ARTICLE IN PRESS

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

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The effect of consumer’s psychographic variables

upon deal-proneness
Eva Martı́nez, Teresa Montaner
Universidad de Zaragoza, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Gran Vı´a, 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 profiles. Initial research paid more attention to socio-

Promotional marketing is increasingly gaining im-
portance in communication budgets of companies.
Marketing managers attribute this high investment in
sales promotion to the immediate effects of these actions
on sales (Schultz et al., 1998). Because of the little
empirical evidence for the response and effectiveness of
different promotional instruments, over the last decades
numerous studies have tried to provide organisations
with some decision-making guidelines for the design of
promotional campaigns.
Some studies have focused on analysing whether all
consumers show the same response to sales promotion,
defining the profiles of more sensitive consumers to this
type of action (Webster, 1965; Ailawadi et al., 2001).
Several types of variables have been used to define these
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 976 761 000;
fax: +34 976 761 767.
E-mail addresses: emartine@unizar.es (E. Martı́nez),
montagut@unizar.es (T. Montaner).
demographic aspects of consumers, but the results were
not fully conclusive and some other variables were
suggested (Schneider and Currim, 1991; Grover and
Srinivasan, 1992). Some studies have emphasised the
psychographic profile of the deal-prone consumer
obtaining remarkable results (Montgomery, 1971; Lich-
tenstein et al., 1990; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Conse-
quently, this research will focus on analysing the
importance of the consumer’s psychographic profile in
their behaviour towards sales promotions. More speci-
fically, we will attempt to identify different types of
response to promotional actions. In addition, the
relationship between these responses will be related with
different psychographic traits.
This paper proceeds as follows: First, we revise the
literature which analyses the consumer response to
promotional actions and relates proneness to promo-
tions with different psychographic traits of consumers.
In the next section we define the hypotheses to be
contrasted in the study and explain the methodology
used in the empirical part of our study. We proceed then

