (Rosen-
berg, 1956) is drawn from previous research results and
hypothesized. Particularly, we contrast the process for
two di!erent price promotions } coupons and cents-o!
promotions * that are supposed to trigger di!erent
promotional responses and we compare them with the
process for deals in general (domain speci"c versus do-
main general). The results are then discussed, and several
implications are detailed.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Overview of sales promotion
Sales promotions encompasses all promotional activ-
ities other than advertising, personal selling, or public
relations. Blattberg and Neslin (1990) summarize the
various de"nitions o!ered by several authors (Kotler,
1988; Webster, 1965; Schultz and Robinson, 1982), and
consider sales promotions as `an action-focused market-
ing event whose purpose is to have a direct impact on the
behavior of the "rm's customersa.
Several important aspects of sales promotions should
be highlighted to complete the de"nition mentioned
above. First, sales promotions involve some type of
inducement that provides an extra incentive to buy
(Schultz and Robinson, 1982) and represents the key
element in a promotional program. According to Strang
(1983), this incentive is added to the basic bene"ts
provided by the brand. It temporarily alters the per-
ceived brand price or value. It is also considered as
an acceleration tool designed to speed up the selling
process and maximize sales volume (Neslin et al.,
1984). By o!ering this extra incentive, sales promotion
techniques can motivate consumers to buy a larger
quantity of a brand or shorten the interpurchase time of
the trade by inducing consumers to take more immediate
action.
Sales promotions can be classi"ed as price or non-
price promotions (Lichtenstein et al., 1995). The two
mainly used price promotion techniques are the coupons
and the cents-o!. The coupon is a promotional tool that
requires consumers to redeem the promotion (Shimp,
1993). Coupons can be disseminated to consumers
through newspapers and magazines, direct mail and
packages with di!erent outcomes in terms of capturing
the consumer's attention and overcoming the competi-
tive clutter.
The cents-o! promotions are reductions in a brand's
regular price. They are o!ered right on the package and
typically range from 10 to 25% o! the regular price for
grocery packaged goods.
Several researchers suggest that sensitivity to di!erent
types of sales promotions might explain di!erent promo-
tional responses (Schneider and Currim, 1991; Hender-
son, 1987). Following this rationale, in our study, two
promotional mechanisms supposed to trigger di!erent
consumer responses were included in the model as
separate constructs: coupons and cents-o!. In addition,
following the view that there are su$cient similarities in
consumers' behavior from one deal mechanism to an-
other to consider deal-responsive behavior as a generaliz-
ed construct (Shimp and Kavas, 1984; Lichtenstein et al.,
1997), we also include in the model a generalized con-
struct measuring the attitude toward deals in general.
2.2. Price perception and price-oriented sales promotions:
toward a cognitive process
Several recent studies tend to support the presence of
mental processing made by the consumer as the initial
stage of promotion use, particularly regarding the in#u-
ence of the promotion on the price perception of the
purchase (Lichtenstein et al., 1995, 1998; Folkes and
Wheat, 1995; Cheong, 1993). Price perception theories
study the relationship between objective price and con-
sumers' judgments of the price (Dickson, 1983; Sawyer
et al., 1984).
Price promotions signi"cantly a!ect consumers' price
perception (Folkes and Wheat, 1995). O!ering a product
with a rebate results in higher perceptions as measured
by the most one would pay, expected price, fair price and
reasonable price. This di!erence is explained from
a Mental Accounting perspective (Thaler, 1985). Kalwani
and Yim (1992) also explored the "eld of consumers' price
expectations. Their study proposes that consumers form
expectations of prices and use them in formulating their
response to retail pricing. Their "ndings reveal that con-
sumer reaction depends not only on 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
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
in forming price judgments. Therefore, even if di!erent
processes have been hypothesized, there is a consensus
on the existence of a cognitive process. This process can
be described as a cognitive evaluation, made by the
consumers, of the bene"ts of a price promotion. More-
over, this idea is developed by Lichtenstein et al. (1998),
who "nd similarities between consumers with positive
attitude toward private label products and consumers
using price promotions, particularly regarding the `men-
tal calculationa involved. They describe these consumers
as `thoughtful shoppers who take pride in their deci-
sion-making abilitya. These evaluations made by the
consumers positively in#uence the purchase intention of
private label products through the liking of these private
labels. Similarly, the same cognitive}a!ective-behavioral
pattern can be hypothesized in the case of price pro-
motions. Consequently, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H1: Consumers' evaluations of promotions bene"ts pos-
itively in#uence their liking of (a) coupons (b) cents-
o! and (c) deals in general.
