Antecedents of Coupon Proneness: A Key Mediator of Coupon Redemption

This article was downloaded by: [Michael D. Hartline]On: 25 April 2013, At: 13:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Antecedents of Coupon Proneness: A KeyMediator of Coupon RedemptionRonald A. Clark a , James J. Zboja b & Ronald E. Goldsmith ca Missouri State University, Marketing, Springfield, Missouri, USAb University of Tulsa, Management & Marketing, Collins College ofBusiness, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USAc Florida State University, Marketing, College of Business,Tallahassee, Florida, USAVersion of record first published: 24 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Ronald A. Clark , James J. Zboja & Ronald E. Goldsmith (2013): Antecedents ofCoupon Proneness: A Key Mediator of Coupon Redemption, Journal of Promotion Management, 19:2,188-210

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769475

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769475

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Promotion Management, 19:188–210, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496491.2013.769475

Antecedents of Coupon Proneness: A KeyMediator of Coupon Redemption

RONALD A. CLARKMissouri State University, Marketing, Springfield, Missouri, USA

JAMES J. ZBOJAUniversity of Tulsa, Management & Marketing, Collins College of Business, Tulsa,

Oklahoma, USA

RONALD E. GOLDSMITHFlorida State University, Marketing, College of Business, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Coupons increase the buying power of consumers. Businesses usecoupons to increase sales, new products adoption, and repeat buy-ing. Billions of coupons are distributed annually via different meth-ods. However, consumers redeem only a small fraction of these,thereby forgoing the potential cost savings. The authors investigatedseveral factors that motivate coupon redemption. The data were ob-tained by surveying 353 U.S. consumers. Price consciousness, pride,and satisfaction in using coupons, and value consciousness werefound to increase coupon use. The perception that the savings arenot worth the effort decreased their use. The results suggest ways formanagers to boost coupon use.

KEYWORDS coupon proneness, coupon redemption, acquisitionutility, transaction utility

INTRODUCTION

Coupons were distributed in record numbers in both 2009 and 2010, 311billion and 332 billion respectively, with shoppers saving $3.7 billion in2010 (NCH Marketing Services, Inc., 2011a). The same report indicates thatconsumers redeemed 3.3 billion coupons in 2010. Despite a 2.9% increase(1.75 Billion) in coupon redemption volume in the first half of 2011(NCH

Address correspondence to Dr. Ronald A Clark, Ph.D., Missouri State University, Mar-keting, 901 S. National Ave., Springfield, MO 65897, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

188

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13

Antecedents of Coupon Proneness 189

Marketing Services, Inc., 2011b), overall redemption rates remain very low(<1%). Both consumers and marketers alike can benefit if coupon redemp-tion would increase. Further investigation by the Nielsen Company revealsthat the “80/20 Rule” is in effect when it comes to coupons; 83% of unitspurchased with manufacturer coupons in 2009 were done so by just 22% ofhouseholds (Hale, 2011). All but the heaviest coupon user group, known ascoupon enthusiasts (as featured on national news and television programssuch as “Extreme Couponing”), experienced negative total unit growth.Meanwhile, households with income over $100,000 were the primary driversof coupon growth and, while all ethnic groups use coupons, 75% of couponclippers in the United States are Caucasian. Possibly related to overexposureto marketing stimuli, young people have also been found to be relativelyinattentive to sales promotion efforts (Te’eni-Harari, 2008). These data revealthat much work still needs to be done to encourage coupon use by con-sumers. While the recent modest increases in coupon redemption rates arelikely due to the current economic climate, the question of how to promoteand sustain coupon use among consumers and, particularly, consumers whocould benefit most from coupon usage, remains. A key first step is to gain abetter understanding of consumer motives for coupon use; this is the primaryobjective of this study.

Adopting Thaler’s (1985) Acquisition-Transaction Utility Theory as atheoretical base, this study seeks to further our knowledge of motivationsfor coupon use among consumers through the integration of the works ofBabakus, Tat, and Cunningham (1988) and Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, andBurton (1990). In addition, the results seek to underscore the importanceof coupon proneness as a key mediator of the impact of study variables oncoupon use behavior. As a focal point of this study, the factor structure ofcoupon proneness is be examined. Finally, differences between results fortraditional and online coupon use are examined, and practical implicationsfor marketers are offered.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Consumers and Coupons

While coupons have been used since the nineteenth century (Babakus et al.,1988), little research into their use appeared until the late 1970’s (Bonnici,Campbell, Fredenberger, & Hunnicutt, 1997). From the viewpoint of themarketer, the literature discusses three purposes of coupon use (Blattberg &Neslin, 1990): to attract new users to a product category, to get current usersto switch brands, and to encourage repeat purchases. Coupons have alsobeen considered a popular alternative to advertising because the end result(i.e., purchase) is both immediate and easy to track. From the consumer’spoint of view, the primary benefit of coupon use is receiving desired goods

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13

190 R. A. Clark et al.

and services at a reduced price, which is also beneficial as a risk reductionmeasure for new product trial.

