Dorjiald R. Lichtenstein,.Richard G. Netemeyer, & Scot Burton
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness
From Value Consciousness: An
Acquisition-Transaction Utility
Theory Perspective
Previous research on coupon proneness has measured the construct only in behavioral terms (i.e., consumers who are more responsive to coupon promotions are coupon prone). On the basis of the study
premise that at least one other psychological construct, value consciousness, underlies the behavior of
redeeming coupons, the authors argue that coupon proneness should be conceptualized and measured
at a psychological level and treated as one construct that affects coupon-responsive behavior rather than
as isomorphic with the behavior. They offer conceptual definitions of both coupon proneness and value
consciousness and make a theoretical distinction based on acquisition-transaction utility theory. Eight
hypotheses that reflect theoretical differences between the two constructs are proposed and tested. Results support the study premise that coupon-responsive behavior is a manifestation of both value consciousness and coupon proneness.
C
OUPONS give consumers opportunities to obtain
promoted products at reduced prices. Because these
reduced prices are in the form of a coupon, individuals who respond to coupon offers have been referred
to as "coupon prone" consumers or, more generally,
"deal prone" consumers. Most research involving deal
proneness has measured the construct in behavioral
terms; consumers who act on deals (e.g., coupons) are
more deal prone (e.g., Blattberg et al. 1978; Dodson,
Tybout, and Stemthal 1978; Hackleman and Duker
1980; Henderson 1985; Massy and Frank 1965;
Montgomery 1971; Narasimham 1984; Schiffman and
Neiverth 1973; Webster 1965). A major premise of
our research is that for some consumers, the conceptually related but distinct psychological construct of
Donald R. Lichtenstein is Assistant Professor, College of Business
Administration, University of Colorado. Richard G. Netemeyer and Scot
Burton are Assistant Professors, Department of Marketing, Louisiana State
University. The authors are grateful for the helpful comments of Bill
Bearden, Ed Blair, Terry Shimp, and three anonymous JM reviewers.
54 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
"value consciousness" at times may also underlie the
behavior of responding to coupon promotions, suggesting that coupon proneness should not be equated
with coupon-redemption behavior.
"•rollowing the conceptualization of Monroe and
Petroshius (1981), we can define value as the ratio of
quality to price. As coupon offers involve a lesser outlay of money, some consumers may redeem coupons
because of the increase in value rather than because
of a proneness to respond due to the reduced price
being offered in coupon form. Consequently, when
the construct of coupon proneness is measured strictly
in behavioral terms, coupon proneness is confounded
with the correlated construct of value consciousness.
Hence, we argue that coupon proneness should not be
conceptualized as isomorphic with coupon-responsiveness behavior, but rather should be conceptualized and measured at a psychological level as only
one construct that affects the behavior of redeeming
coupons. We employ acquisition-transaction utility
theory (Thaler 1983) as a paradigm for investigating
the relationship between coupon proneness and one
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 54 (July 1990), 54-67
other psychological construct, value consciousness,
which is also hypothesized to underlie coupon-redemption behavior.
Conceptual Background
Two serious problems in dealing research are the lack
of a conceptual definition of deal proneness and the
fact that conclusions are based solely on empirical data
analysis with no prior theoretical framework (Raju and
Hastek 1980). As a consequence, explanations of consumer response to deals at the individual level usually
are not provided, and hence little is known of the psychological processes underlying dealing behavior.
Similarly, some researchers have noted that little research has examined dealing behavior from the consumer's viewpoint in an effort to understand the behavior for its own sake (Price, Feick, and GuskeyFederouch 1988; Shimp and Kavas 1984).
We contend that coupon-redemption behavior is a
function of value consciousness as well as coupon
proneness. Thus, when the construct of coupon proneness is grounded in behavioral terms of "does or does
not act on a given coupon offer," it is confounded
with the correlated construct of value consciousness.
Previous research supports this position. For example,
some researchers have argued that a price reduction
in coupon form may produce an increase in consumer
response beyond that expected from an equivalent lower
price (Raju and Hastek 1980; Schindler and Rothaus
1985). Consistent with this contention is Cotton and
Babb's (1978) finding that a price discount in coupon
form produced a significantly larger increase in sales
than an equivalent lower price. Nevertheless, quantity
demanded was higher at lower prices, as would be
expected by the negative relationship between price
and quantity demanded. This observation suggests that
classifying all individuals who respond more heavily
to coupons as coupon prone is an overstatement. That
is, many of these coupon-redeeming individuals may
be more "value prone" than "coupon prone," and thus
would have responded similarly had the product been
offered at the equivalent lower price.
Because coupon proneness and value consciousness have in common a focus on paying lower prices,
these constructs have many similar implications for
marketplace responses. However, because there are
characteristics that these two constructs do not share,
they also carry some different implications for marketplace responses. The primary objective of our article is to discriminate between the constructs "value
consciousness" and "coupon proneness" on the basis
of acquisition-transaction utility theory (Thaler 1985)
and to demonstrate the differential relationships of these
two constructs with cognitive and behavioral constructs.
We begin by offering conceptual definitions of
coupon proneness and value consciousness. Then we
offer a theoretical distinction between the two constructs based on utility theory concepts (Thaler 1985).
A hypothesis for our major premise (i.e., coupon responsive behavior is a manifestation of value consciousness as well as coupon proneness) is proposed
and tested via covariance analyses examining the effect of value consciousness of self-reported coupon
redemption behavior (controlling for the effects of
coupon proneness). Next, seven additional hypotheses
on the relationship between value consciousness, coupon proneness, and various related cognitive and behavioral marketplace responses are proposed and tested.
Finally, we discuss results and limitations along with
implications for marketers and future research needs.
Coupon Proneness
Because coupon proneness cSan be conceptualized as
one dimension of deal proneness, previous characterizations of deal proneness appear to be an appropriate
starting point for developing a conceptual definition
of coupon proneness. Prior research suggests that deal
proneness can be defined in terms of a general proneness to respond to promotions predominantly because
they are in deal form. For example, Hackleman and
Duker (1980) suggest that a deal prone consumer is
one who is more likely to find a deal "impossible to
refuse." Thaler (1983) suggests that deal prone individuals are likely to be those who purchase something
because it is a deal, only to have it lie around the
house and never be used. Henderson (1988) suggests
that consumers who operate on the behavioral mechanism of coupon primacy have a predominant "commitment to a coupon" that prevents attention to factors
such as lowest price or best value for the money. As
a result, many of these consumers may be implicitly
more likely to make their purchase decisions on which
brand to buy outside the store at the time they clip a
coupon. Similarly, Zeithaml (1988) found a segment
of consumers who define value in terms of "sales,"
"specials," and "ability to use coupons."' She found
that many of these consumers use coupons as extrinsic
signals of good deals without actually comparing the
reduced price of the couponed brand with the prices
'Zeithaml's use of the term "value" is not isomorphic with the term
"value consciousness" used here in that it has a different "systematic
meaning" (cf. Peter 1981). Zeithaml uses the term "value" in a very
broad sense to reflect the many different things consumers "value"
(place importance on) in a purchase transaction, which include the
product as well as such factors as the shopping experience, interpersonal contact, and the ability to use coupons. As noted in the introduction, the term "value consciousness" has a more narrow meaning
consistent with the definition of Monroe and Petroshius (1981) and
pertains to a specific concern for "value" received (defined in terms
of need-satisfying properties of the product) for price paid. This definition is also consistent with value as defined in acquisition-transaction utility theory (Thaler 1985).
