Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 54 (July 1990), 54-67
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.
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 utilitytransaction utilityrepresents 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
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)
(2)
Hypotheses
Differential Relationship With CouponResponsive Behavior
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.
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
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.
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.'
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
Results
Test of Differential Relationship With CouponResponsive Behavior (H-,)
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.
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
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
Discussion
Summary and Implications of Results
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
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.
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)
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.
cember), 341-52.
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