ARTICLE IN PRESS

0969-6989/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.jre

�Correspondfax: +34976 76

E-mail addr

montagut@uni

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The effect of consumer’s psychographic variablesupon deal-proneness

Eva Martınez, Teresa Montaner�

Universidad de Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales, Gran Vıa, 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract

Companies are increasingly attaching more importance to sales promotion within their communication programs. The main

reason for the increase in the use of promotions is their immediate effect on the consumers. However, there are some consumers that

do not respond to promotions. This study analyses the psychographic traits associated with deal-proneness. A personal survey has

been conducted with a sample of 425 individuals who regularly buy package food and cleaning products. In the study, three kinds of

deal-proneness are differentiated: proneness towards store flyers, proneness towards coupons and proneness towards in-store

promotions. The results prove that there are relationships between some psychographic characteristics of consumers and deal-

proneness. In general, price-conscious consumers are deal-prone. However, savings are not the only reason to buy a product on

promotion. Deal-proneness is influenced by other aspects as impulsiveness, innovativeness or shopping enjoyment.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sales promotion; Market segmentation; Consumer behaviour

1. Introduction

Promotional marketing is increasingly gaining im-portance in communication budgets of companies.Marketing managers attribute this high investment insales promotion to the immediate effects of these actionson sales (Schultz et al., 1998). Because of the littleempirical evidence for the response and effectiveness ofdifferent promotional instruments, over the last decadesnumerous studies have tried to provide organisationswith some decision-making guidelines for the design ofpromotional campaigns.

Some studies have focused on analysing whether allconsumers show the same response to sales promotion,defining the profiles of more sensitive consumers to thistype of action (Webster, 1965; Ailawadi et al., 2001).Several types of variables have been used to define these

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

tconser.2005.08.001

ing author. Tel.: +34976 761 000;

1 767.

esses: emartine@unizar.es (E. Martınez),

zar.es (T. Montaner).

profiles. Initial research paid more attention to socio-demographic aspects of consumers, but the results werenot fully conclusive and some other variables weresuggested (Schneider and Currim, 1991; Grover andSrinivasan, 1992). Some studies have emphasised thepsychographic profile of the deal-prone consumerobtaining remarkable results (Montgomery, 1971; Lich-tenstein et al., 1990; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Conse-quently, this research will focus on analysing theimportance of the consumer’s psychographic profile intheir behaviour towards sales promotions. More speci-fically, we will attempt to identify different types ofresponse to promotional actions. In addition, therelationship between these responses will be related withdifferent psychographic traits.

This paper proceeds as follows: First, we revise theliterature which analyses the consumer response topromotional actions and relates proneness to promo-tions with different psychographic traits of consumers.In the next section we define the hypotheses to becontrasted in the study and explain the methodologyused in the empirical part of our study. We proceed then

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168158

to analyse the major psychographic features of the deal-prone consumer. Finally, we present the main conclu-sions of our research.

2. Literature review

2.1. Deal-proneness

The literature which analyses the consumer’s responseto sales promotion frequently refers to the term ‘‘deal-prone consumer’’. Proneness to promotions may bedefined, overall, as the tendency to use promotionalinformation as a reference to make purchase decisions.As the response to promotions varies across individuals(Webster, 1965; Montgomery, 1971; Blattberg et al.,1978; Vazquez and Ballina, 1996), deal-prone consumerswill be those who modify their purchase behaviour so asto benefit from the temporary incentive offered by apromotion (Wakefield and Barnes, 1996).

Several authors, when studying the consumer’sresponse to promotional actions, have analysed whethera consumer who is prone to purchase a certainpromoted product will also respond to any otherpromotional action. The results of that research arenot fully conclusive. Some studies reveal that deal-proneness is a generalised construct, that is, anindividual who modifies his or her purchase behaviourin certain promotions is likely to modify his or herbehaviour in any other promotion (Shimp and Kavas,1984; Price et al., 1988). Other authors maintain thatdeal-proneness is domain specific and that consumersmay respond to a certain type of promotional mechan-ism but not to others (Schneider and Currim, 1991;Ailawadi et al., 2001).

In this respect, Schneider and Currim (1991) differ-entiate between active and passive proneness. Activeproneness refers to the consumers’ sensitivity to storeflyers and coupons. This proneness requires an intensesearch from the consumer to find interesting promo-tions. Nevertheless, passive proneness demands a limitedsearch developed at the point of sales. Such a pronenessis reflected in the consumers’ sensitivity to in-storedisplays. Ailawadi et al. (2001) establish a similardifferentiation between proneness to out-of-store pro-motions and proneness to in-store promotions. Forthese authors, out-of-store promotions are those whichtake place out of the shops and demand some effortfrom the consumer; they would be related to the activeproneness proposed by Schneider and Currim (1991).On the other hand, in-store promotions are those whichare developed inside the point of sales and discovered bythe consumer when shopping. These types of promo-tions require a reduced effort from the buyer and theyare associated to passive proneness. In the present

research we differentiate, as do Ailawadi et al. (2001),between in-store and out-of-store promotions.

2.2. Characterisation of the deal-prone consumer

From the marketing management perspective, know-ing the profile of deal-prone consumers will enable us todesign better promotional campaigns (Bawa and Shoe-maker, 1987; Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Laroche et al.,2003). The first studies which attempted to characterisethe deal-prone consumer fundamentally based thischaracterisation on socio-demographic variables. Hav-ing obtained inconclusive results, psychographic andpurchasing habit variables have been recommended toidentify the deal-prone consumer (Schneider and Cur-rim, 1991; Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Sanchez andDel Barrio, 1998).