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 5 5
of other hrands. Operating in such a manner suggests
that these consumers may rely "mindlessly" on coupons as indicators of good deals (Henderson 1988;
Zeithaml 1988).
These characterizations suggest that deal prone
consumers may perceive a deal as an end in itself as
well as a means to an end. Therefore, deal proneness
is defined as an increased propensity to respond to a
purchase offer hecause the form of the purchase offer
positively affects purchase evaluations. Similarly,
coupon proneness can he defined as an increased propensity to respond to a purchase offer hecause the
coupon form of the purchase offer positively affects
purchase evaluations.
Value Consciousness
Perceived value has heen defined as "the consumer's
overall assessment of the utility of a product hased on
what is received and what is given" (Zeithaml 1988,
p. 14). On the assumption that for most people price
and quality are the most salient "give and get" components, we define value consciousness as a concem
for paying low prices, suhject to some quality constraint.^ This definition is consistent with the definition of Monroe and Petroshius (1981; i.e., the ratio
of quality to price), the findings of Zeithaml (1988)
on the meaning of value used hy many consumers (i.e.,
"the quality I get for the price I pay"), and several
other definitions of value that appear in the literature
(cf Zeithaml 1988).
A Theoretical Distinction Based on Utility
Theory
Thaler (1985) postulates two types of utility associated with consumer purchases (see equation 1). The
first is acquisition utility, which'represents the economic gain or loss from a purchase transaction. Specifically, acquisition utility is equal to the utility derived from the purchased good minus the price paid
for the good (see equation 2). The second type of utility—transaction utility—represents the pleasure (or
displeasure) associated with the financial terms of the
deal per se and is equal to the intemal reference price
(i.e., the mentally stored price against which other
prices are judged; Rosch 1975) minus the purchase
price. The theoretical importance of the role of the
^The "subject to some quality constraint" part of the definition (rather
than a strict ratio of quality to price) is used to suggest that though a
consumer recognizes one brand as offering the highest ratio of quality
to price, it may not necessarily be the best value for the particular
consumer. The quality of the product may exceed the consumer's specific quality requirements. Therefore the highest value for the particular consumer is viewed as the lowest priced product that meets his
or her speciflc quality requirements.
56 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
intemal reference price in affecting purchase evaluations cannot he overstated. That is, because purchase
evaluations are hypothesized to he related positively
to the amount hy which the intemal reference price
exceeds the purchase price, anything that affects the
intemal reference price necessarily affects purchase
evaluations (Lichtenstein and Bearden 1989; Thaler
1985; Winer 1986).
Total Utility = Acquisition Utility + Transaction Utility
(1)
Total Utility = (Utility of Purchased Good
- Purchase Price)
(2)
+ (Intemal Reference Price
— Purchase Price)
Equation 2 indicates that, with purchase price held
constant, acquisition utility is a function of the utility
of the purchased good, whereas transaction utility is
a function of the intemal reference price. The utility
of the purchased good is determined hy the inherent
need-satisfying properties of the product (Thaler 1983).
The hasis of the intemal reference price is less clear.
The intemal reference price may conespond to some
average price of similar products (Emery 1970), the
price of the most frequently purchased hrand (Gahor
and Granger 1961), the price most frequently charged
(Olander 1970), the price last paid, the huyer's notion
of a fair price (Monroe 1973), the most recently ohserved price (Winer 1986), the lowest market price
(Lichtenstein and Bearden 1989), or other possihle
hases (cf. Klein and Oglethorpe 1987).
Zeithaml and Graham (1983) suggest that though
the mechanisms by which consumers form intemal
reference prices are largely unknown, most research
is based on the assumption that intemal reference prices
are derived from (1) experience with the product or
(2) readily accessihle information from the environment. With purchase price held constant, if the internal reference price is hased largely on the perceived
utility of the product, transaction utility will he affected by acquisition utility (see equations 1 and 2).
In this case, coupons provide increases in transaction
utility (and, hence, "good deals") otily if they are used
for hrands that offer higher levels of perceived needsatisfying ability. In contrast, if the intemal reference
price is hased primarily on extemal price information
(e.g., normal prices charged), transaction utility is less
dependent on acquisition utility. In this case, the use
of a coupon represents a "good deal" (via transaction
utility) for any hrand because it increases the amount
hy which the (extemal price-based) intemal reference
price exceeds the purchase price.
A hasic premise underlying our research is that individuals whose value perceptions are largely affected
hy the inherent need-satisfying ahility of the product
(acquisition utility) are more likely to he value con-
scious than coupon prone. Conversely, individuals
whose value perceptions are more dependent on transaction utility (and less dependent on acquisition utility) are more likely to be coupon prone. The basis for
this premise is the relationship between the conceptual
definitions of value consciousness and coupon proneness and their differential relationships with the two
types of utility. Because the coupon form of the price
deal (i.e., a coupon vs. a lower offering price) affects
the internal reference price (and hence transaction
utility), but does not affect the inherent need-satisfying ability of the product (and hence acquisition
utility), the value perceptions of coupon prone consumers are more likely to be affected by transaction
utility than are the value perceptions of value conscious consumers. Conversely, because value consciousness (i.e., a low price subject to some quality
constraint) explicitly addresses the inherent need-satisfying properties of the product, and thus is more
closely allied with acquisition utility, value perceptions of value conscious consumers are more likely to
be affected by this type of utility than are value perceptions of coupon prone consumers. Consistent with
this perspective, eight hypotheses pertaining to differential effects of value consciousness and coupon
proneness on consequences of interest are offered.
Hypotheses
Differential Relationship With CouponResponsive Behavior
We contend that coupon-responsive behavior is a
manifestation of value consciousness as well as coupon proneness. If this contention is valid, value consciousness should explain significant variation in coupon-responsive behavior after one accounts for the
variation in coupon-responsive behavior explained by
coupon proneness. Hence:
H,: Value consciousness explains a significant amount of
variation in coupon redemption behavior after one accounts for the variation in coupon redemption behavior explained by coupon proneness.
To assess further the validity of the proposed acquisition-transaction-utility-based delineation between
value consciousness and coupon proneness, we offer
seven additional hypotheses on cognitive and behavioral consequences of interest. The rationale for these
hypotheses is drawn directly from the preceding discussion on acquisition and transaction utility theory.