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
158 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
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 response
to sales promotion frequently refers to the term ‘‘deal-
prone consumer’’. Proneness to promotions may be
defined, overall, as the tendency to use promotional
information 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 consumers
will be those who modify their purchase behaviour so as
to benefit from the temporary incentive offered by a
promotion (Wakefield and Barnes, 1996).
Several authors, when studying the consumer’s
response to promotional actions, have analysed whether
a consumer who is prone to purchase a certain
promoted product will also respond to any other
promotional action. The results of that research are
not fully conclusive. Some studies reveal that deal-
proneness is a generalised construct, that is, an
individual who modifies his or her purchase behaviour
in certain promotions is likely to modify his or her
behaviour in any other promotion (Shimp and Kavas,
1984; Price et al., 1988). Other authors maintain that
deal-proneness is domain specific and that consumers
may 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. Active
proneness refers to the consumers’ sensitivity to store
flyers and coupons. This proneness requires an intense
search from the consumer to find interesting promo-
tions. Nevertheless, passive proneness demands a limited
search developed at the point of sales. Such a proneness
is reflected in the consumers’ sensitivity to in-store
displays. Ailawadi et al. (2001) establish a similar
differentiation between proneness to out-of-store pro-
motions and proneness to in-store promotions. For
these authors, out-of-store promotions are those which
take place out of the shops and demand some effort
from the consumer; they would be related to the active
proneness proposed by Schneider and Currim (1991).
On the other hand, in-store promotions are those which
are developed inside the point of sales and discovered by
the consumer when shopping. These types of promo-
tions require a reduced effort from the buyer and they
are 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 to
design better promotional campaigns (Bawa and Shoe-
maker, 1987; Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Laroche et al.,
2003). The first studies which attempted to characterise
the deal-prone consumer fundamentally based this
characterisation on socio-demographic variables. Hav-
ing obtained inconclusive results, psychographic and
purchasing habit variables have been recommended to
identify the deal-prone consumer (Schneider and Cur-
rim, 1991; Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Sánchez and
Del Barrio, 1998).
Because sales promotions affect the purchase process
(Álvarez, 2002), we may explain the different responses
to promotions by analysing the variables which influ-
ence the purchase process. Some researchers have used
economic benefits or purchase costs as a reference to
characterise deal-prone consumers (Blattberg et al.,
1978; Bawa and Shoemaker, 1987). Other authors have
emphasised the hedonic benefits generated by the
purchase of a promoted product (Shimp and Kavas,
1984; Schindler, 1989). However, Chandon et al. (2000)
integrate both perspectives and consider that consumers
respond to sales promotions due to the positive
experience provided and thus they attempt to explain
how both economic and hedonic benefits and costs
influence deal-proneness. This paper is based on this
perspective and therefore we will briefly describe these
benefits or costs in order to relate them to the buyers’
characteristics.
Economic or functional benefits are tied to the
product’s attributes, they provide the customer with
functional information and they refer to tangible or
objective 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 of
paying. They may also grant the access to higher quality
brands which could not be bought at their normal price.
Hedonic benefits are tied to intangible attributes and
they are experiential and affective. Some outstanding
hedonic benefits of promotional actions are entertain-
ment, exploration and expression. For example, for
those consumers who enjoy shopping, some promotions
may be amusing and increase this entertainment benefit
provided by the product purchase.
Along the purchase decision process, the consumer
weighs up both the benefits and the costs of a
promotion. Some costs related to the purchase of
promoted products, as it will be explained below, may
be switching, search and inventory costs.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
The importance of these benefits and costs for each
consumer would differentiate deal-prone from non-deal-
prone consumers. Some authors have identified socio-
demographic and psychographic traits of the consumer
associated to each of these benefits and costs and they
have related them to deal-proneness. In the following
section we will emphasise the psychographic traits which
might be related to deal-proneness.
3. Hypotheses
In the characterisation of the deal-prone consumer we
will consider the traits that Ailawadi et al. (2001)
associated with the aforementioned benefits and costs.
First, we will set the hypotheses related to the
consumer’s characteristics associated with the utilitarian
benefits of promotion purchase. We will then establish
the hypotheses related to hedonic benefits. Finally, we
will present the hypotheses related to the costs of
promotion purchase.
Furthermore, when setting the hypotheses, we will
distinguish between both types of proneness mentioned
before: proneness to in-store promotions and proneness
to out-of-store promotions. We consider that the
differences between both types of promotion will make
some consumers respond to certain promotions but not
to others.
3.1. Consumer characteristics associated to the economic
benefits of promotions
Some promotions may provide savings for the