Early coupon research efforts, many of which simply reported demo-graphics of professed coupon users, were criticized for their lack of theoret-ical grounding (Blattberg et al., 1978). More recently, two streams of couponresearch have evolved in the literature (Mittal, 1994). One stream focuses onthe aggregate modeling of the effects of coupon characteristics such couponface value (e.g., Ward & Davis, 1978), expiration date (e.g., Inman & McAl-ister, 1994), and distribution volume (e.g., Neslin, 1990) on redemption. Thesecond stream seeks to explain coupon redemption in terms of individualconsumer variables including demographics such as age, income, education,and household size (e.g., Teel, Williams, & Bearden, 1980). As this researchfalls into the second category, particularly in the realm of psychologicalconstructs such as those relevant to cognitive structures related to purchasebehavior, the following includes a description of some key studies related toindividual consumer coupon behavior.

Citing the inadequacy of profiling coupon users based on demograph-ics alone, Mittal (1994) integrated demographics with consumer perceptionsrelated to themselves in general (busyness, perceived financial wellness,and homemaker pride), as a shopper (comparison shopper, brand loyalty,and store loyalty), and their assessments of the cost and benefits of usingcoupons. This study, like others, was grounded in utility maximization (e.g.,Bawa, Srinivasan, & Srivastava, 1997) and the Theory of Reasoned Action(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Shimp and Kavas (1984) also examined couponuse from a Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) perspective. This perspectiveconsiders normative beliefs as an antecedent to behavior, mediated by be-havioral intentions and represented coupon use as “rational, systematic, andthoughtful behavior” (p. 795). Consistent with TRA, the authors found the im-pacts of personal attitudes and subjective norms on coupon use to be mostlymediated by behavioral intentions. However, the results also confirmed crit-icisms of TRA related to the inseparability of personal and normative factorsand the combination of positive and negative consequences of couponingin one model. Nevertheless, the TRA and the subsequent Theory of PlannedBehavior (Ajzen, 1985), used by Fortin (2000) and Kang and colleagues(2006), have been popular theory bases for coupon use research. Bagozzi,Baumgartner, and Youjae (1992) also used the TRA, in addition to the con-cept of state versus action orientation (Kuhl, 1981) to explain coupon use.Put simply, the two are at opposite ends of a continuum. “State orientationreflects inertia to act; action orientation reflects readiness to act” (Bagozziet al., 1992, p. 507). This orientation was found to moderate the TRA modelin that attitudes were more important to behavioral intentions for individualswith an action orientation, while subjective norms were more prevalent forthose with a state orientation. Their findings also underscore the role of pastcoupon behavior as a predictor of future intentions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


Other consumer-focused studies have contributed to the focus of thisresearch. For instance, consistent with the previously mentioned Nielsenreport, market mavens are heavy coupon users (Price, Feick, & Guskey-Federouch, 1988), and have been found to account for the largest proportionof total coupon redemptions (Kingsbury, 1987). Meanwhile, Price Discrim-ination Theory seeks to discriminate between price sensitive and non-pricesensitive consumers (Chiang, 1995; Narasimhan, 1984). The rationale beingthat the more price sensitive consumers are, the more likely they are to usecoupons to reduce prices. A large number of coupon studies have naturallysought to explain coupon use via a cost/benefit/utility perspective (e.g.,Bawa & Shoemaker, 1987; Narasimhan, 1984). The general idea is that thecosts of using coupons (time being chief among them) must be outweighedby the benefits (savings) achieved. However, the distribution of coupons hasalso been found to sometimes come at a cost for the manufacturer. In a studyof coupon use for services, Kim, Lee, and Kim (2008) found coupon facevalue to be seen as a cue for monetary sacrifice for experience services and asa cue for service quality for credence services. The implication in this case isthat coupons should be distributed with care so as to avoid diminishing per-ceived quality of credence services. This finding could likely be extended toany prestige product. The costs to the consumer examined have not alwaysbeen time and/or financially-based. The amount of hassle involved with salespromotions redemption has also been found to be a detriment to couponuse (Fogel & Thornton, 2008). In addition, Ashworth, Darke, and Schaller(2005) examined the trade-off between incentives and social disincentives(e.g., creating an impression of cheapness or stinginess). Coupon use mayalso be limited by a fear of negative evaluation from others (for example,being seen as “cheap”), as posited by Dhar and Hoch (1996). Likewise, Brum-baugh and Rosa (2009) found embarrassment and confidence to mediate therelationship of in-store interactions with store personnel and coupon use.Specifically, using a diverse sample, the authors found that “consumers per-ceived discrimination and hold misperceptions of what cashiers believe ofthem that affect their confidence over coupon use or make them feel embar-rassed for using coupons,” (p. 356) ultimately, affecting their level of couponuse. While many of these efforts to explain coupon usage have been gener-ally guided by a cost/benefit consideration on the part of the consumer, thereis growing evidence that there may be more to the decision to use couponsthan rational economics. For example, Schindler (1989) found that resul-tant smart shopper feelings (that tie to both self-concept and self-efficacy)may be a better predictor of coupon use than utilitarian models. As such,we have adopted Thaler’s (1985) acquisition-transaction utility theory to helpshape our model. Lichtenstein et al. (1990) applied Thaler’s theory to explaincoupon use through both economic utility and personal satisfaction motives.