Several of the hypotheses pertain to constructs central
to the deal proneness literature (e.g., brand loyalty,
deal retraction), but all hypotheses on differences between coupon proneness and value consciousness have
theoretical grounding in Thaler's (1985) utility theory.^
Differential Relationships With Cognitive
Constructs
H2a and H2b propose different relationships between
value consciousness and coupon proneness and enduring and situational involvement. Bloch and Richins
(1983) have distinguished between enduring involvement and situational involvement. Enduring involvement is ongoing and more likely to be related to the
product class, whereas situational involvement is temporary and more likely to be due to a particular prod,
uct-related situation. Value conscious consumers are
more concerned about acquisition utility (the inherent
need-satisfying properties of the product).'* This focus
implies that value conscious consumers are concerned
about the product's value in use over time, which is
a stable characteristic of the product. Thus, value conscious individuals are likely to have greater enduring
involvement with the product. Conversely, coupon
prone individuals are viewed as having more involvement in any purchase situation or specific transaction,
which includes acting on a coupon. This greater focus
on transaction utility should result in greater situational involvement for coupon prone consumers.
H2a: The correlation between value consciousness and enduring involvement with purchased products is greater
(more positive) than the correlation between coupon
proneness and enduring involvement with purchased
products.
H2b: The correlation between coupon proneness and situational involvement is greater (more positive) than
the correlation between value consciousness and situational involvement.
H3a and H3b pertain to consumers' price and product knowledge. For at least two reasons, value conscious individuals should have more accurate price and
product knowledge for purchased goods than coupon
prone individuals. First, because coupon prone con^These additional hypotheses (i.e., Hj-Hg) are not considered to be
exhaustive of all possible acquisition- and transaction-utility-based
differences between the value consciousness and coupon proneness
constructs. Rather, these hypotheses are offered to illustrate the conceptual differences between these two constructs, and as such are assumed to represent only a subset of those that might have been offered.
'In the rationale for the hypotheses, consumers may seem to be positioned as either "value conscious" or "coupon prone." It is not our
intent to imply a mutually exclusive relationship between the two.
Rather, we feel that a given consumer may have high degrees of both
value consciousness and coupon proneness, low degrees of both value
consciousness and coupon proneness, or a high degree of one but not
the other. Hypotheses are stated and tested in a manner consistent with
this view. In the discussion of hypotheses, language suggesting that
consumers are either coupon prone or value conscious is used to simplify the rationale for hypothesized relationships.
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 5 7
sumers are influenced more by transaction utility, they
are expected to purchase a wider variety of brands than
value conscious individuals. If fewer brands are purchased by value conscious consumers, greater purchase repetition may result in more accurate price and
product knowledge for products they purchase. Second, the (predicted) higher level of enduring involvement with the product (H2a) for value conscious
consumers also suggests that they may be more
knowledgeable than coupon prone consumers about
the products they purchase.
,
H3a: The correlation between value consciousness and
product knowledge of purchased products is greater
(more positive) than the correlation between coupon
proneness and product knowledge of purchased products.
H31,: The correlation between value consciousness and price
knowledge of purchased products is greater (more
positive) than the correlation between coupon proneness and price knowledge of purchased products.
Tabuer (1972) notes that an implicit, ego-centered
purchasing competition appears to occur between buyers
(i.e., a concern for paying lower prices for products
than other consumers pay). H4 pertains to this shopping competitiveness and again is based on the premise that value conscious consumers are more concerned with acquisition utility than are coupon prone
consumers, and coupon prone consumers are more
concerned with transaction utility than are value conscious consumers. Based on Thaler's (1985) conceptualization, acquisition utility is a function of value in
use whereas transaction utility is a function of the internal reference price. Because what other consumers
pay is expected to affect the internal reference price
but not value-in-use perceptions, coupon proneness
should be correlated more highly with shopping competitiveness than is value consciousness. That is, a
consumer may find out that he or she paid a higher
price than others paid, but this knowledge does not
affect the inherent need-satisfying (value-in-use)
properties of the product in relation to the price paid
(i.e., acquisition utility). However, finding out that
someone paid less serves to lower the internal reference price, which negatively affects transaction utility.
H4: The correlation between coupon proneness and shopping competitiveness is greater (more positive) than
the correlation between value consciousness and
shopping competitiveness.
The rationale for H5, concerning consumer evaluations associated with deal retraction, is again linked
to utility theory. Rothschild and Gaidis (1981) state
that primary reinforcers (the product) have intrinsic
utility whereas secondary reinforcers (e.g., coupons)
have no such utility. Our contention is that this primary-secondary ordering is more applicable for value
58 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
conscious than for coupon prone individuals. In comparison with value conscious individuals, coupon prone
individuals are more likely to view coupons as primary reinforcers whereas the product itself is more
likely to take on the role of a secondary reinforcer.
In terms of utility, value conscious consumers are relatively more likely than coupon prone consumers to
perceive acquisition utility as primary and transaction
utility as secondary. Coupon prone consumers are relatively more likely than value conscious consumers to
perceive transaction utility as primary and acquisition
utility as secondary. Sawyer and Dickson (1984, p. 14)
state that "care must be taken so that eventually the
product is the reinforcing stimulus rather than the sales
promotion," indicating that the criterion of primary
versus secondary reinforcement is not fixed, but rather
depends on the perceptions of the consumer. Hence,
we posit that the product is more likely to be the primary stimulus for the value conscious consumer and
the coupon is more likely to be the primary stimulus
for the coupon prone consumer. Because the coupon
is more likely to be the primary reason for the purchase for coupon prone consumers, deal retraction
should have a more negative impact on those consumers.
H5: When a deal is retracted, the correlation between coupon proneness and unfavorable purchase evaluations
is greater (more positive) than the correlation between
value consciousness and unfavorable purchase evaluations.
Acquisition and transaction utility also seemingly
have implications for the marginal utility of additional
purchase quantities. We propose that diminishing
marginal utility of a commodity should be experienced earlier by value conscious individuals because
their utility is derived primarily from use situations,
and one can use only so much of any commodity.
Because transaction utility is more important for the
coupon prone consumer than for the value conscious
consumer, and the number of transactions a consumer
can make is limited only by his or her budget, marginal utility should decline more slowly for coupon
prone than for value conscious consumers.
Hg: The correlation between coupon proneness and marginal utility of additional purchase quantities is greater
(more positive) than the correlation between value
consciousness and marginal utility of additional purchase quantities.
Differential Relationships With Behavioral
Constructs
Much of the previous research on dealing behavior
has addressed the relationship between purchases on
deed and brand loyalty. As would be expected, the
relationship between responding to deals and repeat
purchases of the same brand usually has been negative
(cf. Schiffman and Neiverth 1973). When consumers
who redeem coupons are differentiated as being value
conscious or coupon prone, coupon prone individuals
should exhibit less brand loyalty than value conscious
individuals. These hypothesized relationships are again
based on the differences between acquisition and
transaction utility. Acquisition utility should covary
more strongly with the brand than transaction utility,
whereas transaction utility should covary to a greater
degree with the coupon. That is, both terms associated
with transaction utility (see equation 2) are affected
by a coupon (i.e., a coupon serves to lower the purchase price and to reinforce perceptions of a higher
normal price, thus leading to a higher internal reference price). In contrast, only the purchase price term
associated with acquisition utility is affected by a coupon; need-satisfying ability is brand specific and is not
affected by a coupon. Because of the greater impact
of deals on transaction utility, coupon proneness should
be related more negatively to brand loyalty.