Finally, certain promotional mechanisms such as cou-
pons inherently require `searchinga 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
speci"c behavior such as intensive use of weekly store
#iers containing coupons as well as information on sales
(Lichtenstein et al., 1995). Hence, using a coupon and
identifying cents-o! are thoughtful decisions and
involve information search costs (Kahn and Schmittlein,
1992). Moreover, Kalwani and Yim (1992) showed that
consumers tend to use the last few purchase prices as
a reference, as well as readily available information from
the environment concerning promotions. This infor-
mation included circulars as well as other advertising
information. Consequently, the following hypotheses can
be proposed:
H2: Consumers' information search about promotions
positively in#uences their liking of (a) coupons
(b) cents-o! and (c) deals in general.
2.3. Liking of price-oriented promotions and deals:
ewects on purchase intentions
Shoemaker (1979) was one of the "rst to investigate the
e!ects of promotions on purchase behavior. He empiric-
ally showed that purchase acceleration was due to sales
promotion. His "ndings suggested that 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
253
classes, they found statistically signi"cant evidence of
purchase acceleration in terms of both larger quantities
and shorter interpurchase times. Raju and Hastak (1983),
who examined the e!ect of deal's magnitude on the
purchase behavior due to promotions, con"rmed these
results. At the individual level, however, price pro-
motions seemed to act as a disturbing element, which
inhibits negative thoughts that might arise about the
brand. Also, Neslin et al. (1984) expanded this empirical
line of inquiry by developing an analytical framework for
studying purchase acceleration.
Their main "ndings 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, 1998), deal-prone
consumers tend to develop links between their liking of
speci"c price 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., feel-
ing good about using the promotion) that plays
the major role in directing the behavior. Consequently,
the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3: Consumers' liking of (a) coupons, (b) cents-o! and
(c) deals in general positively in#uence their pur-
chase intention of the promoted product.
H4: Consumers' liking of (a) coupons, (b) cents-o! and
(c) deals in general positively in#uence their stock-
piling intention.
2.4. Potential traits inyuences on the
cognitive}awective}conative pattern
From managerial and academic perspectives, a tre-
mendous e!ort has been made to de"ne the `deal-pronea
consumer. The targeting of consumer deals, as well as the
understanding of consumer behavior would be improved
by the knowledge of the consumers' characteristics that
relate to deal purchasing in a product market.
Mittal (1994) presented a set of explanatory variables
to capture the psychology of coupon-use behaviors. His
model regrouped demographic variables, lifestyles and
self-perception traits (busyness, "nancial wellness, and
pride in homemaking). Particularly, he underlined the
fact that busy and well-o! people were buying fewer
promoted products than their counterpart. He also re-
viewed some of the consumer shopping traits, such as
brand loyalty, store loyalty and comparison-shopping.
One of his main "ndings was that coupon redemption-
behavior and demographics were not linked in any
way. This "nding contradicted previous "ndings
254 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
(Montgomery, 1971; Blattberg et al., 1978; Teel et al.,
1980; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987, Narasimhan, 1984).
However, consumers' shopping traits did have a signi"-
cant e!ect in explaining coupon redemption.
The brand loyalty trait is probably the most studied
individual-di!erence variable in the promotional litera-
ture. Results are consistent in suggesting that brand
loyalty negatively a!ects deal or coupon attitude and use
(Webster, 1965; Montgomery, 1971).
Price et al. (1988) included another personality trait in
the study of coupon proneness, which is `market maven-
isma. The authors de"ned the market mavens as the
people who possess information about the market prod-
ucts, places to shop, and who provide other consumers
with market information. These consumers are charac-
terized by their expertise, in that they plan their shopping
trips, their expenses and are heavy users of coupons. The
results of this work indicated that this type of extra-
consumers was likely to engage in `smart shoppinga
behaviors. Urbany et al. (1996) found a positive e!ect of
market mavenism on search behaviors and cognitive
activities.
An additional trait variable, which could signi"cantly
in#uence promotion use process, is the variety-seeking
trait. In particular, when consumers seek variety, they
should like promotions that might help them discover
new products (Narasimhan, 1984).