Acquisition-transaction utility theory argues for the existence of twotypes of utility associated with consumer purchases. Acquisition utility

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


AC

QU

ISIT

ION

UT

ILIT

Y

Offline Coupon

Use

Satisfaction/ Pride

Value Consciousness

Time/Value

Price Consciousness

Coupon Proneness

Online Coupon

Use

TR

AN

SA

CT

ION

UT

ILIT

Y

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of primary motives for consumer coupon use.

reflects economic gain or loss relative to need-satisfying properties of thegood. Transaction utility reflects pleasure (or displeasure) associated withfinancial terms of the deal compared to internal reference price. Because ofthe variability in source of this internal reference price, a heuristic sometimesused by the consumer is that if a coupon is used, it represents a “good deal”owing to the coupon use alone. This has been found to be true among“self-perceived bargain shoppers” (p. 55) for rebates as well (Ong, 2008).It has been suggested that there are three primary motives for consumercoupon use (Babakus et al., 1988): price/saving, time/effort, and pride/self-satisfaction. All three of these motives are well represented in our conceptualmodel (see Figure 1). Likewise, drawing from transaction-acquisition utilitytheory, each antecedent of coupon use in our model represents either theacquisition (time value, price consciousness, and value consciousness) orthe transaction (satisfaction/pride, coupon proneness) utility elements.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


PRICE CONSCIOUSNESS

Adopting the Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyer (1993) definition, priceconsciousness refers to “the degree to which the consumer focuses exclu-sively on paying low prices” (p. 235). The price conscious consumer hasbeen characterized as using price “in its negative role as a decision-makingcriterion” (Lichtenstein, Bloch, & Black, 1988). This is in contrast with con-sumers perceiving a positive role of price; for instance, when consumersequate high price with high quality (John, Scott, & Bettman, 1986). Priceconscious consumers tend to use store brands (Ailawadi, Neslin, & Gedeak,2001), are entertained and emotionally satisfied by shopping for lower prices(Alford & Biswas, 2002), and engage in higher and more devoted levels ofsearch (Babin, Gonzalez, & Watts, 2007). Not surprisingly, price conscious-ness has been linked positively to frugality (Shoham & Brencic, 2004), rebateuse and satisfaction with rebate use (Tat, 1994; Tat & Schwepker, 1998).O’Neill and Lambert (2001) found price conscious consumers have lowerinternal references prices and decreased latitude of acceptable price. Con-sistent with Lichtenstein et al. (1988), their results also showed that bothproduct involvement and a consumer’s price/quality inferences are nega-tively associated with price consciousness. Price consciousness has beenfound to moderate the effectiveness of price discounts and premiums (Pala-zon & Delgado, 2009) and also the relationship between refund perceptionsand store price perceptions, search, and purchase (Kukar-Kinney, Walters, &MacKenzie, 2007). Swaminathan and Bawa (2005) found coupon pronenessis greater for consumers high in price consciousness. We seek to replicatethis finding in the current study.

H1a: Price consciousness is positively related to coupon proneness.H1b: Price consciousness is positively related to coupon use.

SATISFACTION AND PRIDE

We define satisfaction and pride in this context as the degree to which aconsumer gets satisfaction and pride from their coupon use. Babakus et al.(1988) reported that some evidence in the literature shows that some con-sumers respond more favorably to saving via a coupon than to an equivalentprice reduction. That is, the good feelings produced by using coupons for adiscount are more motivating than the financial savings alone. In fact, theyfound satisfaction and pride in couponing to be the most important contrib-utor to coupon use. Similar results were found for a study on rebating (Tat,1994). Based on these results, we hope to show that, along with couponproneness as a mediator of the model, personal satisfaction and enjoymentof couponing can influence coupon use as much, or more than, mere costsavings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


H2a: Satisfaction and pride are positively related to coupon proneness.H2b: Satisfaction and pride are positively related to coupon use.

TIME VALUE

Time has been found to be a deterrent to coupon use (Babakus et al., 1988).Specifically, a consumer’s time value was found to be second to satisfac-tion/pride as a motive for coupon use. As our most precious resource, somejust do not feel the time required to find, clip/print, keep organized, andredeem coupons to be worth the savings realized. In short, some individualsfeel their time is worth more than others do. It could also be that thosewho are less interested in couponing perceive a higher level of time andeffort requirement for couponing than current coupon users, as was foundfor rebating (Tat, 1994). This could certainly add to their level of disinterestin coupon use. For the current study, we define time value as the degreeto which a consumer feels that coupon use is worth their valuable time andposit the following.

H3a: Time value is negatively related to coupon proneness.H3b: Time value is negatively related to coupon use.