H7: The correlation between coupon proneness and brand
loyalty is less (more negative) than the correlation between value consciousness and brand loyalty.
Finally, we hypothesize that differences in the importance of acquisition and transaction utility between
value conscious and coupon prone consumers also may
affect aspects of consumer information search. For
example, because coupon prone consumers' value
perceptions are seen as infiuenced more by transaction
than by acquisition utility, and because transaction
utility is tied exclusively to price information (i.e.,
internal reference price and purchase price), coupon
prone consumers are less likely to perceive benefit from
searching for quality or "value for the money" information about brand altematives. Value conscious consumers are more likely to consider "value in use" in
addition to purchase price and thus are more likely to
search for "value for the money" information. Consumer Reports magazine has been widely recognized
as a source of "value for the money" information (cf.
Curry and Faulds 1986). Consequently, we hypothesize that both the behavior of reading Consumer Reports and the perception of the value of the information provided by Consumer Reports are correlated
more positively with value consciousness than with
coupon proneness.
Hgj: The correlation between value consciousness and
readership of Consumer Reports is greater (more positive) than the correlation between coupon proneness
and readership of Consumer Reports.
Hgb: The correlation between value consciousness and the
perception of usefulness of information provided by
Consumer Reports is greater (more positive) than the
correlation between coupon proneness and the perception of usefulness of information provided by
Consumer Reports.
Method
To test the hypotheses, we developed measures of
coupon proneness (CP) and value consciousness (VC)
using the scale development procedures recommended
by Churchill (1979). For constructs hypothesized to
be differentially related to CP and VC, we drew measures from the literature and also used the following
pretest procedures to generate and purify items.
Pretest
Consistent with the procedures of Churchill (1979), a
pool of 66 items was generated to refiect the conceptual definitions of the value conscious and coupon prone
constructs (33 items each). To assess the face validity
of the items, a judgment sample of three marketing
faculty members and two marketing PhD students were
given the conceptual definitions and asked to categorize each statement as VC, CP, or not applicable.
An a priori item-retention decision rule was used
whereby only items for which at least four of five judges
agreed on the category were retained (cf. Bearden,
Netemeyer, and Teel 1989). This decision rule resulted in the retention of 43 items (18 for VC and 25
for CP).
In a procedure similar to those followed in the
marketing literature (e.g., Zaichkowsky 1985), the face
validity of this reduced set of items next was assessed
by five additional judges (again, three marketing faculty members and two maiketing PhD students). These
judges were asked to rate each item as clearly representative, somewhat representative, or not representative of the constructs. Only items that were classified as clearly or somewhat representative by at least
four of five judges were retained, resulting in 15 and
25 items for VC! and CP, respectively.
These remaining items were interspersed randomly throughout a questionnaire that was administered to a pretest sample of 263 graduate and undergraduate business students. Two sets of analyses were
performed on the data. In the first, the item-to-total
correlations were examined. Only items with corrected item-to-total correlations greater than or equal
to .40 were retained (Saxe and Weitz 1982). This procedure resulted in the retention of seven items for VC
and eight items for CP. The items representing the VC
and CP constructs are listed in Appendix A.'
'In an initial version of the manuscript, the CP construct was labeled
as deal proneness rather than coupon proneness. However, scale puHHcation procedures resulted in a final scale consisting primarily of
coupon-related items. Therefore, on the basis of reviewer comments,
we defined the construct more narrowly as coupon proneness and deleted four items on grounds of content validity (i.e., they referred to
rebates, specials, etc., in addition to coupons).
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 5 9
In the second set of analyses on these data, we
examined the reliability and structure of the remaining
items by using confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability. To determine the dimensionality of the measures, we compared null and
one-factor models with the hypothesized correlated twofactor structure using LISREL VI (Joreskog and Sorbom
1983). The chi square values were 1813.60 (d.f. =
104, p < .01) for the null model, 829.65 (d.f. = 90,
p < .01) for the one-factor model, and 440.33 (d.f.
= 89, p < .01) for the hypothesized correlated twofactor structure. Though significant, the correlated twofactor structure offered a substantial improvement in
fit over both the one-factor model (x^ difference =
389.32, d.f. = 1, p < .01) and the null model (x^
difference = 1373.27, d.f. = 15, p < .01), thus offering support for the dimensionality and discriminant
validity of the VC and CP measures (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988; Bagozzi and Phillips 1982). In addition, all indicator t-values associated with the correlated two-factor model were significant at the .01 level
and the internal consistency estimates (i.e., construct
reliability; Fomell and Larcker 1981) for the sevenitem VC and eight-item CP measures were .80 and
.88, respectively.
To further establish the discriminant validity between VC and CP, we conducted several additional
tests. First, the discriminant validity between two factors is supported if the phi correlation between the
factors ((})) is less than one (Bagozzi 1980). For the
VC and CP measures, this condition was satisfied (<})
= .36, S.E. = .04). A complementary assessment of
discriminant validity involves assessment of whether
the confidence interval (plus or minus two standard
errors) around the maximum likelihood phi correlation includes a value of 1.0. If not, discriminant validity is supported (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). This
condition was also satisfied (.28 < <|) < .44). Last,
the dimensionality and discriminant validity between
two measures can be examined by comparing the variance explained in the two constructs with the square
of the correlation between the two constructs. If the
variance explained estimates are greater than the square
of the correlation between the constructs, discriminant
validity is supported. The variance explained in VC
was .37 and the variance explained in DP was .48.
Both of these estimates were greater than <t>^ which
equaled .13. In sum, all three tests support the discriminant validity of the VC and CP measures.
Measures of cognitive and behavioral constructs
hypothesized to be differentially related to VC and CP
also were pretested in this administration. We assessed reliability estimates for these measures by using coefficient alpha, and modified the scale items
where necessary.
60 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
Maiti Study
A convenience sample of 350 nonstudent adults from
a medium-size SMSA was employed to test the hypothesized relationships. Forty-three percent of the respondents were men and 69% were married. The average respondent had some college education and 40%
were college graduates. The median age and household income categories were 35 to 44 years and $30,000
to $39,999, respectively.
With data from this study, we again used confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency estimates to evaluate the structure and reliability of the
VC and CP measures. The chi square values associated with a null and one-factor solution were 2974.12
(d.f. = 104, p < .01) and 1124.11 (d.f. = 90, p <
.01), respectively. For the hypothesized correlated twofactor structure, the chi square value was 559.55 (d.f.
= 89, p < .01). The difference in chi square values
between the two-factor and one-factor structure was
significant (564.56, d.f. = 1, p < .01), as was the
difference between the two-factor structure and the null
model (2414.57, d.f. = 15, p < .01). These results
support the modeling of a two-factor structure. Consistent with results of the pretest, all t-value indicators
for the two-factor structure were significant (p < .01)
and the construct reliability estimates were .80 and
.88 for VC and CP, respectively. Item-to-total correlations were above .40 for all items across both construct measures. The correlation between the VC and
CP measures was significantly less than one (<t> = .24,
S.E. = .04) and the confidence interval around phi
did not include a value of one (.16 < <|) < .32), supporting the discriminant validity of the two constructs.