Because sales promotions affect the purchase process(Alvarez, 2002), we may explain the different responsesto promotions by analysing the variables which influ-ence the purchase process. Some researchers have usedeconomic benefits or purchase costs as a reference tocharacterise deal-prone consumers (Blattberg et al.,1978; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Other authors haveemphasised the hedonic benefits generated by thepurchase of a promoted product (Shimp and Kavas,1984; Schindler, 1989). However, Chandon et al. (2000)integrate both perspectives and consider that consumersrespond to sales promotions due to the positiveexperience provided and thus they attempt to explainhow both economic and hedonic benefits and costsinfluence deal-proneness. This paper is based on thisperspective and therefore we will briefly describe thesebenefits or costs in order to relate them to the buyers’characteristics.

Economic or functional benefits are tied to theproduct’s attributes, they provide the customer withfunctional information and they refer to tangible orobjective aspects product-related. Among those func-tional benefits we should highlight savings and quality(Chandon et al., 2000; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Promo-tions provide a saving feeling and reduce the pain ofpaying. They may also grant the access to higher qualitybrands which could not be bought at their normal price.Hedonic benefits are tied to intangible attributes andthey are experiential and affective. Some outstandinghedonic benefits of promotional actions are entertain-ment, exploration and expression. For example, forthose consumers who enjoy shopping, some promotionsmay be amusing and increase this entertainment benefitprovided by the product purchase.

Along the purchase decision process, the consumerweighs up both the benefits and the costs of apromotion. Some costs related to the purchase ofpromoted products, as it will be explained below, maybe switching, search and inventory costs.

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 159

The importance of these benefits and costs for eachconsumer would differentiate deal-prone from non-deal-prone consumers. Some authors have identified socio-demographic and psychographic traits of the consumerassociated to each of these benefits and costs and theyhave related them to deal-proneness. In the followingsection we will emphasise the psychographic traits whichmight be related to deal-proneness.

3. Hypotheses

In the characterisation of the deal-prone consumer wewill consider the traits that Ailawadi et al. (2001)associated with the aforementioned benefits and costs.First, we will set the hypotheses related to theconsumer’s characteristics associated with the utilitarianbenefits of promotion purchase. We will then establishthe hypotheses related to hedonic benefits. Finally, wewill present the hypotheses related to the costs ofpromotion purchase.

Furthermore, when setting the hypotheses, we willdistinguish between both types of proneness mentionedbefore: proneness to in-store promotions and pronenessto out-of-store promotions. We consider that thedifferences between both types of promotion will makesome consumers respond to certain promotions but notto others.

3.1. Consumer characteristics associated to the economic

benefits of promotions

Some promotions may provide savings for theconsumer reducing the pain of paying. Consequently,some consumers will purchase promoted products toobtain these economic benefits. Savings will be remark-able for those price-conscious consumers and for thosewith financial constraints.

People with a higher economic level are usually lessprice conscious (Ailawadi et al., 2001), they are lesssensitive to price changes (Kim et al., 1999), they makelittle effort to find a product’s best price (Putrevu andLord, 2001) and they use promotions less (Ballina andVazquez, 1996). Nevertheless, consumers with a lowereconomic level tend to be more price-sensitive, theythoroughly search for price information (Kim et al.,1999) and they are willing to make an additional effortto benefit from a promotion (Chen et al., 1998). Mostresearch has concluded that price-conscious consumerswith financial constraints respond well to promotionalactions.

H1. Price-conscious consumers: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-storepromotions.

H2. Consumers with financial constraints: (a) are proneto in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-storepromotions.

Quality is another utilitarian benefit associated withthe purchase of a product. Promotional actions mayproduce a negative effect on the perceived quality ofproducts (Grewal et al., 1998) and considering thatquality-conscious consumers attach little importance toprice, quality-conscious people are expected to show lowproneness to promotions.

H3. Quality-conscious consumers: (a) are not prone toin-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions.

3.2. Consumer characteristics associated to the hedonic

benefits of promotions

Hedonic benefits refer to experiential and affectiveaspects and they are not based on the objective aspectsof the product or the promotion. When buying apromoted good, the consumer may obtain hedonicbenefits such as entertainment, exploration and self-expression.

The entertainment benefit is important for people whoenjoy shopping. People who enjoy shopping equallyenjoy searching for information on available promo-tions (Beatty and Smith, 1997), obtain an additionalutility tied to low-price buying (Urbany et al., 1996) andtherefore they use discount coupons and glance throughstore flyers (Kolodinsky, 1990). Overall they present ahigher proneness to use both in-store and out-of-storepromotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001) since these activitiesincrease the benefit they obtain with the purchase.

H4. Consumers who enjoy shopping: (a) are prone toin-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-storepromotions.

On the other hand, the exploration benefit, as notedby Ailawadi et al. (2001), evokes characteristics such asinnovation, variety seeking and impulsiveness which arecommented on below.

Innovative people may show a favourable attitude topromotions since these actions encourage them to trynew products (Massy and Frank, 1965; Montgomery,1971 or Teel et al., 1980) and therefore

H5. Innovative consumers: (a) are prone to in-storepromotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promo-tions.

The market also presents a segment of consumers whoenjoy constantly trying out different brands, the so-called variety seekers. Brand switching providesthem with more satisfaction than always buying thesame product. These consumers are more sensitive to

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168160

promotions because they stimulate brand switching(Dodson et al., 1978).

H6. Variety-seeking consumers: (a) are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-storepromotions.

Impulsive shopping is a common behaviour at thestore. The increase of promotions at the point of saledrives consumers to make decisions there (Narasimhanet al., 1996). Impulsive consumers will use in-storepromotions, but not out-of-store promotions, whichrequire an additional effort prior to the purchase(Ailawadi et al., 2001).

H7. Impulsive shoppers: (a) are prone to in-storepromotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-storepromotions.

Self-expression refers to an emotional benefit ob-tained by some consumers when they express their ‘‘self’’in front of others. This self-expression benefit is relatedto being a market maven. Feick and Price (1987) definemarket mavens as ‘‘individuals who have informationabout many kinds of products, places to shop, and otherfacets of markets and initiate discussions with con-sumers and respond to requests from consumers formarket information’’. Mavens pay attention to themedia as a base for knowledge and they are likely toread direct mail and local advertising (Higie et al., 1987).In addition, they are heavy users of coupons (Price et al.,1988). Market mavens enjoy planning their shopping(Price et al., 1988) and they use functional criteria intheir decisions (Williams and Slama, 1995), thus they areprone to use out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless, theyare not characterised by purchasing in-store promotionproducts (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Consequently, wehypothesise:

H8. Market mavens: (a) are not prone to in-storepromotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promo-tions.