VALUE CONSCIOUSNESS

Value consciousness has been defined as “a concern for price paid relative toquality received” (Lichtenstein et al., 1993, p. 235) consistent with Zeithaml’s(1988) definition of value relative to price and quality. Value consciousnesshas been linked positively to frugality (Shoham & Brencic, 2004). Moreover,value consciousness was found to be a moderator of the relationship be-tween low price guarantees and consumer post-purchase search intention(Dutta & Biswas, 2005). Lichtenstein et al. (1990) distinguished value con-sciousness from coupon proneness and found that both were related tocoupon redemption behavior. Their study compared differences betweenthe two constructs, based on their relationships with other related con-structs. Swaminathan and Bawa (2005) found coupon proneness is greaterfor consumers high in value consciousness. Consistent with these findings,we present the following.

H4a: Value Consciousness is positively related to coupon proneness.H4b: Value Consciousness is positively related to coupon use.

COUPON PRONENESS AS A MEDIATOR

The concept of coupon proneness grew from Webster’s (1965) research ondeal proneness, which found that “the deal prone consumer is likely to be an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


older housewife who purchases fewer units, but buys more brands and doesnot concentrate purchases on one brand” (p. 188). This “deal proneness”manifests itself in a commitment to the promotion on account of its form asa deal (without necessarily ensuring that it is even a good deal or needingthe product, for instance). While it has been used as a proxy for couponuse, “many researchers have not seemed to recognize that coupon redemp-tion behavior may be motivated simply by the ratio of quality to purchaseprice and may have nothing to do with the coupon form of the offer, andhence that coupon redemption behavior is not equivalent behavior is notequivalent to the psychological construct of coupon proneness” (Lichten-stein et al., 1990, p. 63). Consistent with this research, to avoid confoundingwith value consciousness, coupon proneness is measured and viewed hereas a psychological construct, as opposed to a behavioral one.

Coupon proneness has been defined as “an increased propensity to re-spond to a purchase offer because the coupon form of the purchase offerpositively affects purchase evaluations” and has been found to be a sig-nificant predictor of coupon use (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). Central to itsdifference from other constructs is the finding in the coupon literature that adiscount in coupon form results in a significantly larger increase in sales thandoes an equivalent price decrease (Cotton & Babb, 1978). That is, couponproneness may be the key to coupon use by consumers, prompting its roleas a mediator in our model. Bawa and Shoemaker (1987) found couponprone households to be consistent across product classes and over time.Consistent with the majority of previous research, they also found couponprone households to be “somewhat younger, larger, higher income, moreeducated, more likely to live in an urban area, less likely to have a work-ing wife and young children present, tend to be less brand loyal and lessstore loyal than non-coupon prone households” (p. 107). As compared withvalue consciousness, Lichtenstein et al. (1990) found coupon proneness tobe more positively correlated with situational involvement and marginal util-ity of additional purchase quantities; while more negatively associated withbrand loyalty. The importance of the good feelings and satisfaction related tocoupon use is a primary motivation for our argument for coupon proneness(much of which is related to an enjoyment of coupon use) as a key mediatorto coupon use in this study.

H5: Coupon proneness mediates the influence of price consciousness, satis-faction/pride, time value, and value consciousness on coupon use.

METHOD

Respondents

Data for the study were collected using trained student researchers at alarge Southeastern U.S. university. The students were trained to obtain a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


nonstudent quota sample following detailed restrictions. Specifically, eachresearcher was instructed to acquire two completed self-report surveys fromnonstudent consumers from each of the following age groups: 18–24, 25–34,35–44, 45, and older. Other restrictions placed upon the quota sample were(a) researchers were instructed to strive for an approximately equal dis-tribution of gender, (b) respondents could not be students or employeesof the university, and (c) each questionnaire had to have a valid phonenumber and first name of the respondent. The researchers successfully con-tacted 353 consumer respondents to complete the survey instrument. Toconfirm participation, a random 15% of respondents were verified via tele-phone. The final sample had an age range of 19 to 82 years, with a meanage of 36 years (SD = 14.1). Fifty-four percent (192) of the respondentswere female, with 45% (158) male, and three respondents declining toindicate gender. Seventy-one percent (252) of the respondents were Cau-casian, 15% (52) Hispanic, 9% (30) African American, and 3% (10) Asian.Two percent (7) indicated “other,” and 1% (2) of respondents did not in-dicate ethnicity. A more detailed demographic breakdown can be found inTable 1.

Measures

With the exception of the offline and online coupon use variables, whichwere created for the present study, the salient constructs were all measuredvia reliable scales previously used in the marketing literature. The scales usedwere all multiple-item and responses were recorded via a 7-point Likert-typeformat with endpoints of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7).

The appendix contains a complete item list; however, summaries of themeasures used are included here as well.

PRICE CONSCIOUSNESS

Price consciousness was operationalized by a four-item subset of a nine-itemscale developed by Wells and Tigert (1971) to measure the degree to whicha consumer focuses on sales and trying to get the “best price.” The scaleproved reliable, with a coefficient alpha of .83.