Lichteinstein et al. (1990) were among the "rst to
describe moderators of the relationship between coupon
proneness and coupon redemption behavior. They
developed a two-staged model in which a psychological
level in#uenced the coupon-responsive behavior rather
than seeing it as `isomorphic with the behaviora. Consid-
ering this approach, the impact of the potential variables
will be considered at each speci"c component level of the
model (cognitive, a!ective and conative). Moreover, to
avoid the controversy about demographic variables, no
speci"c hypothesis will be made concerning these vari-
ables. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5: Market mavens positively in#uence (a) consumers'
information search about promotions and (b) their
evaluations of promotion bene"ts.
H6: Variety seeking positively in#uences consumers' lik-
ing of (a) coupons, (b) cents-o! and (c) deals in
general.
H7: Busyness negatively in#uences consumers' (a) pur-
chase intentions of coupons promoted products,
(b) purchase intentions of cents-o! promoted prod-
ucts and (c) stockpiling intentions.
H8: Brand loyalty negatively in#uences consumers'
(a) purchase intentions of coupons promoted prod-
ucts, (b) purchase intentions of cents-o! promoted
products, (c) stockpiling intentions, (d) liking of cou-
pons, (e) liking of cents-o! and (f) liking of deals in
general.
H9: Financial wellness negatively in#uences consumers'
(a) purchase intentions of coupons promoted prod-
ucts, (b) purchase intentions of cents-o! promoted
products and (c) stockpiling intentions.
The hypotheses concerning the potential in#uence of
traits variables on the model as well as the general
process of promotion use itself are summarized in Fig. 1.
3. Method
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 representa-
tive sample, the data collection was con"ned to a selected
number of census tracts located in the city and its sur-
rounding area. A sample of at least 200 usable question-
naires 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-
tioned to the relative population of the particular census
tract. The questionnaires were administered door to door
and a prepaid envelope was provided to respondents to
allow them to mail the completed questionnaire at their
convenience. A total of 898 questionnaires were distrib-
uted, 228 usable questionnaires were returned for an
average response rate of 25.4%. Among the respondents,
the initial repartition of quotas was fairly respected. The
majority of the respondents for this survey were female
(about 64%). 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
The questionnaire was designed in order to obtain
detailed data concerning the cognitive, a!ective and con-
ative components of the process describing consumers'
use of price promotions. The data were collected for the
two previously introduced types of price promotions
(coupons and cents-o!) as well as for deals in general. For
clari"cation, a de"nition of each deal option was given to
respondents as a reference in the cover letter accompany-
ing the questionnaire.
The measures were taken from the study conducted by
Lichtenstein et al. (1997) in which they developed separ-
ate multi-item scales for each speci"c deal proneness. The
procedures used to develop these scales closely adhered
to procedures recommended in the scale development
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
Fig. 1. Consumers use of price promotions: an attitudinal model
literature and support the argument of validity of these
scales. Moreover, other measures previously introduced
were included such as economic bene"ts (Mittal, 1994),
stockpiling (Helsen and Schmittlein, 1992) and one-item
scales to quantify the usage of deals in the last month.
The whole set of variables was then separated into three
subsets, namely cognitive, a!ective and conative vari-
ables. In order to reduce the data into a smaller and more
meaningful set of components and to improve the relia-
bility of the factors in each subset, several puri"cation
steps (exploratory factor analyses and deletion of items)
were run before obtaining meaningful results. A reliabil-
ity check was then performed on the "nal sample of items
for each factor. The results, as well as some sample items
are presented in Table 1.
The questionnaire also included a section dedicated to
the collection of respondent traits and demographics.
The purchase-related traits included busyness, perceived
"nancial wellness, market maven, variety-seeking and
brand loyalty. All these measures were chosen from pre-
vious studies on lifestyles (e.g., Arnold et al., 1983), and
from other studies related to deal proneness and attitudes
of households towards sales promotion (Mittal, 1994;
Price et al., 1988). Items were measured on a 9-point
Likert scale (1"`disagree stronglya to 9"`agree
stronglya) for all the statements. A reliability check was
also performed for all factors and is presented in Table 1.
Finally, following the Farnell and Larcker procedure
(1981), the discriminant and convergent validity of the
measure instrument have been assessed.
255
4. Results
4.1. Overview
Based on the literature review, the hypotheses have
been conceptualized in the structural model presented in
Fig. 1. The di!erent paths of the model refer to the
various hypotheses and include the cognitive}a!ec-
tive}conative pattern and the potential in#uence of some
traits variables on this pattern. Therefore, the overall
estimation of the speci"ed model as well as the paths
allows the test of the hypotheses.