consumer reducing the pain of paying. Consequently,
some consumers will purchase promoted products to
obtain these economic benefits. Savings will be remark-
able for those price-conscious consumers and for those
with financial constraints.
People with a higher economic level are usually less
price conscious (Ailawadi et al., 2001), they are less
sensitive to price changes (Kim et al., 1999), they make
little effort to find a product’s best price (Putrevu and
Lord, 2001) and they use promotions less (Ballina and
Vazquez, 1996). Nevertheless, consumers with a lower
economic level tend to be more price-sensitive, they
thoroughly search for price information (Kim et al.,
1999) and they are willing to make an additional effort
to benefit from a promotion (Chen et al., 1998). Most
research has concluded that price-conscious consumers
with financial constraints respond well to promotional
actions.
H1. Price-conscious consumers: (a) are prone to in-
store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store
promotions.
159
H2. Consumers with financial constraints: (a) are prone
to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store
promotions.
Quality is another utilitarian benefit associated with
the purchase of a product. Promotional actions may
produce a negative effect on the perceived quality of
products (Grewal et al., 1998) and considering that
quality-conscious consumers attach little importance to
price, quality-conscious people are expected to show low
proneness to promotions.
H3. Quality-conscious consumers: (a) are not prone to
in-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 affective
aspects and they are not based on the objective aspects
of the product or the promotion. When buying a
promoted good, the consumer may obtain hedonic
benefits such as entertainment, exploration and self-
expression.
The entertainment benefit is important for people who
enjoy shopping. People who enjoy shopping equally
enjoy searching for information on available promo-
tions (Beatty and Smith, 1997), obtain an additional
utility tied to low-price buying (Urbany et al., 1996) and
therefore they use discount coupons and glance through
store flyers (Kolodinsky, 1990). Overall they present a
higher proneness to use both in-store and out-of-store
promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001) since these activities
increase the benefit they obtain with the purchase.
H4. Consumers who enjoy shopping: (a) are prone to
in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store
promotions.
On the other hand, the exploration benefit, as noted
by Ailawadi et al. (2001), evokes characteristics such as
innovation, variety seeking and impulsiveness which are
commented on below.
Innovative people may show a favourable attitude to
promotions since these actions encourage them to try
new products (Massy and Frank, 1965; Montgomery,
1971 or Teel et al., 1980) and therefore
H5. Innovative consumers: (a) are prone to in-store
promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store promo-
tions.
The market also presents a segment of consumers who
enjoy constantly trying out different brands, the so-
called variety seekers. Brand switching provides
them with more satisfaction than always buying the
same product. These consumers are more sensitive to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
160 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
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-store
promotions.
Impulsive shopping is a common behaviour at the
store. The increase of promotions at the point of sale
drives consumers to make decisions there (Narasimhan
et al., 1996). Impulsive consumers will use in-store
promotions, but not out-of-store promotions, which
require an additional effort prior to the purchase
(Ailawadi et al., 2001).
H7. Impulsive shoppers: (a) are prone to in-store
promotions and (b) are not prone to out-of-store
promotions.
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 related
to being a market maven. Feick and Price (1987) define
market mavens as ‘‘individuals who have information
about many kinds of products, places to shop, and other
facets of markets and initiate discussions with con-
sumers and respond to requests from consumers for
market information’’. Mavens pay attention to the
media as a base for knowledge and they are likely to
read 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 in
their decisions (Williams and Slama, 1995), thus they are
prone to use out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless, they
are not characterised by purchasing in-store promotion
products (Ailawadi et al., 2001). Consequently, we
hypothesise:
H8. Market mavens: (a) are not prone to in-store
promotions 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 generate
important costs for those who are loyal to brands or
establishments.
The more the store loyalty, the higher the costs the
consumer has to bear for store switching (Mittal, 1994).
Therefore, there will be a negative relationship between
proneness 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 less
sensitive to prices and they are not influenced by
coupons nor store flyers (Kim et al., 1999), but they
feel satisfied with the promotions developed at that
point of sales (Álvarez et al., 1999).
H9. Consumers who are loyal to the establishment: (a)
are prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone
to out-of-store promotions.
Customers who are loyal to brands present a lower
level of proneness to promotions since they attach more
importance to the product than to the price (Massy and
Frank, 1965; Wakefield and Barnes, 1996), whereas non-
loyal consumers are more prone to buy promoted
products because they attach more importance to the
price 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-store
promotions.
In order to obtain the benefits provided by promoted
products some search activities are often necessary.
These activities may have a remarkable cost for some