3.3. Consumer characteristics associated to the costs of

promotions

Buying promoted products may entail brand switch-ing or store switching. These changes may generateimportant costs for those who are loyal to brands orestablishments.

The more the store loyalty, the higher the costs theconsumer has to bear for store switching (Mittal, 1994).Therefore, there will be a negative relationship betweenproneness to out-of-store promotions and store loyalty,since these promotions often require store switching(Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Furthermore, the custo-mers who are loyal to an establishment tend to be lesssensitive to prices and they are not influenced by

coupons nor store flyers (Kim et al., 1999), but theyfeel satisfied with the promotions developed at thatpoint of sales (Alvarez et al., 1999).

H9. Consumers who are loyal to the establishment: (a)are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not proneto out-of-store promotions.

Customers who are loyal to brands present a lowerlevel of proneness to promotions since they attach moreimportance to the product than to the price (Massy andFrank, 1965; Wakefield and Barnes, 1996), whereas non-loyal consumers are more prone to buy promotedproducts because they attach more importance to theprice than to the product’s attributes (Webster, 1965;Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987).

H10. Brand loyal consumers: (a) are not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-storepromotions.

In order to obtain the benefits provided by promotedproducts some search activities are often necessary.These activities may have a remarkable cost for someconsumers. The search costs will vary according to theextent the consumer plans their shopping and the timepressure they may have.

Consumers who plan their shopping are likely toconsider out-of-store promotions since these promo-tions encourage and help them to plan the shopping(Henderson, 1985; Ailawadi et al., 2001). In addition,planning shoppers eventually learn the promotionalpatterns of the establishments and they adapt theirdecisions to these patterns acquired inside the store(Krishna et al., 1991).

H11. Consumers who plan their shopping: (a) are proneto in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-storepromotions.

On the other hand, consumers with time pressure willnot use out-of-store promotions; the cost of their freetime is high and very often the low prices of products donot compensate for the effort required to benefit fromthem (Blattberg et al., 1978; Bawa and Shoemaker,1987; Putrevu and Lord, 2001). These results would beapplicable to both out-of-store promotions and coupons(Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987), and in-store promotions(Park et al., 1989).

H12. Consumers with time pressure: (a) are not proneto in-store promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store promotions.

Inventory costs are related to the perceived avail-ability for storage space. People with storage spaceconstraints cannot stock up on many units of thepromoted product (Blattberg et al., 1978), whereasshoppers with more storage space will respond better topromotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001).

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 161

H13. Consumers with storage space constraints: (a) arenot prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not proneto out-of-store promotions.

4. Method

4.1. Sample and data collection

To contrast the hypotheses we have designed a self-administered survey aimed at people who buy all or partof the package food and cleaning products for the home.

A pre-test questionnaire was administered to 175citizens in the city of Zaragoza (Spain). This pre-test wasdeveloped to discover any possible weakness in thequestionnaire. It was revised and, in March and April2003, a final questionnaire was administered to arandom sample of 475 individuals. A total of 425 werevalid (89.6%). So, the sample error level was 4.85%, foran infinite population, p ¼ q ¼ 0:5 and the reliabilitylevel was 95.5%.

The questionnaire was divided into four differentiatedsections. First, respondents were asked about theirshopping habits so as to verify that they belong to thetarget population of the study. In the second section, thequestionnaire intended to measure the degree ofproneness to promotions. The third section includedquestions related to psychographic variables. Finally,the questionnaire concluded with some socio-demo-graphic questions.

4.2. Measurements

We have used two different scales to achieve theresearch goals, a promotion-proneness scale and a scalewhich enables assessment of the psychographic profile ofthe respondents.

The measurement of promotion proneness was basedon the scale proposed by Ailawadi et al. (2001). Thisscale had produced positive results in the pre-test.Overall we used eight items where the respondent, in afive-point Likert scale (1 Never and 5 Very often), had toindicate the frequency of some actions related topromotions. For example, they were asked to say howoften they read flyers.

When defining the scales to measure the differentcomponents of the psychographic profile of consumersrelated to promotion proneness, we considered the pre-test results. In that pre-test we had considered the scalesused by Ailawadi et al. (2001), but when we analysed thedata of that exploratory research, some items did notallow us to measure some dimensions properly. For thisreason, Ailawadi et al.’s (2001) original scale wasadapted and completed using other authors’ proposals.For those psychographic dimensions where the pre-testresults showed good psychometric properties, we main-

tained the scales used by Ailawadi et al. (2001); this isthe case of ‘‘price consciousness’’, ‘‘innovation’’, ‘‘im-pulsiveness’’, ‘‘market mavenism’’, ‘‘time pressure’’,‘‘store loyalty’’ and ‘‘storage space perception’’. How-ever, in the rest of the dimensions we proceeded to findalternative scales which allowed us to measure theseconstructs more adequately. Consequently, to measurethe degree of ‘‘financial constraints’’ and ‘‘shoppingenjoyment’’ we opted for the scale proposed by Urbanyet al. (1996). To assess if the consumer is a variety seekerwe utilised Chandon et al.’s scale. The degree of ‘‘brandloyalty’’ was analysed with the scale used by Mittal(1994). Finally, ‘‘shopping planning’’ was studied withPutrevu and Lord’s, (2001) scale. Appendix A gathersall the psychographic indicators used in this research.

All through the psychographic scale the respondentsare asked to show their agreement or disagreement withsuch indicators. They had to assess them in a five-pointLikert scale (1 I totally disagree and 5 I totally agree).