SATISFACTION AND PRIDE

Satisfaction and pride were operationalized by a three-item scale developedby Babakus et al. (1988) to measure the degree to which a consumer getssatisfaction and pride from their coupon use. The scale proved reliable, witha coefficient alpha of .85.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents (n = 353)

Demographic Characteristic Number of respondents %

GenderFemale 192 54%Male 158 45%Missing 3 1%

Ethnic GroupWhite 252 71%Black 30 9%Hispanic 52 15%Asian 10 3%Other 7 2%Missing 2 1%

Education<HS 1 1%HS Grad 38 11%Some College 151 43%4-year 93 26%Some Grad 19 5%Grad Degree 48 14%Missing 3 1%

Income<20 K 55 16%20 – 39.9 53 15%40 – 59.9 47 13%60 – 79.9 50 14%80 – 99.9 48 14%>100K 92 26%Missing 8 2%

OccupationUnemployed 2 1%Semiskilled 13 4%Average skill 13 4%Skilled craftsman 33 9%Owner 47 13%Lesser Professional 100 28%Moderate Professional 105 30%Top Professional 30 9%Missing 10 3%

Socioeconomic StatusElite 5 1%Top executive 58 16%Owner 122 35%White Collar 137 39%Blue Collar 22 6%

Note. Percentages might not total to 100% because of rounding.

TIME VALUE

The operationalization of time value also originated with Babakus et al.(1988) as a four-item scale to measure the degree to which a consumer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


feels that coupon use is worth their valuable time. This scale exhibited itsreliability via a coefficient alpha of .89.

VALUE CONSCIOUSNESS

Value Consciousness was operationalized by a seven-item scale developedby Lichtenstein et al. (1990), measuring the concern a consumer has forpaying low prices contingent on some product quality expectations. Oneitem was subsequently dropped from this scale, resulting in a highly reliablescale with a coefficient alpha of .86.

COUPON PRONENESS

Coupon proneness was operationalized by an eight-item scale also devel-oped by Lichtenstein et al. (1990) to measure “an increased propensity torespond to a purchase offer because the coupon form of the purchase offerpositively affects purchase evaluations.” Although it has been representedas a unidimensional construct, our analyses (discussed in the next section)found the construct to be comprised of two separate factors- important contri-bution, each exhibiting reliable coefficient alphas of .90 and .85, respectively.

COUPON USE BEHAVIOR

Coupon use was measured by a ten-item scale developed for this study. Theitems can be found in their entirety in the appendix. The scale specificallymeasures behaviors related to both online (6 items) and offline (4 items)coupon use. The measures exhibited reliability, with coefficient alphas of .92and .86, respectively. Further, the combined scale, measuring total couponuse behavior, was also sufficiently reliable, with a coefficient alpha of .88.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

The first step in the data analysis was to factor analyze the scale items foreach scale to assess the scale’s dimensionality and internal consistency (co-efficient alpha). The appendix contains the scale items. Principal axis factoranalysis followed by an oblique rotation extracted and rotated the factors.The eigenvalue greater than 1.0 criterion was used to determine the numberof factors to extract, and loadings above .40 were used to retain an item.These results showed that the price consciousness, time value, and satisfac-tion/pride scales were unidimensional. The analyses suggested removing oneitem from the value consciousness scale. The factor analyses also showedthat the coupon proneness scale consists of two separate, but related factors,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Range Skewness Kurtosis

INDEPENDENT VARIABLESAge 35.8 14.1 19–82 .591# −.344Price Consciousness 21.1 4.8 4–28 −.899# 1.270ˆSatisfaction/Pride 10.6 4.5 3–21 .0350 −.791ˆTime Value 16.2 6.4 4–28 .0510 −.856ˆValue Consciousness 38.3 7.9 7–49 −1.200# 1.800ˆ

DEPENDENT VARIABLESCP- Coupon Attitude 20.0 7.5 5–35 −.194 −.612ˆCP- Coupon Use 10.1 4.6 3–21 .167 −.612ˆCoupon Proneness 30.6 11.1 8–56 −.144 −.412Off Line Use 11.4 5.9 4–26 .233 −1.000ˆOn Line Use 13.6 8.8 6–42 .915# −.301Total Coupon Use 25.0 12.5 10–66 .618# −.289

Note. #skewness is twice its standard error; ˆkurtosis is twice its standard error.

a five-item subscale measuring (what we have termed) coupon proneness-attitude and a three-item scale measuring coupon proneness- use. These sub-scales were computed as well as a total coupon proneness scale. Likewise,the couponing behavior items could be sorted into two subscales measur-ing offline coupon behavior and online coupon behavior as well as a totalcoupon behavior measure.

The items were summed to form total scale scores where higher scoresreflected higher levels of coupon attitudes, coupon use, price consciousness,value consciousness, pride/satisfaction, and coupon use. Higher scores onthe time value measure indicated that couponing is not worth the time andeffort. Descriptive statistics for the ten variables appear in Table 2.

An initial set of correlations and one-way ANOVAs assessed the rela-tionships between the demographic variables and both coupon pronenessand coupon use. These analyses showed that the only demographic vari-able associated with either coupon proneness or coupon use was gender,where women were more likely than men to have a positive attitude towardcoupons and to use them more offline than did the men (see Table 3). Theseresults are consistent with previous research showing that women are morelikely than are men to be users (e.g., Harmon & Hill, 2003).