consumers. The search costs will vary according to the
extent the consumer plans their shopping and the time
pressure they may have.
Consumers who plan their shopping are likely to
consider 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 promotional
patterns of the establishments and they adapt their
decisions to these patterns acquired inside the store
(Krishna et al., 1991).
H11. Consumers who plan their shopping: (a) are prone
to in-store promotions and (b) are prone to out-of-store
promotions.
On the other hand, consumers with time pressure will
not use out-of-store promotions; the cost of their free
time is high and very often the low prices of products do
not compensate for the effort required to benefit from
them (Blattberg et al., 1978; Bawa and Shoemaker,
1987; Putrevu and Lord, 2001). These results would be
applicable 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 prone
to 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 space
constraints cannot stock up on many units of the
promoted product (Blattberg et al., 1978), whereas
shoppers with more storage space will respond better to
promotions (Ailawadi et al., 2001).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
H13. Consumers with storage space constraints: (a) are
not prone to in-store promotions and (b) are not prone
to 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 part
of the package food and cleaning products for the home.
A pre-test questionnaire was administered to 175
citizens in the city of Zaragoza (Spain). This pre-test was
developed to discover any possible weakness in the
questionnaire. It was revised and, in March and April
2003, a final questionnaire was administered to a
random sample of 475 individuals. A total of 425 were
valid (89.6%). So, the sample error level was 4.85%, for
an infinite population, p ¼ q ¼ 0:5 and the reliability
level was 95.5%.
The questionnaire was divided into four differentiated
sections. First, respondents were asked about their
shopping habits so as to verify that they belong to the
target population of the study. In the second section, the
questionnaire intended to measure the degree of
proneness to promotions. The third section included
questions 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 the
research goals, a promotion-proneness scale and a scale
which enables assessment of the psychographic profile of
the respondents.
The measurement of promotion proneness was based
on the scale proposed by Ailawadi et al. (2001). This
scale had produced positive results in the pre-test.
Overall we used eight items where the respondent, in a
five-point Likert scale (1 Never and 5 Very often), had to
indicate the frequency of some actions related to
promotions. For example, they were asked to say how
often they read flyers.
When defining the scales to measure the different
components of the psychographic profile of consumers
related to promotion proneness, we considered the pre-
test results. In that pre-test we had considered the scales
used by Ailawadi et al. (2001), but when we analysed the
data of that exploratory research, some items did not
allow us to measure some dimensions properly. For this
reason, Ailawadi et al.’s (2001) original scale was
adapted and completed using other authors’ proposals.
For those psychographic dimensions where the pre-test
results showed good psychometric properties, we main-
161
tained the scales used by Ailawadi et al. (2001); this is
the 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 find
alternative scales which allowed us to measure these
constructs more adequately. Consequently, to measure
the degree of ‘‘financial constraints’’ and ‘‘shopping
enjoyment’’ we opted for the scale proposed by Urbany
et al. (1996). To assess if the consumer is a variety seeker
we utilised Chandon et al.’s scale. The degree of ‘‘brand
loyalty’’ was analysed with the scale used by Mittal
(1994). Finally, ‘‘shopping planning’’ was studied with
Putrevu and Lord’s, (2001) scale. Appendix A gathers
all the psychographic indicators used in this research.
All through the psychographic scale the respondents
are asked to show their agreement or disagreement with
such indicators. They had to assess them in a five-point
Likert 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, the
psychometric properties of the scales have to be
assessed. Therefore, we first utilise an exploratory factor
analysis to refine the initial scales and verify that the
number of dimensions identified coincided with the
number initially proposed. The exploratory factor
analysis was performed by means of the statistical
programme SPSS and we used the method of principal
components with Varimax rotation to determine the
factors. The convergent and discriminant validity of the
scales was analysed with the confirmatory factor
analysis. This confirmatory factor analysis was per-
formed using EQS for windows and the robust
estimation method. We also analysed the reliability of
the scales through Cronbach’s alpha, the composite
reliability index and the analysis of extracted variance.
We finally evaluated the data goodness of fit. We begin
by commenting the results of the validation process and
the psychometric properties of the proneness scale and
then we study the psychographic scale properties.
The exploratory factor analysis of the deal-proneness
scale identified three dimensions (Table 1). These three
dimensions, which explain 85% of the variance, are
proneness to use store flyers, proneness to use coupons
and proneness to use in-store promotions. For Ailawadi
et al. (2001), proneness to use flyers and coupons
constituted a single dimension which the authors
denominated proneness to use out-of-store promotions;
this coincided with Schneider and Currim’s active
proneness. These works were based on the USA data
where coupons are widely known and used (Schultz
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
162 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