The model estimation was performed using EQS soft-
ware. Di!erent indicators can be used to assess the over-
all "t qualities of the model. If the
 value is historically
the initial estimator of one model's "t (Bollen, 1989;
Browne, 1989), its sensibility to sample sizes and dis-
tributions have oriented researchers towards modi"ed
versions of the
 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Tanaka,
1993). The standardized
 (
/degrees of freedom) rep-
resents the "rst alternative. The acceptance criterion
ranges between 4 and 5 for the least stringent methods
(Wheaton et al., 1977) and between 2 and 3 for the strict
approaches (Carmines and Mac Iver, 1981). Another "t
indicator, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), shows the
signi"cance of the hypothesized model. The cuto! value
suggested for adequate "t is 0.90 (Bentler and Bonett,
1980). Finally, the standardized value and the signi"-
cance (t-value) of the estimated measurement parameters
(paths) are given.
256 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260

Table 1
Reliability check and items samples

Description Item Cronbach alpha

Cognitive
Information search in supermarket #iers (3 items) I use grocery store circular/#ier advertisements to decide which store 0.85
I will patronize.
Prior to shopping, I check all the #iers for promoted brands and prices.
Promotions bene"ts evaluation (3 items) Promotions can save me a lot of money. 0.80
Cents-o! promotions can save a shopper a lot of money.
Awective
Liking `Cents-o!a (2 items) I enjoy buying products with cents-o! promotions, regardless of the 0.85
amount I save by doing so.
Buying products with cents-o! promotions makes me feel good.
Liking coupons (3 items) I enjoy clipping coupons out of newspapers or magazines. 0.87
Redeeming coupons makes me feel good.
Liking deals in general (3 items) I enjoy buying brands that are promoted. 0.77
Receiving a promotional o!er with a product purchase makes me feel
like I am a good shopper.
Conative
Behavioral intention toward `Cents-o! a (3 items) During the last month, how many times did you buy products o!ered 0.80
with a `Cents-o!a promotion?
I am more likely to buy a brand if it has a Cent-O! promotion on
the label.
Behavioral intention toward coupons (3 items) I am more likely to buy brands for which I have a coupon. 0.79
Approximately how many coupons do you redeem in a month?
Behavioral intention toward stockpiling (3 items) If a product that I usually buy is being promoted, I will purchase it 0.84
even if I do not need it for immediate use.
If a product that I usually buy is being promoted, I will increase the
quantity of my purchases (i.e., stock up).
Lifestyles and traits
Market maven (3 items) People come to me more often than I go to them for information 0.82
on brands.
My friends think of me as a good source of information when it comes
to new products or sales.
Brand loyalty (4 items) Once I "nd a brand I like I tend to stick with it. 0.77
For most supermarket items, I have favorite brands and limit my
purchasing to them.
Store loyalty (2 items) I do most of my shopping in the stores I have always shopped in. 0.85
Once I get used to where things are in a supermarket, I hate to change
stores.
Perceived "nancial wellness (3 items) I am generally on a tight budget. 0.75
I consider myself "nancially well o!.
Busyness (3 items) `So much to do, so little timea, this saying applies very well to me. 0.76
I am too busy to relax.
Variety seeking (3 items) I often buy other brands to see if they are better than the brand(s) 0.76
I usually buy.
I often try new brands before my friends and neighbors do.

4.2. Test of the hypotheses
The "t indicators of the overall model, the estimated
structural parameters, their statistical signi"cance and
the associated tests of hypotheses are reported in Table 2.
The overall "t indicators of the model are good and
therefore we can consider that the proposed model "ts
the data adequately. Consequently, the results support
the pertinence of the expected cognitive}a!ective}con-
ative pattern as well as the potential role played by traits
variables in the use made by consumers of price pro-
motions. Nevertheless, some of the hypotheses made
regarding the potential impact of traits variables are
not supported. Therefore, a scrutiny of the results is
necessary in order to fully understand the hypothesized
pattern. It will be presented in the following discussion.