In addition, the variance-extracted estimates for the
VC and CP measures were .37 and .48, respectively,
and were both greater than <|)^ of .058. In sum, despite
the differences in subject pools (i.e., students and
nonstudent consumers), these results mirror those of
the pretest.
Multi-item measures of the constructs hypothesized to be differentially related to VC and CP were
gathered. Some of the measures were established scales
used in previous research and others were constructed
specifically for use in our study. All measures were
assessed for face validity and reliability (coefficient
alpha) in the pretest procedures described previously.
Sample items for each of these measures are listed in
Appendix B. For all of the constructs (i.e., VC, CP,
and constructs hypothesized to be differently related
to VC and CP), scales were coded/recoded so that
higher scores refiect higher levels of the construct. Internal consistency estimates for the measures are reported in Table 2. In addition to these items, a general
measure of coupon-redemption behavior, as well as
provided responses ranging from 0 to 100%. Results
of these analyses are reported in Table 1.
For each of the five analyses, CP is a significant
predictor (p < .01) of coupon redemption behavior.
Also, in all five analyses, VC explains a significant
amount of variation (p < .01) in coupon redemption
behavior after we account for the variation explained
by CP. These results provide consistent support for
the major study premise in Hi that coupon redemption
behavior is a manifestation of VC, as well as CP.
four product-category-specific measures (toothpaste,
laundry detergent, deodorant/antiperspirant, and
shampoo), was employed.
Results
Test of Differential Relationship With CouponResponsive Behavior (H-,)
Based on the contention that VC and CP are distinct
constructs that both affect coupon-responsive behavior, the first hypothesis states that VC explains variation in coupon-redemption behavior after one accounts for variation explained by CP. To test this
hypothesis, five hierarchical regression analyses were
performed. In the first analysis, the dependent variable was the general self-report measure of coupon
redemption behavior ("In the past month, on what
percentage of your grocery shopping trips did you redeem coupons?" with seven response categories ranging from "less than 10% of my shopping trips" to " 9 1 100% of my grocery shopping trips"). On the first
step the variance in coupon redemption behavior explained by CP was assessed. VC was entered on the
second step, thus permitting a test of whether additional variance in coupon redemption behavior can be
explained by VC. The remaining four hierarchical
analyses were identical to the first except that the
measures of coupon redemption behavior were product-category-specific (i.e., toothpaste, shampoo,
laundry detergent, and deodorant). For example, the
toothpaste coupon redemption behavior measure read,
"Approximately what percent of the time do you use
a coupon to purchase toothpaste?", for which subjects
Test of Hypotheses on Cognitive
Consequences
All remaining hypotheses were tested by performing
t-tests for the difference in correlations within the same
sample (Cohen and Cohen 1975). Results on the differential relationships between cognitive (H2-H6) and
behavioral constructs (Hv-Hg) are reported in Table 2.
H2a predicts that the correlation between VC and
enduring involvement with purchased products is more
positive than the correlation between CP and enduring
involvement with purchased products. The respective
correlations are .26 and .12 (t = 2.27, p < .05), thus
offering support for H2a. H2b, which predicts that the
correlation between CP and situational involvement is
more positive than the correlation between VC and
situational involvement, also is supported (r = .60 and
r = .40, respectively; t = 4.03, p < .01).
The third hypothesis predicts a more positive correlation between VC and product knowledge and between VC and price knowledge than between CP and
these two types of knowledge. The correlation between VC and product knowledge is .43, whereas the
correlation between CP and product knowledge is -.01
TABLE 1
Effect of Value Consciousness on Coupon Redemption Behavior After Controlling
for Coupon Proneness"
Independent Variables"
Coupon Proneness
Dependent Variable
General coupon
redemption
Coupon redemption.
toothpaste
Coupon redemption.
shampoo
Coupon redemption.
laundry detergent
Coupon redemption.
deodorant/antiperspirant
Value Consciousness
Beta
T-Value
R^
Beta
T-Value
R^
.50
10.84"=
25.4
.16
3.41"=
27.8
.45
9.36"=
20.2
.22
4.52"=
24.7
.89
7.95"=
15.5
.17
3.42"=
18.3
.45
9.48"=
20.7
.22
4.60"=
25.3
.42
8.70-=
18.0
.15
2.98=
20.0
'Degrees of freedom for the reduced model (i.e., coupon prone only) are 1,345; degrees of freedom for the full model (i.e., both
independent variables) are 2,344.
""For all five dependent measures, coupon proneness was entered into the hierarchical regression equation on the first step; value
consciousness was entered on the second step,
"p < .01.
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 6 1
TABLE 2
Results of Correlational Tests With Related Constructs
Construct
Cognitive Constructs
H2a Enduring involvement''
H2b Situational involvement"
H3a Product knowledge
H3b Price kriowledge
H4 Shopping
competitiveness
H5 Deal retraction
He Marginal utility
Behavioral Constructs
H7 Brand loyalty, scale
Behavioral'^
Toothpaste"
Detergenf^
Deodorant"
Shampoo"
Hga Consumer Reports
readership
Hsa Consumer
Correlations
No.
Item
Reliability'
11
11
4
2
.90
.96
.77
.76
VC
CP
VC
VC
CP
VC
CP
CP
.26"
.40"
.43"
.41"
.12"
.60"
-.01
5
3
3
.63
.50
.80
CP > VC
CP > VC
CP > VC
5
1
1
1
1
1
.88
—
—
—
—
—
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
1
1
Hypothesis
>
>
>
>
VC
CP
T-Value
2.2T
Result
.11"
4.03"
7.69"
5.13"
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
.24"
.15"
.06
.31"
.29"
.19"
1.17
2.30°
2.09°
Not supported
Supported
Supported
VC
VC
VC
VC
VC
VC
-.15"
-.08
-.10^
.01
.00
-.22"
-.22"
1.13
2.25°
.16
1.88°
1.58'
.18
Not supported
Supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Not supported
—
VC > CP
.15"
.01
I.IT
Supported
—
VC > CP
.20"
-.02
3.52"
Supported
<
<
<
<
<
<
-.ir
-.ir
-.ir
-.10°
-.12"
Reports
information
"Pearson correlations are reported for all two-item measures.
''Operationalized via 11 items from the revised Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory (McQuarrie and Munson 1987).
'Response categories of 1 = less than 10%, 2 = 10-20%, 3 = 21-40%, 4 = 41-60%, 5 = 61-80%, 6 = 81-90%, 7 = 91-100%.
"p < .01.
°p < .05.
'p < .10.
(t = 7.69, p < .01) and the correlations between VC
and price knowledge and CP and price knowledge are
.41 and .11, respectively (t = 5.13, p < .01). Thus,
both H3a and H3b are supported.