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.

et al., 1998). In Spain, however, the distribution and the Table 2

use of coupons is very low (AECOC, 2001). For
example, in the United States almost 90% of consumers
reported using coupons and, on average, of about 80
coupons per household were redeemed annually
(Schultz et al., 1998). In Spain, 67% of consumer
admitting using coupons at least occasionally but on
average, only 3.25 coupons per household were re-
deemed in 2003 (Hermoso de Mendoza, 2004). How-
ever, the Spanish consumer received weekly flyers
from different stores in their post boxes. Some
authors have verified that the response to promotions
may be conditioned by the consumers’ familiarity with
the techniques (Huff and Alden, 1998). So, this may
explain the difference between the proneness to use store
flyers and the one to use coupons. Moreover, some
authors have observed that deal-proneness is a multi-
dimensional construct and response to promotions
might differ between promotional tools (Lichtenstein
et al., 1997b).
The confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the
existence of the three dimensions and allowed analysis
of 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 considered
refer to clearly different concepts (Peter, 1981). On the
other hand, the high factor loadings of the indicators in
the proneness scale, above 0.65, corroborate the
convergent validity of that scale (Table 1).
Additionally, the reliability of the scale has been
analysed. Table 2 presents the reliability indicators for
each dimension. All Cronbach’s alpha indicators are
above 0.8, composite reliability coefficients show values
above 0.7 and the extracted variance analyses are above
0.5 (Hair et al., 1999). These values guarantee the scale’s
reliability.
Reliability and validity of the deal-proneness scale
Cronbach’s Total Extracted
alpha reliability variance
In-store 0.843 0.842 0.728
Store flyers 0.880 0.884 0.720
Coupons 0.887 0.887 0.797
For the psychographic scale, the 13 factors were
identified in the exploratory factor analysis. The
identified dimensions were subjected to a confirmatory
factor analysis through robust maximum likelihood. In
this confirmatory analysis, and after a refinement of the
scale where low standardised loadings or low R2 items
were removed, the psychographic profile was eventually
defined by 13 dimensions, depicted in Table 3, that
explain 81% of the variance.
The study of the confidence intervals of the covar-
iance in the 13 psychographic dimensions guaranteed
the discriminant validity of the scale since neither of the
intervals had value 1. On the other hand, the high
standardised factor loadings in each indicator allow
verification of the convergent validity of the psycho-
graphic scale (Table 3). Finally, the reliability of the
scale is guaranteed because all Cronbach’s alpha indices
are above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978) and the composite
reliability indices and the extracted variance analysis
exceed the values considered as optimum (Table 4).
Additionally, we analysed the data’s goodness of fit to
the dimensions identified in each scale (Table 5). The
standardised residuals for both scales are below 0.05,
which guarantees a satisfactory fit (Luque, 2000). On the
other hand, although Satorra-Bentler statistical w2
shows a high value in both scales, the other goodness
of fit indicators are above 0.9 or very close to this value
(Hair et al., 1999; Luque, 2000). Consequently, the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 163

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 0.737
definitive preference
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.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
164 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168