5. Discussion
First, even if the expected cognitive}a!ective}conative
model was con"rmed by the general results, based on
di!erent interpretations of the existing literature, poten-
tial existence of reversed paths for the "rst 3 hypo-
theses of the study could have been questioned. In order
to avoid any doubt about reciprocal paths, a causal
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260 257

Table 2
Model "t results and evaluation of the tested structural paths

Fit indicators

CFI 0.928

/df 1.54
Path tested Standardized estimate Test of hypotheses
(t-value)
CognitivePawective pattern
Info. search on liking coupons 0.544 (8.2) H2a supported
Info. search on liking Cents-o! 0.282 (4.2) H2b supported
Info. search on liking deals 0.150 (2.1) H2c supported
Bene"ts evaluation on liking coupons 0.432 (5.1) H1a supported
Bene"ts evaluation on liking cents-o! 0.556 (5.3) H1b supported
Bene"ts evaluation on liking deals 0.562 (4.7) H1c supported
AwectivePconative pattern
Liking coupons on behav. intent for coupons 0.653 (8.6) H3a supported
Liking coupons on behav. intent to stockpile 0.276 (3.0) H4a supported
Liking cents-o! on behav. intent for cents-o! 0.633 (7.1) H3b supported
Liking cents-o! on behav. intent to stockpile N.S H4b not supported
Liking deals on behav. intent for coupons 0.261 (4.2) H3c supported
Liking deals on behav. intent for cents-o! 0.458 (6.2) H3c supported
Liking deals on behav. intent to stockpile 0.172 (2.0) H4c supported
Inyuence of traits variables
Market maven on information search 0.250 (4.1) H5a supported
Market maven on bene"ts evaluation N.S H5b not supported
Variety seeking on liking coupons N.S H6a not supported
Variety seeking on liking cents-o! 0.168 (2.1) H6b supported
Variety seeking on liking deals 0.242 (3.4) H6c supported
Busyness on behav. intent for coupons !0.220 (!3.7) H7a supported
Busyness on behav. intent for cents-o! N.S H7b not supported
Busyness on behav. intent to stockpile 0.230 (3.8) H7c not supported
Brand loyalty on behav. intent for coupons !0.173 (!2.4) H8a is supported
Brand loyalty on behav. intent for cents-o! !0.171 (!2.3) H8b is supported
Brand loyalty on behav. intent to stockpile N.S H8c not supported
Brand loyalty on liking coupons 0.135 (2.2) H8d not supported
Brand loyalty on liking cents-o! N.S H8e not supported
Brand loyalty on liking deals N.S H8f not supported
Financial wellness on behav. intent for coupons N.S H9a not supported
Financial wellness on behav. intent for cents-o! !0.191 (!3.2) H9b is supported
Financial wellness on behav. intent to stockpile !0.215 (!3.4) H9c is supported

predominance analysis was performed (Byrne, 1994). In
all cases, models with the hypothesized paths had a better
"t (
2 signi"cant) than the ones with reciprocal path.
Moreover, the hypothesized paths were signi"cant
whereas reciprocal ones were not, which support the
hypothesized general model.
Second, concerning the cognitive}a!ective}conative
expected pattern, the positive path between both cogni-
tive constructs and the a!ective constructs for all price
promotions as well as deals in general reveals that con-
sumers look for both information in #iers and magazines
seeking valuable coupons and make promotions bene"ts
evaluations. It also indicates that the more people per-
ceive that they are doing this cognitive work, the more
they appreciate it and feel they are smart and making
good deals. This "nding is supported by the results of
Schindler (1984) and Shimp and Kavas (1984). This cog-
nitive e!ort enhances liking of price promotions but also
of deals in general (H1, H2). Moreover, a scrutiny at the
standardized path coe$cients shows the weaker in#u-
ence of information search (compared to bene"ts evalu-
ation) on liking of Cents-o! and even a marginal one for
deals in general. In fact, as presented by Kahn and
Schmittlein (1992), some promotions like `cents-o!a con-
sidered as in-store promotions may involve less informa-
tion search.
Third, liking of deals in general and price promotions
increase the intention to buy more when a coupon or
a cents-o! accompanies a product. Moreover, as con-
sumers express positive feelings towards coupons and
deals in general, the quantity of purchases made using
promotions increases (H3, H4 a and b). An interesting
result concerns the absence of path between the liking of
cents-o! and the intention to stockpiling (H4c). Follow-
ing Helsen and Schmittlein "ndings (1992), all the paths
should have been signi"cant. The explanation that can be
given concerns the perception of the cents-o! promotions
by the consumers and speci"cally the absence of clear
258 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
date of expiration of the o!ers compared to the coupon
o!ers where the date constitutes the main information. In
the case of cents-o! promotions, the main information
communicated seems to be focused on the rebate o!ered
by the manufacturer (Blair and Landon, 1981).