5. Results

5.1. Reliability and validity of the scales

Prior to contrasting the proposed hypotheses, thepsychometric properties of the scales have to beassessed. Therefore, we first utilise an exploratory factoranalysis to refine the initial scales and verify that thenumber of dimensions identified coincided with thenumber initially proposed. The exploratory factoranalysis was performed by means of the statisticalprogramme SPSS and we used the method of principalcomponents with Varimax rotation to determine thefactors. The convergent and discriminant validity of thescales was analysed with the confirmatory factoranalysis. This confirmatory factor analysis was per-formed using EQS for windows and the robustestimation method. We also analysed the reliability ofthe scales through Cronbach’s alpha, the compositereliability index and the analysis of extracted variance.We finally evaluated the data goodness of fit. We beginby commenting the results of the validation process andthe psychometric properties of the proneness scale andthen we study the psychographic scale properties.

The exploratory factor analysis of the deal-pronenessscale identified three dimensions (Table 1). These threedimensions, which explain 85% of the variance, areproneness to use store flyers, proneness to use couponsand proneness to use in-store promotions. For Ailawadiet al. (2001), proneness to use flyers and couponsconstituted a single dimension which the authorsdenominated proneness to use out-of-store promotions;this coincided with Schneider and Currim’s activeproneness. These works were based on the USA datawhere coupons are widely known and used (Schultz

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Factor analysis results of the deal-proneness scale

Deal proneness factors (a ¼ 0:8488) l standardized Variance explained (%)

Store flyers: Store flyers usage scale (a ¼ 0:8797) 34.22

I use store flyers to decide what to buy 0.882

I Scan store flyers for sales before going shopping 0.854

I use store flyers to decide where to buy 0.845

Coupons: Coupon usage scale (a ¼ 0:8872) 25.92

I clip coupons from newspapers and magazines 0.916

I tale along coupons and use them when I go shopping 0.916

In-store: In-store promotion usage scale (a ¼ 0:8426) 25.02

I am influenced buy special displays in the store 0.892

I take advantage of specials in the store 0.889

85.16

KMO 0.738; Bartlet’s test of sphericity: po0:000; M.S.A.40.5; Communalities40.5.

The item ‘‘I use a coupon if I see it on a package or in the store’’ was eliminated as its factor loading was not significant.

Table 2

Reliability and validity of the deal-proneness scale

Cronbach’s

alpha

Total

reliability

Extracted

variance

In-store 0.843 0.842 0.728

Store flyers 0.880 0.884 0.720

Coupons 0.887 0.887 0.797

E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168162

et al., 1998). In Spain, however, the distribution and theuse of coupons is very low (AECOC, 2001). Forexample, in the United States almost 90% of consumersreported using coupons and, on average, of about 80coupons per household were redeemed annually(Schultz et al., 1998). In Spain, 67% of consumeradmitting using coupons at least occasionally but onaverage, only 3.25 coupons per household were re-deemed in 2003 (Hermoso de Mendoza, 2004). How-ever, the Spanish consumer received weekly flyersfrom different stores in their post boxes. Someauthors have verified that the response to promotionsmay be conditioned by the consumers’ familiarity withthe techniques (Huff and Alden, 1998). So, this mayexplain the difference between the proneness to use storeflyers and the one to use coupons. Moreover, someauthors have observed that deal-proneness is a multi-dimensional construct and response to promotionsmight differ between promotional tools (Lichtensteinet al., 1997b).

The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed theexistence of the three dimensions and allowed analysisof the discriminant and convergent validity of the scale.The analysis of the confidence intervals of the covar-iances in the three dimensions guaranteed the discrimi-nant validity. No interval presented value 1; therefore,we may conclude that the dimensions we consideredrefer to clearly different concepts (Peter, 1981). On theother hand, the high factor loadings of the indicators inthe proneness scale, above 0.65, corroborate theconvergent validity of that scale (Table 1).

Additionally, the reliability of the scale has beenanalysed. Table 2 presents the reliability indicators foreach dimension. All Cronbach’s alpha indicators areabove 0.8, composite reliability coefficients show valuesabove 0.7 and the extracted variance analyses are above0.5 (Hair et al., 1999). These values guarantee the scale’sreliability.

For the psychographic scale, the 13 factors wereidentified in the exploratory factor analysis. Theidentified dimensions were subjected to a confirmatoryfactor analysis through robust maximum likelihood. Inthis confirmatory analysis, and after a refinement of thescale where low standardised loadings or low R2 itemswere removed, the psychographic profile was eventuallydefined by 13 dimensions, depicted in Table 3, thatexplain 81% of the variance.

The study of the confidence intervals of the covar-iance in the 13 psychographic dimensions guaranteedthe discriminant validity of the scale since neither of theintervals had value 1. On the other hand, the highstandardised factor loadings in each indicator allowverification of the convergent validity of the psycho-graphic scale (Table 3). Finally, the reliability of thescale is guaranteed because all Cronbach’s alpha indicesare above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) and the compositereliability indices and the extracted variance analysisexceed the values considered as optimum (Table 4).

Additionally, we analysed the data’s goodness of fit tothe dimensions identified in each scale (Table 5). Thestandardised residuals for both scales are below 0.05,which guarantees a satisfactory fit (Luque, 2000). On theother hand, although Satorra-Bentler statistical w2

shows a high value in both scales, the other goodnessof fit indicators are above 0.9 or very close to this value(Hair et al., 1999; Luque, 2000). Consequently, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Factor analysis results of the psychographic scale

Psychographic factors(a ¼ 0:7375) l standardized Variance

explained (%)