Hypotheses Tests

Scatter plots of the independent with dependent variables showed that therelationships were linear. Hypotheses 1a and 1b propose that price con-sciousness is positively associated with coupon proneness and coupon use.The correlations shown in Table 3 support both hypotheses. Hypotheses2a and 2b propose that consumers who derive a sense of satisfaction and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


TABLE 3 Correlations Among the Variables

Variables CA CU CP PC S/P TV VC Off On Total

CP- CouponAttitude (CA)

(.90)

CP- Coupon Use(CU)

.63∗∗ (.85)

CouponProneness (CP)

.94∗∗ .84∗∗ (.91)

PriceConsciousness(PC)

.48∗∗ .39∗∗ .49∗∗ (.83) −.04 .03

Satisfaction/Pride(S/P)

.80∗∗ .57∗∗ .79∗∗ .42∗∗ (.85) .28∗∗ .08

Time Value (TV) −.69∗∗ −.49∗∗ −.68∗∗ −.24∗∗ −.66∗∗ (.89) −.30∗∗ .04Value

Consciousness(VC)

.35∗∗ .21∗∗ .33∗∗ .65∗∗ .28∗∗ −.20∗∗ (.86) .04 −.01

Off Line Use (Off) .68∗∗ .58∗∗ .71∗∗ .33∗∗ .68∗∗ −.63∗∗ .27∗∗ (.86) .34∗∗

On Line Use (On) .20∗∗ .28∗∗ .25∗∗ .14∗ .24∗∗ −.14∗∗ .07 .41∗∗ (.92)Total Use (Total) .46∗∗ .47∗∗ .51∗∗ .25∗∗ .49∗∗ −.40∗∗ .17∗∗ .76∗∗ .90∗∗ (.88)Gender .24∗∗ .00 .16∗∗ .11∗ .20∗∗ −.26∗∗ .10 .18∗∗ −.06 .05

Note. 0 = male and 1 = female; zero-order Pearson correlations below the diagonal; internal consistencyestimates (coefficient alpha) on the diagonal; first order partial correlations (df = xx) controlling for theeffects of coupon proneness above the diagonal.

pride from using coupons manifest a positive attitude toward coupons anduse them. Both of these hypotheses are supported. H3a and H3b proposethat when consumers do not see value in using coupons and begrudge thetime needed to use them, they are less prone to use coupons and use themless often than when they do see value. These hypotheses are supported aswell. Hypotheses 4a and 4b propose that value consciousness is positivelyassociated with coupon proneness and with coupon use. Hypothesis 4a issupported, but the positive association between value consciousness andusing coupons was supported only for offline use, leading to implicationsregarding online coupon use that will be explored further in the discussionsection.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 proposed that coupon proneness mediates the re-lationships between the four independent variables and coupon use. Thishypothesis (suggested by the partial correlations shown in Table 3) wastested by using linear regression and a Sobol test for mediation for each hy-pothesized relationship. The results are summarized in Table 4. Two regres-sion analyses were performed. First, for each independent variable, couponproneness was regressed on the independent variable and then coupon usewas regressed on coupon proneness and the independent variable. Then,the unstandardized path coefficients and their standard errors were used toperform the Sobol test. The regressions and Sobol tests showed that therelationship between all four independent variables and total coupon use

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


TABLE 4 Summary of Mediation Analyses

Independent Sobel TestVariable a(SEa) b(SEb) c(SEc) c’(SEc’) Statistic p-value Conclusion

Price 1.145 .576 .654 .011 7.06 <.0005 Full MediationConsciousness (.110) (.06) (.136) (.139)Satisfaction/ 1.949 .365 1.374 .678 4.27 <.0005 Partial MediationPride (.083) (.084) (.130) (.208)Time Value −1.183 .516 −.779 −.164 6.63 <.0005 Full Mediation

(.068) (.072) (.096) (.124)Value .461 .594 .272 .003 5.54 <.0005 Full MediationConsciousness (.071) (.056) (.084) (.078)

a = the regression weight (unstandardized regression coefficient) for the relationship between the inde-pendent variable and the mediator; SEa = the standard error of the relationship between the independentvariable and the mediator; b = the regression weight (unstandardized regression coefficient) for the rela-tionship between the mediator and the dependent variable; SEb = the standard error of the relationshipbetween the mediator and the dependent variable; c = the regression weight (unstandardized regressioncoefficient) between the dependent variable and the independent variable without the mediator; SEc =the standard error of the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variablewithout the mediator; c’ = the regression weight (unstandardized regression coefficient) between thedependent variable and the independent variable with the mediator; SEc’ = the standard error ofthe relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable with the mediator.

was mediated by coupon proneness and that mediation was full for priceconsciousness, time value, and value consciousness. These findings supportHypothesis 5 and suggest the important role of coupon proneness as a con-cept in our understanding coupon use. A second series of mediation testswere performed following the bootstrapping method proposed by Preacherand Hayes (2008) and described by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010). Theseresults confirmed the results of the Sobol tests in detail.