Only directional support is found for H4, which
postulates a more positive correlation between CP and
shopping competitiveness (.31) than between VC and
shopping competitiveness (.24) (t = 1.17, n.s., H4
unsupported). However, the correlation between CP
and unfavorable deal-retraction-related evaluations is
greater than the correlation between VC and unfavorable deal-retraction-related evaluations (.29 and .15,
respectively, t = 2.30, p < .05), offering support for
H5.
The sixth hypothesis pertains to the relationships
of CP and VC with marginal utility. The correlation
between CP and marginal utility of additional purchase quantities (.19) is significantly greater than the
correlation between VC and marginal utility (.06), thus
providing support for Hg (t = 2.09, p < .05).
Tests of Hypotheses on Behavioral
Consequences (Hj-Hg)
The seventh hypothesis predicts a more negative correlation between CP and brand loyalty than between
VC and brand loyalty. To test this hypothesis, we employed six different measures of brand loyalty: (1) a
five-item brand loyalty scale (Jacoby and Chestnut
62 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
1978), (2) a single-item general behavioral scale (Raj
1982), and (3) four single-item scales that assessed
brand loyalty in four individual product categories (Raj
1982). Results pertaining to the relationships between
brand loyalty and VC and CP are mixed. Only directional support is found for the multi-item scale (t =
1.13, n.s.); however, for the single-item general behavioral scale, the difference in correlations is statistically significant (t = 2.25, p < .05). For all four
product-category-specific brand loyalty measures (i.e.,
toothpaste, detergent, deodorant, and shampoo), CP
is more negatively correlated with brand loyalty than
is VC, and for the detergent and deodorant measures,
these differences are significant (t = 1.88, p < .05;
t = 1.58, p < .10, respectively). These results offer
general support for H7.
Hga and Hgb pertain to the relationships between
VC, CP, and Consumer Reports information. Hga postulates that Consumer Reportsreadershipwould be more
highly correlated with VC than with CP. The correlations are .15 and .01, respectively (t = 2.22, p <
.05), supporting H^. Hgb posits that VC would be more
highly correlated than CP with perceptions of the usefulness of information provided by Consumer Reports. The respective correlations are .20 and — .02 (t
= 3.52, p < .01), supporting Hgb. In sum, results
pertaining to these eight hypotheses support the premise that CP and VC are distinct constructs with dif-
ferent implications for coupon-responsive behavior and
other consumer marketplace responses.
Discussion
Summary and Implications of Results
Previous researeh on deal/coupon proneness has lacked
a conceptual orientation and generally has employed
a single-item behavioral measure. A variety of problems have resulted. Many researchers have not seemed
to recognize that coupon redemption behavior may be
motivated simply by the ratio of quality to purchase
price and may have nothing to do with the coupon
form of the offer, and hence that coupon redemption
behavior is not equivalent to the psychological construct of CP. Such problems may suggest alternative
interpretations of empirical results. For example,
Blattberg et al. (1978) hypothesized that consumers
who were the least deal prone did not own automobiles, lived in apartments, had less income, had one
or more children under six years of age, and lived in
households in which both spouses worked. If CP is
conceptualized as a psychological state that is one antecedent of a consumer's response to a deal, such factors probably are more accurately described as moderators of the relationship between CP and coupon
redemption behavior. That is, such factors do not lessen
the individual's level of CP, but affect the strength of
the relationship between CP and the likelihood of acting on that proneness.
Confounding levels of abstraction (resulting from
measuring the psychological construct of coupon/deal
proneness in behavioral terms) and the use of singleitem measures of coupon/deal, proneness may have
contributed to results that generally have been able to
explain less than 10% of the variance in behavioral
response to coupons/deals. The need to measure abstract constructs with multi-item measures is well documented. Single-item measures result in construct underrepresentation and/or contamination from other
constructs (Churchill 1979). Such problems mirror those
expressed by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) in arguing
that brand loyalty is a complex psychological construct that can never be accurately assessed or understood via pure behavioral measures.
The lack of conceptual definition and the acceptance of a single-item behavioral measure probably also
have served to retard the theoretical development of
coupon proneness and, more generally, deal proneness. Shimp and Kavas (1984) note that though research has addressed the impact of deals on consumer
choice, brand switching, product sales, and market
share, surprisingly little research has examined behavioral response to deals at the individual level in an
attempt to understand the behavior for its own sake.
Similarly, Raju and Hastek (1980) have criticized deal
proneness research generally for its lack of a theoret-
ical orientation, and specifically for its lack of a conceptual definition of the construct. On a broader level,
Zeithaml (1984) has criticized price perception research for its lack of a theoretical orientation in developing conceptual and operational definitions of
constructs.
We attempt to address these problems and criticisms. We demonstrate that CP and VC are distinct
constructs that both underlie coupon redemption behavior and that these constructs are related differentially to other constructs of interest. By hypothesizing
that CP and VC are two constructs that underlie coupon redemption behavior, the conceptual framework
suggests that the more appropriate level of measurement of CP is the psychological, rather than the more
common behavioral, level. In contrast to other researchers, we offer conceptual definitions of deal and
coupon proneness, which to our knowledge are the
first proposed in the literature. The definitions are
consistent with the idea that purchase evaluations are
enhanced by the form of the purchase offer per se,
and are based on acquisition-transaction utility theory
proposed by Thaler (1985).
Drawing from this conceptual background, we developed a multi-item measure of CP and demonstrated
it to be a psychometrically satisfactory measure of the
construct. This construct also is shown to be distinct
fi-om VC, and findings support the utility-theory-based
proposition that coupon redemption behavior is a
manifestation of both CP and VC.
Future Research
Findings indicate that further theoretical development
of both coupon redemption behavior and CP is needed.
Our measures of CP and VC explain between 18%
and 28% of the variance in self-reported coupon redemption behavior. These results can be interpreted
as encouraging, but they also indicate that much variance remains unexplained. We believe conceptual
models specifying other psychological antecedents and
moderators will lead to a greater understanding of
coupon redemption behavior.
Marketing managers will have a particular interest
in future studies that further examine the relationship
between CP, VC, and repurchase behavior. Researchers often note that a pitfall of consumer promotions is
that once the promotion is removed, consumers do not
repurchase. Similarly, Raj (1985) has argued that
companies should assess the percentage of their market share that is brand loyal because such consumers
provide stability by making the brand less vulnerable
to competitive efforts. Both theoretical and empirical
support from our study suggests that coupon promotions targeted at value conscious consumers who are
not coupon prone may enhance the likelihood of repeat purchases for brands that offer high acquisition
utility. Though the two constructs are correlated, when
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 6 3
median splits were performed on each scale to create
low and high groups and then cross-tabulated, 40% of
the respondents were either low on VC and high on
CP (20%) or high on VC and low on CP (20%). These
results, along with the findings that support the hypothesized differential relationships, suggest that the
correlation between the constructs is not so high as to
reduce the potential importance of the differences between the constructs for marketing practitioners. That
is, these results suggest that value conscious consumers who are not coupon prone may represent a sizable segment who are motivated to use coupons. If
future research demonstrates that the repurchase probability of the high VC/low CP segment is greater than
that of other consumers, this segment may prove a
prime target for coupon promotions. The increased
ability of marketers to target coupons at specific segments heightens the relevance of understanding the
differences between coupon proneness, value consciousness, and coupon usage and repurchase behavior. Consumer scanner panels that track coupon redemptions and product purchases longitudinally offer
a practical means for empirical testing.