Mavenism: Market maven (a ¼ 0:8598) 7.66

People think of me as a good source of shopping information 0.903

I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to shopping 0.832

I enjoy giving people tips on shopping 0.739

Quality: Quality consciousness (a ¼ 0:8618) 7.54

always buy the best 0.978

It is important for me to buy high-quality products 0.776

I will not give up high quality for a lower price 0.731

Time: Time pressure (a ¼ 0:8426) 7.43

I always seem to be in a hurry 0.922

I never seem to have enough time for the things I want to do 0.784

Most days, I have no time to relax 0.758

Innovativeness (a ¼ 0:8363) 7.31

I like to try new and different things 0.890

I am often among the first people to try a new product 0.793

When I see a product somewhat different form the usual, I check it out 0.701

Brand: Brand loyalty (a ¼ 0:8275) 7.12

I and my family will consume only certain brands, not others 0.844

For most supermarket items, I have favorite brands and limit my purchase to them 0.778

In most product categories in the supermarket, there are certain brands for which I have a

definitive preference

0.737

Planning (a ¼ 0:8147) 7.10

I am a well-organized grocery shopper 0.890

I know what products I am going to buy before going to the supermarket 0.750

I prepare a shopping list before going grocery shopping 0.705

Space: Storage space (a ¼ 0:9209) 5.95

I have plenty of storage space at home 0.926

I have a lot of room at home to stock extra grocery 0.922

Enjoyment: Shopping enjoyment (a ¼ 0:8984) 5.74

I think grocery shopping is a chore (reverse score) 0.904

I think grocery shopping is boring (reverse score) 0.902

Price: Price consciousness (a ¼ 0:8149) 5.29

I find myself checking the prices even for small items 0.941

I compare the prices of at least a few brands before I choose one 0.732

Constraints: Financial constraints (a ¼ 0:8089) 5.29

My budgeting is always tight 0.830

I frequently have problems making ends meet 0.818

Impulsiveness: Impulsive behavior (a ¼ 0:7671) 5.11

I often find myself buying products on impulsive in grocery store 0.808

I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge strikes me 0.772

Variety: Variety seeker (a ¼ 0:7399) 5.02

I feel like trying new brands 0.809

I can avoid buying always the same brands 0.729

Store: Store loyalty (a ¼ 0:7510) 5.01

Usually, I care a lot about which particular grocery store I shop at 0.779

I am willing to make an effort to shop at my favorite grocery store 0.773

81.58

KMO 0.706; Bartlet’s test of sphericity: po0:000; M.S.A.40.5; Communalities40.5.

E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 163

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Reliability and validity of the psychographic scale

Cronbach’s

alpha

Total

reliability

Extracted

variance

Mavenism 0.860 0.866 0.685

Quality 0.862 0.872 0.698

Time 0.843 0.863 0.680

Innovativeness 0.836 0.839 0.637

Brand 0.828 0.830 0.620

Planning 0.815 0.827 0.617

Space 0.921 0.921 0.854

Enjoyment 0.852 0.898 0.815

Price 0.815 0.829 0.711

Constraints 0.809 0.809 0.679

Impulsiveness 0.767 0.769 0.624

Variety 0.740 0.744 0.593

Store 0.751 0.752 0.602

Table 5

Goodness of fit parameters

Index Deal-proneness scale Psychographic scale

AASR 0.012 0.028

AO-DASR 0.017 0.030

Incremental fit

Chi-Cuadrado (g.l.) 31.916 (11) 697.632 (389)

p-value o0.0001 o0.0001

Satorra-Bentler 25.067 582.7391

GFI 0.980 0.908

RMSEA 0.067 0.043

Absolute fit

AGFI 0.949 0.876

NFI 0.981 0.898

NNFI 0.976 0.871

IFI 0.988 0.953

CFI 0.987 0.952

E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168164

analysis confirms the existence of the identified dimen-sions.

The relationship between the psychographic variablesand deal-proneness will be analysed through threelogistic regressions. The dependent variables on thoseregressions will be proneness or no proneness to in-storepromotions, flyers or coupons respectively, and, asindependent variables, we will introduce the 13 psycho-graphics obtained.

In order to obtain the proneness dichotomousvariables, we first calculated the arithmetic mean ofthe items in each proneness. Then we created the threedependent variables considering that a consumer isprone to in-store promotions if the value of the factor‘‘proneness to in-store promotions’’ is above 3, and itwill be considered as non-prone when the value is belowor equal to 3; the same procedure has been followed forstore flyers and coupons. In the questionnaire respon-

dents were required to rate the frequency of the actionsin a scale 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).

As for independent variables, we used the factor scoreof the 13 factors obtained in the validation of thepsychographic scale. We used the method of regressionto calculate the factor score.

In the logistic regression analysis we used Wald’smethod and the significance of the final model wasassessed by the statistical w2. In addition, we used thevalues of –2LL (�2Log of the verisimilitude function)and Hosmer and Lemeshow statistical (G) as ameasurement of the fit to the model. Table 6 summarisesthe results obtained. Subsequently, we will contrast theproposed hypotheses separately. We must rememberthat when setting the hypotheses we had anticipated twotypes of proneness: proneness to in-store promotionsand proneness to out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless,after the validation of the scales, three types ofproneness were identified. The first one refers to in-store promotions and the other two types may beconsidered as out-of-store promotions: store flyers andcoupons.

The first hypothesis predicted a positive relationshipbetween price consciousness and the consumer’s re-sponse to promotional actions. By analysing the bcoefficients of the ‘‘price’’ variable in the three regres-sions we can verify that the more price conscious theconsumer is, the higher the probability to be prone to in-store promotions (b ¼ 0:837); to store flyers (b ¼ 0:573)and to coupons (b ¼ 0:561). Therefore, H1a and H1bare accepted.

However, H2a and H2b cannot be accepted, sinceneither of the coefficients of the ‘‘financial constraints’’variable is significant. Unlike we had predicted, thoseconsumers with more financial constraints do not seemto be more deal-prone than other consumers with ahigher economic level. An explanation to this resultmight be the one provided by Bell et al. (1999), whonoticed that people with fewer financial constraints, orwith a higher economic level, not only responded topromotional actions but they also did it with a higherfrequency because they may afford to purchase moreunits of the promoted product than those people with alow economic level. In consequence, financial con-straints are not an adequate variable to identify deal-prone consumers (Lichtenstein et al., 1997a; Larocheet al., 2003).