Finally, the scrutiny of the results concerning the im-
pact of traits variables on the process components o!ers
some interesting insights.
The market maven variable only a!ects partly the
cognitive component of the expected pattern. In fact,
more precisely, it in#uences positively the information
search dimension but not the evaluation one. In fact, the
market maven variable implies a responsibility of know-
ledge and awareness by the individual about promotions
and products and it allows him to build his liking for
price promotions. The non-signi"cance of the in#uence
of this trait on the level of promotions bene"ts evaluation
made by the consumer is interesting. It suggests in fact
that market-maven consumers will search for more in-
formation about promotions than other consumers but it
does not mean that they will evaluate more these promo-
tions. This result suggests that the two considered cogni-
tive processes are not absolutely linked.
Globally, the variety-seeking variable in#uences posit-
ively the a!ective component. It supports the concept of
fun seeking (Lichtenstein et al., 1998) and reinforces the
pleasant aspect of promotion in itself (positive a!ect) and
the opportunity to make the product switch that it o!ers.
Nevertheless, the non-signi"cant path for coupon a!ect
tends to support the fact that the trait of searching for
variety in products has no impact on the liking of cou-
pons contrarily to cents-o!. The nature itself of the cou-
pon and the importance of the information search impact
(0.544) in the elaboration of the a!ect may explain this
result.
The busyness variable negatively a!ects the behavioral
intention toward coupons in our model. People who re-
port being busy often have a reduced opportunity to incur
the "xed and the handling costs that it required redeeming
coupons. This "nding is congruent with Mittal's result
(1994), which predicted that the busyness of households
increased brand loyalty. The absence of a signi"cant path
for behavioral intentions toward cents-o! supports the
lack of in#uence of busyness on this type of promotions.
The explanation considered can be that these kind of
promotions do not need to be planned, require less per-
sonal investment to redeem and therefore are not a!ected
by the busyness variable. Moreover, busyness positively
impacts the intention to stockpile. In fact, the busier you
are, the more you maximize your purchase by stockpiling
promoted products when you have the opportunity to
face promoted products. This result suggests that the
busy consumer, who loves to save time, also loves saving
money by the mean of deals. Even if he does not have
time for redemption of coupons or search, he will buy
larger quantities when facing a promotion.
The "nding relative to the positive e!ect of brand
loyalty on the liking of coupons is quite surprising since it
contradicts prior results that dealt with that issue. In fact,
Mittal (1994) found that increased brand loyalty gener-
ated less favorable attitudes towards coupons and thus
yielded less coupon redemption. Other studies also
revealed the negative association between brand loyalty
and coupon proneness (Webster, 1965; Montgomery,
1971; Teel et al., 1980; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987).
However, this result has to be interpreted with caution
because in prior research, authors only tested the e!ect of
promotions on brand loyalty, and more speci"cally on
coupon responsiveness. In our case, we are attempting to
investigate the opposite e!ect, which is the e!ect of brand
loyalty on attitude towards coupons. In other words, we
are trying to verify whether brand loyal consumers per-
ceive coupons positively. So, for loyal consumers, it is
really possible to like coupons but not to act in redeem-
ing them, indeed because their loyalty is strong. This
result is supported by the negative expected impact of
brand loyalty on behavioral intentions toward speci"c
price promotions.
The "nancial wellness variable did have a signi"cant
in#uence on behavior. In other words, consumers who
perceived themselves to be less wealthy were more in-
clined to use cents-o! while shopping than those who feel
they are rich enough not to bother using cents-o!. This is
congruent with Mittal's results (1994) who found that
when the income is higher, it generated a more positive
"nancial wellness self-perception that yielded less
promotional redemption. The non-signi"cant path for
behavioral intentions toward coupons can be explained
again by the nature itself of coupons that do not appear
as obvious money savers as cents-o! promotions and
also by the fact that a%uent consumers sometimes want
to be seen as smart and sophisticated shoppers and are
not reluctant in purchasing products with coupons in
order to save money. Therefore, the in#uence of "nancial
wellness does not have a signi"cant in#uence on their
redemption behavior.