Field studies could be used to examine potential
differences in the in-store behavior of deal prone and
value conscious consumers. For example, heavy users
of coupons have been hypothesized to engage in more
out-of-store decision making (Bettman 1979; Henderson
1988). It would be interesting to observe in-store behavior (e.g., number of brands examined, time spent
examining brands, information gathered about price,
price per ounce) and to compare these data with coupxjn proneness and value consciousness measures across
instances in which a coupon was and was not used for
the purchase.
Study Limitations
One shortcoming of our study is the use of self-report
measures of coupon redemption behavior. A few points
about this limitation are noteworthy. First, self-report
measures of coupon redemption behavior have been
used in previous studies of coupon redemption (cf.
Price, Feick, and Guskey-Federouch 1988; Shimp and
Kavas 1984) and the correlation between self-report
measures and observed coupon redemption behavior
has been significant (Shimp and Kavas 1984). Second, we used one general measure and four productcategory-specific measures of coupon redemption behavior. Results are consistent in direction across all
five measures, suggesting that these measures have a
reasonable level of validity.
Another limitation is related to the generalizability
of the results to other forms of deals. Our measure
pertains to only one dimension or type of deal-responsive behavior (i.e., coupons) and ignores other
deal forms such as cents-off promotions and rebates.
64 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
(This limitation also applies to much of the dealing
literature, which often focuses on coupon usage.) Other
forms of deal proneness and their relation to deal behavior should be examined.
Reliability estimates are lower than anticipated for
the deal retraction and shopping competitiveness constructs. However, the hypothesis about the former is
supported in spite of its low reliability and the hypothesis about the latter is supported directionally.
Hence, even stronger results might be expected with
more reliable measures.
Despite these limitations, our results have implications for marketing researchers. There is a strong
need to recognize both VC and CP as psychological
constructs that affect coupon redemption behavior. CP
is shown to be distinct from the related construct, VC,
which is shown to have an effect on coupon-redemption behavior beyond that of CP. Additional hypotheses based on utility theory further distinguish between CP and VC. We hope our results will stimulate
further theoretical and empirical studies of antecedents and moderators of the relationships between CP,
VC, and behavioral response to coupon promotions.
Appendix A
Items Comprising Coupon Proneness and
Value Consciousness Scales
All items are 7-point scales ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. All scale items were coded/recoded so that
higher scores reflect higher levels of the construct.
Coupon Proneness
• Redeeming coupons makes me feel good.
• I enjoy clipping coupons out of the newspapers.
• When I use coupons, I feel that I am getting a good
deal.
• I enjoy using coupons, regardless of the amount I save
by doing so.
• I have favorite brands, but most of the time I buy the
brand I have a coupon for.
• I am more likely to buy brands for which I have a coupon.
• Coupons have caused me to buy products I normally
would not buy.
• Beyond the money I save, redeeming coupons gives me
a sense of joy.
Value Consciousness
• r am very concerned about low prices, but I am equally
concerned about product quality.
• When grocery shopping, I compare the prices of different brands to be sure I get the best value for the money.
• When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize
the quality I get for the money I spend.
• When I buy products, I like to be sure that I am getting
my money's worth.
• I generally shop around for lower prices on products,
but they still must meet certain quality requirements before I will buy them.
• When I shop, I usually compare the "price per ounce"
information for brands I normally buy.
• I always check prices at the grocery store to be sure I
get the best value for the money I spend.
Shopping Competitiveness
I am better at shopping for bargains than most people.
Deal Retraction
For some products, when the manufacturer stops offering coupons, I stop buying their products.
Marginal Utility
Even when I flnd a real good sale on a grocery item I am
careful to buy only as much as I need.
Appendix B
Sample Items for Related Constructs
Reference citations indicate the measures that were used in
previous research. The other measures were developed specifically for our study. All measures used 7-place, strongly
agree/strongly disagree scales, with the exception of the behavioral and product-specific brand loyalty measures and the
Consumer Reports readership item. The response formats for
the behavioral and product brand loyalty measures were: 1 =
less than 10%, 2 = 10-20%, 3 = 21-40%, 5 = 61-80%, 6
= 81-90%, and 7 = 91-100%. The Consumer Reports readership item was operationalized in a 7-point never-always format. All scale items were coded/recoded so that higher scores
reflect higher levels of the construct.
Product Knowledge (Alba 1983; Brucks 1985;
Gardner 1983)
Brand Loyalty, Scale (Jacoby and Chestnut
1978; Raju 1980)
I generally buy the same brands I have always bought.
Brand Loyalty, Behavior (Raj 1982)
In buying within a given product category, what percent of the
time do you purchase the same brand?
Brand Loyalty, Toothpaste (Raj 1982)
When buying toothpaste, what percent of the time do you purchase the same brand?
Brand Loyalty, Detergent (Raj 1982)
When buying laundry detergent, what percent of the time do
you purchase the same brand?
Brand Loyalty, Deodorant (Raj 1982)
When buying deodorant/antiperspirant, what percent of the time
do you purchase the same brand?
I have a lot of knowledge about how to select the best brand
within a product class.
Brand Loyalty, Shampoo (Raj 1982)
When buying shampoo, what percent of the time do you purchase the same brand?
Price Knowledge
I know the prices I pay for the products I buy.
REFERENCES
Alba, Joseph W. (1983), "The Effects of Product Knowledge
on the Comprehension, Retention, and Evaluation of Product Information," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds. Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 577-80.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin,
103,411-23.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980), Causal Models in Marketing. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), "Representing and
Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459-89.
Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Jesse E.
Teel (1989), "Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to
Interpersonal Influence," Journal of Consumer Research,
15 (March), 473-81.
Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory
of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Blattberg, Robert, Thomas Buesing, Peter Peacock, and Subrata Sen (1978), "Identifying the Deal Prone Segment,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 369-77.
Bloch, Peter H. and Marsha L. Richins (1983), "A Theoretical
Model for the Study of Product Importance Perceptions,"
Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 69-81.
Brucks, Merrie (1985), "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (June), 1-16.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Cohen, Jacob and Patricia Cohen (1975), Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cotton, B. C. and Emerson M. Babb (1978), "Consumer Response to Promotional Deals," Journal of Marketing, 42
(July), 109-13.
Curry, David J. and David J. Faulds (1986), "Indexing Product Quality: Issues, Theory, and Results," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (June), 134-45.
Dodson, Joe A., Alice M. Tybout, and Brian Stemthal (1978),
"Impact of Deals and Deal Retraction on Brand Switching," Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (February), 7281.
Emery, Fred (1970), "Some Psychological Aspects of Price,"
in Pricing Strategy, Bernard Taylor and Gordon Wills, eds.