The third hypothesis considered that quality-con-scious consumers were not prone to any type ofpromotion. By analysing the results of Table 6 we seethat this relationship is true for in-store promotions andflyers, but it cannot be confirmed for coupons. The morequality conscious the consumer is, the lower theprobability to be prone to in-store promotions(b ¼ �0:463) or store flyers (b ¼ �0:353). The coeffi-cient of this variable in the regression of coupon

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 6

Logistic analysis

In-store promotions Out-of-store promotions

b (Wald statistic) b (Wald statistic)

Store flyers Coupons

Mavenism 0.837*** (46.07) 0.573*** (21.17) 0.561*** (15.54)

Quality — — —

Time �0.463*** (15.42) �0.353*** (9.778) —

Innovativeness 0.374*** (10.53) 0.266** (5.02) —

Brand 0.253** (4.76) — 0.316** (5.90)

Planning 0.327*** (8.08) — —

Space 0.329*** (8.00) — —

Enjoyment — 0.437*** (13.96) 0.299** (5.39)

Price — — —

Constraints — — —

Impulsiveness 0.380*** (10.70) 0.452*** (12.92) —

Variety — — —

Store 0.203* (3.09) — —

C 0.423*** (14.21) �1.019*** (69.695) �1.608*** (132.12)

% 72.5 69.6 80.9

�2LL 471.016 457.298 382.909

G 105.558 61.086 28.197

w2 7.277 10.973 9.270

*Significant at the level 0.10; **significant at the level 0.05; ***significant at the level 0.01; C ¼ Constant; �2LL ¼ �2Log Likelihood;

G ¼ Goodness of fit; w2 ¼ Chi-squared statistic.

E. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 165

proneness is not significant. Therefore, H3a and H3b areaccepted, being H3b only referred to flyers.

Regarding shopping enjoyment, as expected, consu-mers who enjoy shopping are prone to in-store promo-tions (b ¼ 0:374); they tend to be people who do notmind spending time on this task and they enjoy seekingoffers and promotions, which confirms H4a and H4b forstore flyers. We verify that the more the consumersenjoy shopping, the higher the probability to be prone toflyers (b ¼ 0:266). However, in the case of coupons therelationship does not exist.

In the fifth hypothesis we studied the relationshipbetween the consumer’s innovation degree and deal-proneness. On the one hand, as the hypothesis predicted,innovative people show a higher proneness to buy in-store promoted products (b ¼ 0:253); the offers theyfind encourage them to try out the new products. Inaddition, innovative people usually respond to coupons(b ¼ 0:316), which confirms H5b. In this case we have toconsider that this promotional tool is used to supportthe introduction of new products into the market.Nevertheless, innovative people do not seem to bespecially prone to store flyers.

As H6a predicted, people who enjoy frequent brandswitching are more prone to in-store promotions(b ¼ 0:327) because the promotions encourage them toswitch brands and thus obtain a higher benefit in thepurchase. According to the revised literature, varietyseekers often decide what to buy when they are insidethe store, their choice depends on the offer at the point

of sales. However, store flyers and coupons do not seemto have any effect on this kind of people; thus, H6bcannot be accepted.

Impulsive shoppers present a higher proneness to in-store promotions, but they do not modify theirbehaviour with store flyers or coupons. These promo-tions require a prior effort and planning. Therefore, H7aand H7b are accepted.

Nevertheless, market mavens show a reverse beha-viour; they do not modify their behaviour with in-storepromotions and they show a higher proneness to out-of-store promotions, either flyers (b ¼ 0:437) or coupons(b ¼ 0:299). These results corroborate H8a and H8b.

Store loyalty does not seem to condition a higher orlower proneness to any type of promotion, thecoefficients of this variable in the three regressions arenot significant. In relation to in-store promotions, onthe one hand, loyal customers are satisfied with thepromotions offered by the store they are loyal to (Sirohiet al., 1998) and, therefore, these consumers will respondto its promotions. On the other hand, non-loyalcustomers are less familiar with the store and they needto go around the store until they find the product theyneed. During this process, as they are exposed to a lot ofpromotional stimulus, they might be more deal-prone(Park et al., 1989). With regard to out-of-store promo-tions, it seems logical that consumers who are loyal to astore are not influenced by other stores’ promotions(Sirohi et al., 1998), as they will support high switchingcosts. However, these consumers might pay special

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168166

attention to the their favourite store’s flyers. Moreover,many coupons can be redeemed at any store and loyalcustomers might use them in their habitual store. Brandloyalty does not seem to condition a higher or lowerproneness to any type of promotion, the coefficients ofthis variable in the three regressions are not significant.People who are loyal to a brand may respond to thatbrand’s promotions, but not to the competitors’promotions (Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Henderson,1994; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Therefore, H9a, H9b, H10aand H10b are not accepted.

On the other hand, and contrary to H11a, the moretime consumers spend on shopping planning, the morelikelihood of them responding to in-store promotions(b ¼ 0:380). The explanation may be that when thesepeople find an interesting promotion while shopping,they calculate and buy the amount they may need untilthe next promotion of the product. In addition, plannersmay use store flyers to prepare their shopping listaccording to the products promoted there (b ¼ 0:452).However, planners are not specially coupon prone,probably due to the scarce use of this promotional toolin our country. Therefore, H11b would be accepted inthe case of store flyers.

In our study we have found no significant relationshipbetween time constraints and purchasing promotedproducts; thus, H12a and H12b cannot be accepted.

Finally we had predicted that people with morestorage space present a higher proneness to buypromoted products; this relationship is corroboratedfor in-store promotions (H13a) but not for store flyersand coupons (H13b).

After analysing the coefficients of the three logisticregressions established in this research, we can state thatmost hypotheses have been confirmed. In the conclu-sions below we will summarise the psychographicprofiles which characterise the consumers prone to eachtype of the identified promotions.