Table 4 dents were required to rate the frequency of the actions

Reliability and validity of the psychographic scale in a scale 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).
Cronbach’s Total Extracted
As for independent variables, we used the factor score
alpha reliability variance of the 13 factors obtained in the validation of the
psychographic scale. We used the method of regression
Mavenism 0.860 0.866 0.685 to calculate the factor score.
Quality 0.862 0.872 0.698
In the logistic regression analysis we used Wald’s
Time 0.843 0.863 0.680
Innovativeness 0.836 0.839 0.637 method and the significance of the final model was
Brand 0.828 0.830 0.620 assessed by the statistical w2 . In addition, we used the
Planning 0.815 0.827 0.617 values of –2LL (
2 Log of the verisimilitude function)
Space 0.921 0.921 0.854 and Hosmer and Lemeshow statistical (G) as a
Enjoyment 0.852 0.898 0.815
Price 0.815 0.829 0.711
measurement of the fit to the model. Table 6 summarises
Constraints 0.809 0.809 0.679 the results obtained. Subsequently, we will contrast the
Impulsiveness 0.767 0.769 0.624 proposed hypotheses separately. We must remember
Variety 0.740 0.744 0.593 that when setting the hypotheses we had anticipated two
Store 0.751 0.752 0.602 types of proneness: proneness to in-store promotions
and proneness to out-of-store promotions. Nevertheless,
after the validation of the scales, three types of
Table 5 proneness were identified. The first one refers to in-
Goodness of fit parameters store promotions and the other two types may be
Index Deal-proneness scale Psychographic scale
considered as out-of-store promotions: store flyers and
coupons.
AASR 0.012 0.028 The first hypothesis predicted a positive relationship
AO-DASR 0.017 0.030 between price consciousness and the consumer’s re-
Incremental fit sponse to promotional actions. By analysing the b
Chi-Cuadrado (g.l.) 31.916 (11) 697.632 (389) coefficients of the ‘‘price’’ variable in the three regres-
p-value o0.0001 o0.0001 sions we can verify that the more price conscious the
Satorra-Bentler 25.067 582.7391
GFI 0.980 0.908
consumer is, the higher the probability to be prone to in-
RMSEA 0.067 0.043 store promotions (b ¼ 0:837); to store flyers (b ¼ 0:573)
and to coupons (b ¼ 0:561). Therefore, H1a and H1b
Absolute fit
are accepted.
AGFI 0.949 0.876
NFI 0.981 0.898 However, H2a and H2b cannot be accepted, since
NNFI 0.976 0.871 neither of the coefficients of the ‘‘financial constraints’’
IFI 0.988 0.953 variable is significant. Unlike we had predicted, those
CFI 0.987 0.952 consumers with more financial constraints do not seem
to be more deal-prone than other consumers with a
higher economic level. An explanation to this result
might be the one provided by Bell et al. (1999), who
analysis confirms the existence of the identified dimen- noticed that people with fewer financial constraints, or
sions. with a higher economic level, not only responded to
The relationship between the psychographic variables promotional actions but they also did it with a higher
and deal-proneness will be analysed through three frequency because they may afford to purchase more
logistic regressions. The dependent variables on those units of the promoted product than those people with a
regressions will be proneness or no proneness to in-store low economic level. In consequence, financial con-
promotions, flyers or coupons respectively, and, as straints are not an adequate variable to identify deal-
independent variables, we will introduce the 13 psycho- prone consumers (Lichtenstein et al., 1997a; Laroche
graphics obtained. et al., 2003).
In order to obtain the proneness dichotomous The third hypothesis considered that quality-con-
variables, we first calculated the arithmetic mean of scious consumers were not prone to any type of
the items in each proneness. Then we created the three promotion. By analysing the results of Table 6 we see
dependent variables considering that a consumer is that this relationship is true for in-store promotions and
prone to in-store promotions if the value of the factor flyers, but it cannot be confirmed for coupons. The more
‘‘proneness to in-store promotions’’ is above 3, and it quality conscious the consumer is, the lower the
will be considered as non-prone when the value is below probability to be prone to in-store promotions
or equal to 3; the same procedure has been followed for (b ¼
0:463) or store flyers (b ¼
0:353). The coeffi-
store flyers and coupons. In the questionnaire respon- cient of this variable in the regression of coupon
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 165