6. Conclusion and implications
A cognitive}a!ective}conative multidimensional
model was conceptualized to integrate all aspects of how
and why consumers use sales promotion. As the results
indicated, the expected pattern signi"cantly predicted the
resulting behavior towards deals and traits variables had
signi"cant e!ects on the process (busyness, variety seek-
ing, "nancial wellness, brand loyalty, and market maven).
From a managerial standpoint, the results of the pres-
ent study show that some lifestyle factors (i.e., perceived
"nancial wellness, variety seeking, brand loyalty and
busyness) were the factors that most strongly in#uenced
consumers' deal interest. This "nding suggests the
 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
importance for managers of consumer knowledge regard-
ing these traits and appropriate segmentation. Moreover,
the identi"cation of average and low-income households
ought to be a prime research issue for an e$cient execu-
tion of sales promotion strategies. Managers have also to
take into account that consumers enjoy using coupons
and cents-o! because it makes them feel like smart shop-
pers. This segment of consumers is willing to look for
information seeking more appealing o!ers. These active
shoppers use many coupons and cents-o!, are willing to
shop in several di!erent stores, and to consider several
di!erent brands for each product category. One way to
reach these shoppers could be to o!er them multiple
brand coupons (coupons redeemable only if two brands
or more are purchased) or to build their `coupon loyaltya
by identifying them using panel data, and sending them
regularly a package of coupons that will reinforce their
out-of-store decision.
From the research standpoint, several questions are
raised and need to be further explored. The "rst fruitful
avenue for research pertains to the measures used in the
current study. We view further research that combines
both survey-based measures with scanner panel data that
would be more accurate in measuring the real response
to deals.
Moreover, this research does not directly examine the
e!ects of various types of promotions on observable
consumer responses identi"ed in the sales promotion
literature, such as brand choice, purchase intent, repeat
purchase, impulse buying and inter-purchase time. It
would be crucial to comprehend the responses generated
by each of the speci"c deals to opt for more e$cient
promotional strategies and reach more accurate targets.
Finally, the present study does not consider the
di!erences in response across product categories. Further
research is needed to explore the e!ect of product in-
volvement on responsiveness to deals.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the "nancial sup-
port of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada.
References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin 103, 411}423.
Arnold, S.J., Oum, T.E., Tigert, D.J., 1983. Determinant attributes in
retail patronage. Seasonal, temporal, regional and international com-
parisons. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (2), 149}157.
Bawa, K., Shoemaker, R.W., 1987. The e!ects of a direct mail coupon
on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 24,
370}376.
259
Bawa, K., Shoemaker, R., 1989. Analyzing incremental sales from
a direct mail coupon promotion. Journal of Marketing 53,
66}78.
Bentler, P., Bonett, D., 1980. Signi"cance tests and goodness of
"t in the analysis of covariance. Psychological Bulletin 88,
588}606.
Blair, E.A., Landon, E.L., 1981. The e!ects of reference prices in retail
advertisements. Journal of Marketing 45 (2), 61}69.
Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P., Sen, S., 1978. Identifying the deal
prone segment. Journal of Marketing Research 15, 369}377.
Blattberg, R.C., Eppen, G.D., Lieberman, J., 1981. A theoretical and
empirical evaluation of price deals for consumer nondurables. Jour-
nal of Marketing 45, 116}129.
Blattberg, R.C., Neslin, S.A., 1990. Sales Promotion: Concepts,
Methods and Strategies. Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cli!s, NJ.
Bollen, K., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley,
New York.
Browne, M., 1989. Single sample cross validation indices for covariance
structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24, 445}455.
Byrne, B., 1994. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and
EQS/Windows. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Carmines, E., Mc Iver, J., 1981. Analysing models with unobserved
variables: analysis of covariance structures. Social Measurement:
Current Issues. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 65}115.
Cheong, K. J., 1993. Observations: are cents-o! coupons e!ective?
Journal of Advertising Research 33 (2), 73}77.
Dickson, P.R., 1983. Pricing theory, research and practice, an examina-
tion of the weber}fechner law for gasoline prices. Unpublished
Working Paper, The Ohio State University.
Donnelley Marketing, 1994. 16th Annual Survey of Promotional Prac-
tices. Donnelley Marketing, Stamford, CT.
Folkes, V., Wheat, R.D., 1995. Consumer's price perceptions of pro-
moted products. Journal of Retailing 71 (3), 317}328.