6. Conclusions and implications

The basic purpose of this study was to delve into theknowledge of the characteristics of consumers whorespond to sales promotions and to attempt todifferentiate between the consumer who responds toin-store promotion and the one who responds to out-of-store promotional actions.

In order to define the consumer’s profile we havefocused on the study of the psychographic variables andwe have verified that those consumers who modify theirbehaviour with in-store promotions present differentpsychographic profiles than those consumers whorespond to any type of promotion with an externalstimulus.

The results reveal three types of deal-proneness: in-store promotion proneness, store flyers proneness andcoupon proneness. These results somehow differ fromthose obtained in studies developed in other countrieswhere some authors had proved that people whomodified their shopping behaviour with coupons alsoresponded to store flyer. This may not occur in Spainbecause coupons have not been widely used so far andour market is not used to this type of promotional tool.However, some authors have stated that couponproneness differs from other deal-proneness (Lichten-stein et al., 1997b; Guimond et al., 2001).

The consumers who respond to in-store promotionsare characterised by their price consciousness and attachless importance to the product quality. They enjoyplanning and shopping; when they do their shoppingthey usually buy impulsively, they enjoy brand switchingfrequently and they feel attracted by new products. Inaddition, they consider they have enough storage spacefor their extra purchase.

The consumers who use store flyers to decide theproducts to purchase and the stores to buy are also priceconscious. These consumers consider themselves asmarket mavens, they plan their shopping trips and theyenjoy doing it. Furthermore, these shoppers are lessquality conscious.

Finally, coupon-prone consumers are price consciousand they usually consider themselves as market mavensand innovative.

These results are relevant for the companies whichinclude sales promotions in their communicationprogramme since not all the consumers have the sameresponse to sales promotions. When designing promo-tional campaigns we should consider the target publicand the most effective instruments to attract them.

The results of the study, as noted above, have beenbased on the answers to a questionnaire whererespondents were asked directly about their responseto promotional actions. It would be interesting tocontrast these results and measurements with real figuresabout shopping behaviour obtained from panel data.This type of information would allow to contrast if thedegree of deal-proneness depends on the category of theproduct.

Further studies could be done to study the situationalfactors which may affect the relationships foundbetween the consumer’s psychographic profile and theirresponse to promotions, as Wakefield and Inman (2003)suggest.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their gratitude for thefinancial help received from the Government of Aragonthrough the GENERES project (ref. SO9) and the

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 167

project PM062/2004, and from the Science and Tech-nology Ministry by means of the CICYT project (SEC2002-03949).

Appendix A. Psychographic scale

Price consciousness� I find myself checking the prices even for small items� I compare the prices of at least a few brands before I

choose one� It is important to me to get the best price for the

products I buy

Financial constraints� My budgeting is always tight� I frequently have problems making ends meet� I often have to spend more money than I have

available

Quality consciousness� I always buy the best� It is important for me to buy high-quality products� I will not give up high quality for a lower price

Shopping enjoyment� I enjoy grocery shopping� Grocery shopping is a chore� Grocery shopping is boring� Grocery shopping is a pain� I view grocery shopping in a positive way

Innovativeness� I like to try new and different things� I am often among the first people to try a new

product� When I see a product somewhat different from the

usual, I check it out

Variety seeking� I feel like trying new brands� I can avoid buying always the same brands

Impulsiveness� I often find myself buying products on impulsive in

grocery store� I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge

strikes me

Mavenism� People think of me as a good source of shopping

information� I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to

shopping� I enjoy giving people tips on shopping

Store loyalty� I prefer to always shop at one grocery store� Usually, I care a lot about which particular grocery

store I shop at� I am willing to make an effort to shop at my favourite

grocery store

Brand loyalty� I and my family will consume only certain brands,

not others� For most supermarket items, I have favourite brands

and limit my purchase to them� In most product categories in the supermarket, there

are certain brands for which I have a definitivepreference

Planning� I am a well-organised grocery shopper� I know what products I am going to buy before going

to the supermarket� I prepare a shopping list before going grocery

shopping

Time pressure� I always seem to be in a hurry� I never seem to have enough time for the things I

want to do� Most days, I have no time to relax

Storage space� I have plenty of storage space at home� I have a lot of room at home to stock extra grocery

References

AECOC, 2001. ECR-El Camino a la Eficiencia. www.aecoc.es

Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A., Gedenk, K., 2001. Pursuing the value-

conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promo-

tions. Journal of Marketing 65, 71–89.

Alvarez, B., 2002. El Proceso de Eleccion de Marca por el

Consumidor. Incidencia de los Precios de Referencia y las

Promociones, Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Oviedo.

Alvarez, B., Vazquez, R., Ballina, F.J., Santos, M.L., 1999. Evidencias

Empıricas de la promocion de ventas en establecimientos detallis-

tas, Documento de trabajo 167/99. Universidad de Oviedo.

Ballina, F.J. de la, Vazquez, R., 1996. La Promocion de Ventas de

Productos de Gran Consumo: Confirmaciones Empıricas. Actas

del VIII Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing,

Zaragoza, pp. 429–441.

Bawa, K., Shoemaker, R.W., 1987. The effects of a direct mail coupon

on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 24,

370–376.

Beatty, S.E., Smith, S.M., 1997. External search effort: an investiga-

tion across several product categories. Journal of Consumer

Research 14, 83–95.

Bell, D.R., Chiang, J., Padmanabhan, V., 1999. The decomposition of

promotional response: an empirical generalization. Marketing

Science 18 (4), 504–526.

ARTICLE IN PRESSE. Martınez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168168

Blattberg, R.C., Neslin, S.A., 1990. Sales Promotions: Concepts,

Methods and Strategies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P., Sen, S., 1978. Identifying the

deal prone segment. Journal of Marketing Research 15, 369–377.

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency

framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing

Research 39, 65–81.

Chen, S.F.S., Monroe, K.B., Lou, Y.C., 1998. The effects of framing

price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase

intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 353–372.

Dodson, J.A., Tybout, A.M., Sternthal, B., 1978. Impact of deals and

deal retraction on brand switching. Journal of Marketing Research

15, 72–81.