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

proneness is not significant. Therefore, H3a and H3b are
accepted, 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 not
mind spending time on this task and they enjoy seeking
offers and promotions, which confirms H4a and H4b for
store flyers. We verify that the more the consumers
enjoy shopping, the higher the probability to be prone to
flyers (b ¼ 0:266). However, in the case of coupons the
relationship does not exist.
In the fifth hypothesis we studied the relationship
between 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 they
find encourage them to try out the new products. In
addition, innovative people usually respond to coupons
(b ¼ 0:316), which confirms H5b. In this case we have to
consider that this promotional tool is used to support
the introduction of new products into the market.
Nevertheless, innovative people do not seem to be
specially prone to store flyers.
As H6a predicted, people who enjoy frequent brand
switching are more prone to in-store promotions
(b ¼ 0:327) because the promotions encourage them to
switch brands and thus obtain a higher benefit in the
purchase. According to the revised literature, variety
seekers often decide what to buy when they are inside
the store, their choice depends on the offer at the point
of sales. However, store flyers and coupons do not seem
to have any effect on this kind of people; thus, H6b
cannot be accepted.
Impulsive shoppers present a higher proneness to in-
store promotions, but they do not modify their
behaviour with store flyers or coupons. These promo-
tions require a prior effort and planning. Therefore, H7a
and H7b are accepted.
Nevertheless, market mavens show a reverse beha-
viour; they do not modify their behaviour with in-store
promotions 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 or
lower proneness to any type of promotion, the
coefficients of this variable in the three regressions are
not significant. In relation to in-store promotions, on
the one hand, loyal customers are satisfied with the
promotions offered by the store they are loyal to (Sirohi
et al., 1998) and, therefore, these consumers will respond
to its promotions. On the other hand, non-loyal
customers are less familiar with the store and they need
to go around the store until they find the product they
need. During this process, as they are exposed to a lot of
promotional 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 a
store are not influenced by other stores’ promotions
(Sirohi et al., 1998), as they will support high switching
costs. However, these consumers might pay special
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
166 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
attention to the their favourite store’s flyers. Moreover,
many coupons can be redeemed at any store and loyal
customers might use them in their habitual store. Brand
loyalty does not seem to condition a higher or lower
proneness to any type of promotion, the coefficients of
this variable in the three regressions are not significant.
People who are loyal to a brand may respond to that
brand’s promotions, but not to the competitors’
promotions (Grover and Srinivasan, 1992; Henderson,
1994; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Therefore, H9a, H9b, H10a
and H10b are not accepted.
On the other hand, and contrary to H11a, the more
time consumers spend on shopping planning, the more
likelihood of them responding to in-store promotions
(b ¼ 0:380). The explanation may be that when these
people find an interesting promotion while shopping,
they calculate and buy the amount they may need until
the next promotion of the product. In addition, planners
may use store flyers to prepare their shopping list
according 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 tool
in our country. Therefore, H11b would be accepted in
the case of store flyers.
In our study we have found no significant relationship
between time constraints and purchasing promoted
products; thus, H12a and H12b cannot be accepted.
Finally we had predicted that people with more
storage space present a higher proneness to buy
promoted products; this relationship is corroborated
for in-store promotions (H13a) but not for store flyers
and coupons (H13b).
After analysing the coefficients of the three logistic
regressions established in this research, we can state that
most hypotheses have been confirmed. In the conclu-
sions below we will summarise the psychographic
profiles which characterise the consumers prone to each
type of the identified promotions.
6. Conclusions and implications
The basic purpose of this study was to delve into the
knowledge of the characteristics of consumers who
respond to sales promotions and to attempt to
differentiate between the consumer who responds to
in-store promotion and the one who responds to out-of-
store promotional actions.
In order to define the consumer’s profile we have
focused on the study of the psychographic variables and
we have verified that those consumers who modify their
behaviour with in-store promotions present different
psychographic profiles than those consumers who
respond to any type of promotion with an external
stimulus.
The results reveal three types of deal-proneness: in-
store promotion proneness, store flyers proneness and
coupon proneness. These results somehow differ from
those obtained in studies developed in other countries
where some authors had proved that people who
modified their shopping behaviour with coupons also
responded to store flyer. This may not occur in Spain
because coupons have not been widely used so far and
our market is not used to this type of promotional tool.
However, some authors have stated that coupon
proneness differs from other deal-proneness (Lichten-
stein et al., 1997b; Guimond et al., 2001).
The consumers who respond to in-store promotions
are characterised by their price consciousness and attach
less importance to the product quality. They enjoy
planning and shopping; when they do their shopping
they usually buy impulsively, they enjoy brand switching
frequently and they feel attracted by new products. In
addition, they consider they have enough storage space
for their extra purchase.
The consumers who use store flyers to decide the
products to purchase and the stores to buy are also price
conscious. These consumers consider themselves as
market mavens, they plan their shopping trips and they
enjoy doing it. Furthermore, these shoppers are less
quality conscious.
Finally, coupon-prone consumers are price conscious
and they usually consider themselves as market mavens
and innovative.
These results are relevant for the companies which
include sales promotions in their communication
programme since not all the consumers have the same
response to sales promotions. When designing promo-
tional campaigns we should consider the target public
and the most effective instruments to attract them.
The results of the study, as noted above, have been
based on the answers to a questionnaire where
respondents were asked directly about their response
to promotional actions. It would be interesting to
contrast these results and measurements with real figures
about shopping behaviour obtained from panel data.
This type of information would allow to contrast if the
degree of deal-proneness depends on the category of the
product.
Further studies could be done to study the situational
factors which may affect the relationships found
between the consumer’s psychographic profile and their
response to promotions, as Wakefield and Inman (2003)
suggest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude for the
financial help received from the Government of Aragon
through the GENERES project (ref. SO9) and the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168 167