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 6 5
Princeton, NJ: Brandon/Systems Press, 98-111.
Fomell, Claes and David Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models With Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(February), 39-50.
Gabor, Andre and Clive Granger (1961), "On the Price Consciousness of Consumers," Applied Statistics, 10 (November). 170-88.
Gardner, Meryl Paula (1983), "Advertising Effects on Attributes Recallell and Criteria Used for Brand Evaluations,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (December), 310-18.
Hackleman, Edwin C. and Jacob M. Duker (1980), "Deal
Proneness and Heavy Usage: Merging Two Segmentation
Criteria," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8
(Fall), 332-44.
Henderson, Caroline M. (1985), "Modeling the Coupon Redemption Decision," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 12, Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook,
eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 13843.
(1988), "The Interaction of Coupons With Price and
Store Promotions," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.
15, Michael J. Houston, ed. Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research, 364-71.
Jacoby, Jacob and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty:
Measurement and Management. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Joreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom (1983), LISREL: Analysis
of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, Version VI. Chicago: National Education
Resources.
Klein, Noreen M. and Janet E. Oglethorpe (1987), "Cognitive
Reference Points in Consumer Decision-Making," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, Paul Anderson and
Melanie Wallendorf, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 183-7.
Lichtenstein, Donald R. and William O. Bearden (1989),
"Contextual Influences on Perceptions of Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices," Journal of Consumer Research,
16 (June), 55-66.
Massy, William F. and Ronald E. Frank (1965), "Short-Term
Price and Dealing Effects in Selected Market Segments,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (November), 171-85.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and J. Michael Munson (1987), "The
Zaichkowsky Personal Involvement Inventory: Modification and Extension," in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 14, Paul Anderson and Melanie Wallendorf, eds. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 36-40.
Monroe, Kent B. (1973), "Buyers' Subjective Perceptions of
Price," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February), 7 0 80.
and Susan M. Petroshius (1981), "Buyers' Perceptions of Price: An Update of the Evidence," in Perspectives
in Consumer Behavior, 3rd ed., H. Kassarjian and T. S.
Robertson, eds. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 43-55.
Montgomery, David B. (1971), "Consumer Characteristics
Associated With Dealing: An Empirical Example," Journal
of Marketing Research, 8 (February), 118-20.
Narasimhan, Chakravarthi (1984), "A Price Discrimination
Theory of Coupons," Marketing Science, 2 (Spring), 12847.
Olander, Folke (1970), "The Influence of Price on the Consumer's Evaluation of Products and Purchases," in Pricing
Strategy, Bemard Taylor and Gordon Wills, eds. Princeton, NJ: Brandon/Systems Press, 50-69.
Peter, J. Paul (1981), "Construct Validity: A Review of Basic
66 / Journal of Marketing, July 1990
Issues and Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (May), 133-45.
Price, Linda L., Lawrence F. Feick, and Audrey GuskeyFederouch (1988), "Couponing Behaviors of the Market
Maven: Profile of a Super Consumer," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Michael J. Houston, ed. Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 354-9.
Raj, S. P. (1982), "The Effects of Advertising on High and
Low Loyalty Consumer Segments," Journal of Consumer
Research, 9 (June), 77-89.
(1985), "Striking a Balance Between 'Popularity'
and Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing, 49 (Winter),
53-9.
Raju, P. S. (1980), "Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demographics, and Exploratory
Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (December),
272-82.
and Manoj Hastek (1980), "Consumer Response to
Deals; A Discussion of Theoretical Perspectives," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Jerry C. Olson, ed.
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 296301.
Rosch, Eleanor (1975), "Cognitive Reference Points," Cognitive Psychology, 1, 532—47.
Rothschild, Michael L. and William C. Gaidis (1981), "Behavioral Leaming Theory: Its Relevance to Marketing and
Promotions," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Spring), 70-8.
Sawyer, Alan G. and Peter R. Dickson (1984), "Psychological
Perspective on Consumer Response to Sales Promotion,"
in Research on Sales Promotion: Collective Papers,
Katherine E. Jocz, ed. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute, 1-21.
Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982), "The SOCO Scale:
A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 343-51.
Schiffman, Leon G. and Clifford J. Neiverth (1973), "Measuring the Impact of Promotional Offers: An Analytic Approach," in Increasing Marketing Productivity and Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of Marketing,
Combined Spring and Fall Cotiference F'roceedings, Thomas
V. Greer, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association,
256-60.
Schindler, Robert M. and Stacy E. Rothaus (1985), "An Experimental Technique for Exploring the Psychological
Mechanisms of the Effects of Price Promotions," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Elizabeth C.
Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Provo, UT.: Association for Consumer Research, 133-7.
Shimp, Terence A. and Alican Kavas (1984), "The Theory of
Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage," Journal of
Consumer Research, 11 (December), 795-809.
Tauber, Edward M. (1972), "Why Do People Shop?" Journal
of Marketing, 36 (October), 4 6 - 9 .
Thaler, Richard (1983), "Transaction Utility Theory," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi
and Alice M. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for
Consumer Research, 296-301.
^ (1985), "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,"
Marketing Science, 4 (Summer), 199-214.
Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1965), "The 'Deal Prone' Consumer," Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (May), 186—9.
Winer, Russell S. (1986), "A Reference Price Model of Brand
Choice for Frequently Purchased Products," Journal of
Consumer Research, 13 (September), 250-6.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynn (1985), "Measuring the Involvement Construct," Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (De-
cember), 341-52.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1984), "Issues in Conceptualizing and
Measuring Consumer Response to Price," in Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear, ed.
ftovo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 612-16.
(1988), "Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality,
and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence," Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22.
and Karen L. Graham (1983), "The Accuracy of
Reported Reference Prices for Professional Services," in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Richard P.
Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 607—11.
Reprint No. JMS43104
REPRINTS AVAILABLE FROM THE
JULY 1990 ISSUE
TITLE
"Truth in Marketing Theory and Research" (Hunt)
"Advertising's Effect on the Product Evolutionary Cycle" (Holak & Tang)
"Effects of Alternative Types of Influence Strategies Under Different
Channel Dependence Structures" (Keith, Jackson, & Crosby)
"The Price Knowledge and Search of Supermarket Shoppers"
(Dickson & Sawyer)
"Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness: An
Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory Perspective" (Lichtenstein,
Netemeyer, & Burton)
"Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence
Perspective" (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles)
"Double Jeopardy Revisited" (Ehrenberg, Goodhardt, & Barwise)
Legal Developments in Marketing
Marketing Literature Review
Book Reviews
To order REPRINTS, contact the Reprint Department, American
Marketing Association, 250 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606.
Prices for reprints may be found on page 53.
PAGE
REPRINT
NUMBER
1
16
30
JM543100
JM543101
JM543102
42
JM543103
54
JM543104
68
JM543105
82
92
99
114
JM543106
JM543107
JM543108
JM543109
M
/VURKEIING
/ISOCMTON
Distinguishing Coupon Proneness From Value Consciousness / 67