Feick, L.F., Price, L., 1987. The market maven: a diffuser of market

place information. Journal of Marketing 51, 83–97.

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of store

name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations

and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352.

Grover, R., Srinivasan, V., 1992. Evaluating the multiple effect of

retail promotions on brand loyal and brand switching segments.

Journal of Marketing Research 29, 76–89.

Guimond, L., Kim, C., Laroche, M., 2001. An investigation of

coupon-prone consumers: their reactions to coupon feature

manipulations. Journal of Business Research 54, 131–137.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1999. Analisis

Multivariante, 5a ed. Prentice Hall, Madrid.

Henderson, C.M., 1985. Modeling the coupon redemption decision.

Advances in Consumer Research 12 (1), 138–143.

Henderson, CM., 1994. Promotion heterogeneity and consumer

learning: refining the deal-proneness construct. Advances in

Consumer Research 21, 86–94.

Hermoso de Mendoza, C., 2004. Mas por Menos. Cupones y Vales de

Descuento Ayudan a Promover la Venta de Productos en el

Mercado. IPMARK 626, 54–58.

Higie, R.A., Feick, L.F., Price, L.L., 1987. Types and amount of word-

of-mouth communications about retailers. Journal of Retailing 63

(3), 260–278.

Huff, L., Alden, D.L., 1998. An investigation of consumer response to

sales promotions in developing markets: a three-country analysis.

Journal of Advertising Research May–June, 47–56.

Kim, B.D., Srinivasan, K., Wilcox, R.T., 1999. Identifying price

sensitive consumers: the relative merits of demographic vs.

purchase pattern information. Journal of Retailing 75 (2), 173–193.

Kolodinsky, J., 1990. Time as a direct source of utility: the case of price

information search for groceries. The Journal of Consumer Affairs

24 (1), 89–109.

Krishna, A., Currim, I.S., Shoemaker, R.W., 1991. Consumer

perceptions of promotional activity. Journal of Marketing 55,

4–16.

Laroche, M., Pons, F., Zgolly, N., Cervellon, M.C., Kim, C., 2003. A

model of consumer response to two retail sales promotions

techniques. Journal of Business Research 56, 513–522.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing

coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-

transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing 54,

54–67.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S., Netemeyer, R.G., 1997a. Psychological

correlates of a processes to deals: a domain specific analysis.

Advances in Consumer Research 24, 274–280.

Lichtenstein, D.R., Burton, S., Netemeyer, R.G., 1997b. An examina-

tion of deal proneness across sales promotion types. Journal of

Retailing 73, 283–297.

Luque, T., 2000. Tecnicas de Analisis de Datos en Investigacion de

Mercados. Piramide, Madrid.

Massy, W.F., Frank, R.E., 1965. Short term price and dealing effects

in selected market segments. Journal of Marketing Research 2,

171–185.

Mittal, B., 1994. An integrated framework for relating diverse

consumer characteristics to supermarket coupon redemption.

Journal of Marketing Research 31, 533–544.

Montgomery, D.B., 1971. Consumer characteristics associated with

dealing: an empirical example. Journal of Marketing Research 8,

118–120.

Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S.A., Sen, S.K., 1996. Promotional elasticities

and category characteristics. Journal of Marketing 60, 17–30.

Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Park, C.W., Iyer, E.S., Smith, D.C., 1989. The effects of situational

factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: the role of store

environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer

Research 15, 422–433.

Peter, J.P., 1981. Construct validity: a review of basis issues and

marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 133–145.

Price, L.L., Feick, L.F., Guskey-Federouch, A., 1988. Couponing

behaviors of the market maven: profile of a super couponer.

Advances in Consumer Research 15, 354–359.

Putrevu, S., Lord, K.R., 2001. Search dimensions, patterns and

segment profiles of grocery shoppers. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services 8, 127–137.

Sanchez, G., Del Barrio, S., 1998. La Promocion de Ventas Detallista:

Un Estudio Diferencial de la Gran Superficie Versus la Tienda

Tradicional. Investigacion y Marketing 58, 13–21.

Schindler, R.M., 1989. The excitement of getting a bargain: some

hypothesis concerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper

feelings. Advances in Consumer Research 16, 447–453.

Schneider, L.G., Currim, I.S., 1991. Consumer purchase behaviors

associated with active and passive deal-proneness. International

Journal of Research in Marketing 8, 205–222.

Schultz, D.E., Robinson, W.A., Petrison, L.A., 1998. Sales Promotion

Essentials, Third ed. NTC Business Books, Chicago.

Shimp, T.A., Kavas, A., 1984. The theory of reasoned action applied

to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research 11, 795–809.

Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of

consumer perceptions and store loyalty intentions for a super-

market retailer. Journal of Retailing 74 (2), 223–245.

Teel, J.E., Williams, R.H., Bearden, W.O., 1980. Correlates of

consumer susceptibility to coupons in new grocery product

introductions. Journal of Advertising 9 (3), 31–46.

Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Kalapurakal, R., 1996. Price search in

the retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing 60, 91–104.

Vazquez, R., Ballina, F.J. de la, 1996. Estrategias de Promocion de

Ventas para las Empresas Detallistas: Influencia sobre las

Percepciones y el Comportamiento de Compra de los Consumi-

dores. Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economıa 6, 389–419.

Wakefield, K.L., Barnes, J.H., 1996. Retailing hedonic consumption: a

model of sales promotion of a leisure service. Journal of Retailing

72 (4), 409–427.

Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 2003. Situational price sensitivity: the

role of consumption occasion, social context and income. Journal

of Retailing 79 (4), 199–212.

Webster, F.E., 1965. The ‘‘deal-prone’’ consumer. Journal of Market-

ing Research 2, 186–189.

Williams, T.G., Slama, M.E., 1995. Market mavens’ purchase decision

evaluative criteria: implications for brand and store promotion

efforts. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12 (3), 4–21.