project PM062/2004, and from the Science and Tech- Store loyalty
nology Ministry by means of the CICYT project (SEC  I prefer to always shop at one grocery store
2002-03949).  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
Appendix A. Psychographic scale grocery store

Price consciousness Brand loyalty

 I find myself checking the prices even for small items  I and my family will consume only certain brands,
 I compare the prices of at least a few brands before I not others
choose one  For most supermarket items, I have favourite brands
 It is important to me to get the best price for the and limit my purchase to them
products I buy  In most product categories in the supermarket, there
are certain brands for which I have a definitive
preference
Financial constraints
 My budgeting is always tight Planning
 I frequently have problems making ends meet  I am a well-organised grocery shopper
 I often have to spend more money than I have  I know what products I am going to buy before going
available
to the supermarket
 I prepare a shopping list before going grocery
Quality consciousness shopping
 I always buy the best
 It is important for me to buy high-quality products Time pressure
 I will not give up high quality for a lower price  I always seem to be in a hurry
 I never seem to have enough time for the things I
Shopping enjoyment want to do
 I enjoy grocery shopping  Most days, I have no time to relax
 Grocery shopping is a chore
 Grocery shopping is boring Storage space
 Grocery shopping is a pain  I have plenty of storage space at home
 I view grocery shopping in a positive way  I have a lot of room at home to stock extra grocery
Innovativeness
 I like to try new and different things
 I am often among the first people to try a new References
product
 When I see a product somewhat different from the AECOC, 2001. ECR-El Camino a la Eficiencia. www.aecoc.es
usual, I check it out 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.
Variety seeking Álvarez, B., 2002. El Proceso de Elección de Marca por el
 I feel like trying new brands Consumidor. Incidencia de los Precios de Referencia y las
 I can avoid buying always the same brands Promociones, Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Oviedo.
Álvarez, B., Vázquez, R., Ballina, F.J., Santos, M.L., 1999. Evidencias
Empı́ricas de la promoción de ventas en establecimientos detallis-
Impulsiveness tas, Documento de trabajo 167/99. Universidad de Oviedo.
 I often find myself buying products on impulsive in Ballina, F.J. de la, Vazquez, R., 1996. La Promoción de Ventas de
grocery store Productos de Gran Consumo: Confirmaciones Empı́ricas. Actas
 I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge del VIII Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing,
Zaragoza, pp. 429–441.
strikes me
Bawa, K., Shoemaker, R.W., 1987. The effects of a direct mail coupon
on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 24,
Mavenism 370–376.
 People think of me as a good source of shopping Beatty, S.E., Smith, S.M., 1997. External search effort: an investiga-
information tion across several product categories. Journal of Consumer
Research 14, 83–95.
 I am somewhat of an expert when it comes to Bell, D.R., Chiang, J., Padmanabhan, V., 1999. The decomposition of
shopping promotional response: an empirical generalization. Marketing
 I enjoy giving people tips on shopping Science 18 (4), 504–526.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
168 E. Martı´nez, T. Montaner / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 157–168
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. Análisis
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. Más 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. Técnicas de Análisis de Datos en Investigación de
Mercados. Pirámide, 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.
Sánchez, G., Del Barrio, S., 1998. La Promoción de Ventas Detallista:
Un Estudio Diferencial de la Gran Superficie Versus la Tienda
Tradicional. Investigación 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 Promoción de
Ventas para las Empresas Detallistas: Influencia sobre las
Percepciones y el Comportamiento de Compra de los Consumi-
dores. Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economı́a 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.