Hahn, M., Chang, D.R., Kim, I.T., Kim, Y., 1995. Consumer response
to coupon advertising. International Journal of Advertising 14,
41}53.
Helsen, K., Schmittlein, D.C., 1992. Some characterizations of stockpil-
ing behavior under uncertainty. Marketing Letters 3 (1), 5}16.
Henderson, C.M., 1987. The interaction of coupons with price and store
promotions. Advances in Consumer Research 15, 364}371.
Kahn, B.E., Schmittlein, D.C., 1992. The relationship between pur-
chases made on promotion and shopping trip behavior. Journal of
Retailing 68 (3), 294}315.
Kalwani, M.U., Yim, C.K., 1992. Consumer price and promotion
expectations: an experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research
29 (1), 90}101.
Kotler, P., 1988. Marketing Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cli!s, NJ.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing
coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition}transac-
tion theory perspective. Journal of Marketing 54, 54}67.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1995. Assessing the
domain speci"city of deal proneness: a "eld study. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 22, 314}326.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1997. An examination
of deal proneness across sales promotion types: a consumer segmen-
tation perspective. Journal of Retailing 73 (2), 283}297.
Lichtenstein, D.R, Burton, S., Netemeyer, R.G., 1998. A scale for
measuring attitude toward private label products and an examina-
tion of its psychological and behavioral correlates. Academy of
Marketing Science 26, 293}306.
Mittal, B., 1994. An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer
characteristics to supermarket coupon redemption. Journal of Mar-
keting Research 31, 533}544.
Montgomery, D.B., 1971. Consumer characteristics associated with
dealing: an empirical study. Journal of Marketing Research 8,
118}120.
260 M. Laroche et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 251}260
Narasimhan, C., 1984. A price discrimination theory of coupons. Mar-
keting Science 3 (2), 128}147.
Neslin, S.A., Quelch, J., Henderson, C., 1984. Consumer promotions
and the acceleration of product purchases. In: Jocz, K.E. (Ed.),
Research on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers. Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA, 1984.
Price, L.L., Feick, L.F., Guskey-Federouch, A., 1988. Couponing be-
haviors of the market maven: pro"le of a super couponer. Advances
in Consumer Research 15, 354}359.
Raju, P.S., Hastak, M., 1983. Pre-trial cognitive e!ects of cents-o!
coupons. Journal of Advertising 12 (2), 24}32.
Rosenberg, M.J., 1956. Cognitive structure and attitudinal a!ect. Jour-
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53, 367}372.
Sawyer, A.G., Dickson, P.H., 1984. Psychological perspectives on con-
sumer response to sales promotion. In: Jocz, K.E. (Ed.), Research on
Sales Promotion: Collected Papers. Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge MA, 1984.
Schindler, R., 1984. How cents-o! coupons motivate the consumer. In:
Jocz, K.E. (Ed.), Research on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers.
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, pp. 47}62.
Schneider, L.G., Currim, I.S., 1991. Consumer purchase behaviors asso-
ciated with active and passive deal proneness. International Journal
of Research in Marketing 8, 205}222.
Schultz, D.E., Robinson, W.A., 1982. Sales Promotion Management.
Crain Books, Chicago.
Shimp, T.A., Kavas, A., 1984. The theory of reasoned action applied to
coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 795}809.
Shimp, T.A., 1993. Promotion Management and Marketing Commun-
ications, 3rd Edition. Dryden Press, Fort Worth.
Shoemaker, R., 1979. An analysis of consumer reactions to product
promotions. In: Educators' Conference Proceedings. American Mar-
keting Association, Chicago, pp. 244}248.
Strang, R.A., 1983. Sales promotion research: contributions and issues.
Unpublished paper presented at the AMA/MSI/PMAA Sales Pro-
motion Workshop, Babson College, May 1983.
Tanaka, J., 1993. Multifaceted conceptions of "t in structural equation
models, Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage Publications,
Newbury Park.
Teel, J.E., Williams, R.H., Bearden, W.O., 1980. Correlates of consumer
susceptibility to coupons in new grocery product introductions. Jour-
nal of Advertising 9 (3), 31}46.
Thaler, R., 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing
Science 4, 199}214.
Urbany, J.E., Kalapurakal, R., Dickson, P., 1996. Price search in the
retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing 60 (2), 91}105.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., Summers, G., 1977. Assessing
reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 84}136.
Webster, F., 1965. The deal prone consumer. Journal of Marketing
Research 2, 186}189.