Follow-up Analysis

We performed two final analyses. The first regressed coupon proneness (andits two subscales) on the four independent variables simultaneously plusgender to assess their relative influence. The results (see Table 5) showedthat the four motivating factors explain a substantial amount of the variancein coupon proneness (n = 337; R2 = .70, adjR2 = .68, F (5, 331) = 156.2, p <

.001). Moreover, when the motivations are taken into consideration, genderis no longer related to coupon proneness and only three of the motivationsare significantly related: satisfaction/pride (β = .513), time value (β = -.292),and price consciousness (β = .160). Value consciousness is no longer related(β = .046). This finding points to the overwhelming importance played bysatisfaction/pride in motivating consumers to use coupons and the secondaryimportance of time value and price consciousness.

Finally, because all the variables used the same 7-point agree/disagreeresponse format, we felt it necessary to assess the influence of common

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


TABLE 5 Regression Analyses

A. Dependent Variable = Coupon Proneness

IndependentVariables B SE β t-value p Part VIF

Gender −1.1 .693 −.051 −1.6 .105 −.049 1.076Price Consciousness .478 .097 .205 4.9 <.001 .147 1.942Satisfaction/Pride 1.23 .107 −.499 −11.6 <.001 .347 2.076Time Value −.546 .071 −.314 −7.7 <.001 −.231 1.859Value

Consciousness.005 .055 .004 .094 .925 .003 1.720

B. Dependent Variable = Coupon Proneness Attitude


Gender .512 .463 .034 1.1 .270 .033 1.070Price Consciousness .252 .065 .160 3.9 <.001 .114 1.950Satisfaction/Pride .869 .072 .513 12.1 <.001 .356 2.083Time Value −.348 .048 −.292 −.73 <.001 −.215 1.858Value

Consciousness.044 .037 .046 1.2 .233 .035 1.729

B. Dependent Variable = Coupon Proneness Use


Gender −1.46 .411 −.157 −3.6 <.001 −.151 1.074Price Consciousness .234 .058 .240 4.0 <.001 .172 1.945Satisfaction/Pride .347 .063 .337 5.5 <.001 .234 2.078Time Value −.190 .042 −.261 −4.5 <.001 −.192 1.860Value

Consciousness−.039 .033 −.067 −1.2 .234 −.051 1.722

(n = 341; R2 = .71; adjR2 = .71; F (5, 335) = 164.1; p < .001).(n = 337; R2 = .70; adjR2 = .68; F (5, 331) = 156.2; p < .001).(n = 339; R2 = .397; adjR2 = .388; F (5, 333) = 43.8; p < .001).Note. 0 = male, 1 = female. The Part correlation estimates the strength of the association betweenthe dependent variable and a single independent variable when the effects of the other independentvariables are removed. B is the unstandardized regression coefficient; whereas, β refers to the standardizedcoefficient (beta). The VIF is an index of multicollinearity, where the square root of the VIF shows howmuch the standard error of the slope coefficient is increased by multicollinearity.

method variance on the results. We used Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) markervariable assessment technique. To perform this analysis, the researcher iden-tifies a variable that is measured using the same method as the focal variablesin the study and assesses its smallest correlation with one of the latter. Theresearcher then uses this correlation to compute adjusted t-tests of the corre-lations between any two focal variables. We conducted this analysis using afive-item scale measuring impulse buying (alpha = .84) as the marker vari-able and its correlation with coupon proneness (r = .00) as the adjustment.After partialing out common method variance associated with consumer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


independence, all of the other significant bivariate correlations among ourvariables remained statistically significant. This strongly suggest that commonmethod variance played little role in the correlations.

DISCUSSION

Improving the lives of consumers is an important aspect of how we adaptto the challenges of a world economy. Coupon use is a simple and easyway to increase the buying power of ordinary consumers because manycoupons are available for the common items they buy on a daily basis. Thepurpose of the present study was to understand some of the attitudes andmotivations of consumers’ coupon use. Data from a survey of U.S. consumersshowed that “coupon proneness,” a general attitude toward using coupons(Lichtenstein et al., 1990), explained a great deal of the variance in a self-report measure of coupon use that included both off-line and online couponbehavior. It is important to note, however, that the variables examined wereall considerably more strongly related to traditional, offline coupon use thanonline coupon use. Four attitudinal dispositions in turn explained a greatdeal of the variance in coupon proneness. These were price consciousness,satisfaction and pride in using coupons, time value, and value consciousness.Consumers with higher levels of price consciousness, satisfaction/pride, andvalue consciousness are more prone to use coupons than consumers who donot think coupons are worth the time and effort they take. These attitudinaldimensions were largely unrelated to the demographics of the sample, withthe exception that women had more positive attitudes and coupon behaviorthan did the men.

Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Three key implications of the study for both academics and practitionersdeserve highlight here. First, the role of coupon proneness as a mediatorof coupon use is an important finding. Our study built upon the work ofLichtenstein et al. (1990), who found coupon proneness to be a psychologi-cal construct distinct from behavioral coupon use and value consciousness,and subsequently called for additional research to further untangle the rela-tionships among these variables. We feel its mediation role for coupon usefurther cements the importance of the coupon proneness construct. Specif-ically, those consumers who are highly price and value conscious or donot view time as highly valuable may not necessarily be inclined to usecoupons, but rather may prefer other types of promotions or price reduc-tion vehicles. That is, the inclination of coupon proneness in a necessaryingredient for consumers to use coupons. Managerial speaking, then, thetask then becomes teaching and encouraging consumers, particularly those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


who could benefit most from coupon use, to be more coupon prone. Thiscould possibly be achieved through seminars sponsored by retailers to teachconsumers that couponing can be fun and, perhaps, highlighting just howprofitable they can be as well. The same could be accomplished throughschools as well. It would also be vital to train store personnel to have a pos-itive attitude toward coupon use and to encourage customers to seek anduse them. Hopefully, this could lessen negative stereotypes of couponingamong particularly minority consumer groups. With many television showsand websites devoted to the topic, the popularity of couponing, in a sense,has never been greater. It would make sense for manufacturers and retailersto take advantage. Also important to note is the fact that the relationshipbetween satisfaction and pride with coupon use was only partially mediatedby coupon proneness. Along with the mediation role of coupon proneness,this finding add further support for the idea that coupon usage is determinedby far more than simply a rational cost/benefit analysis on the part of theconsumer.

The factor structure of the coupon proneness construct represents akey theoretical implication of this study. Whereas coupon proneness hasalways been treated like a unidimensional variable, our results suggested atwo-factor structure. For the sake of simplicity, we have named these twofactors CP- attitude (5 items), representing a positive attitude and enjoymentof using coupons and CP- use (3 items), representing an inclination to buybrands based on having a coupon for them alone.

Finally, the fact that the variables in the study were all considerablymore highly correlated with traditional coupon behavior than online, cou-pled with the fact that value consciousness was not significantly related toonline coupon use suggests that online coupon behavior cannot be ade-quately explained in the same manner as offline coupon behavior. Despitethe fact that online coupons account for a mere 1.5% of coupons redeemed,the internet is the fastest growing media for coupons, with distribution andredemption up 92% and 263%, respectively, in 2009 (NCH Marketing Ser-vices, 2011a). It is possible that online coupon use may be a more fun andsocial experience than offline use, lending even more credence to the im-portance of satisfaction over utility for coupon use. While it was not thecentral focus of this study, research has shown (Anonymous, 2011) that 40%of consumers search for printed coupons before leaving the house, 41%search online (including mobile coupons and money-saving apps). In lessthan 3 years, over 200 million Americans are projected to have redeemed amobile coupon. These numbers, coupled with both the ease and efficiencyof use (Kondo, Uwadaira, & Nakahara, 2007) and the precision of consumertargeting allowed (Fortin, 2000), ensure that online and mobile couponingwill likely become more commonplace for years to come representing agreat opportunity for manufacturers and service providers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


Limitations and Directions for Future Research

While the contribution of this study to theoretical and managerial understand-ing of consumer coupon related behaviors is significant, it does have limita-tions. First the explanatory power of the nomological relationships describedin the study are limited by the specific constructs included in the study andthe measures employed to operationalize said constructs. The study focusedon coupon behavior in the context of the Acquisition-Transaction UtilityTheory; therefore, the scope of the study necessarily limited the full rangeof possible antecedents to coupon proneness as well as possible outcomes.Second, while no obvious biases were detected, the study is imperfect owingto the inherent limitations of a self-report survey instrument. Nevertheless,the findings in this study are beneficial to academics and practitioners inproviding some useful insight into the drivers of coupon behavior and inproviding a theoretical direction for future studies in this domain.

Possible directions for this research stream are manifold. For example,because of the apparent importance of coupon proneness in mediating rela-tionships between antecedents of coupon use, both online and offline, moreresearch into the psychology underlying coupon proneness is warranted.From a psychometric perspective, the dimensionality of coupon pronenessis worthy of further exploration. Specifically, confirmation of the factor struc-ture of this construct and understanding differential relationships of the twodimensions with other variables would be informative. Lastly, additional re-search into the effects of the availability of online coupons (versus traditionaldistribution methods) is worthy of future investigation.

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research,34, 342–352.

Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Gedeak, K. (2001). Pursuing the value consciousconsumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of Marketing,65(1), 71–89.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuh.& J. Beckmann (eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39).New York, NY: Springer.

Alford, B. L., & Biswas, A. (2002). The effects of discount level, price consciousnessand sales proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention.Journal of Business Research, 55(9), 775–783.

Anonymous. (2011). Valpak annual consumer savings report indicates 28 percentincrease for consumer spending in summer 2011. Marketing Weekly News, July9, 1128.

Ashworth, L., Darke, P. R., & Schaller, M. (2005). No one wants to look cheap: trade-offs between social disincentives and the economic and psychological incentivesto redeem coupons. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 295–306.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


Babakus, E., Tat, P., & Cunningham, W. (1988). Coupon redemption: A motivationalperspective. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(2), 37–43.

Babin, B. J., Gonzalez, C., & Watts, C. (2007). Does Santa have a great job? Giftshopping value and satisfactions. Psychology & Marketing, 24(10), 895–917.

Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., & Youjae, Y. (1992). State versus action orientationand the theory of reasoned action: an application to coupon usage. Journal ofConsumer Research, 18, 505–518.

Bawa, K., & Shoemaker, R. W. (1987). The coupon-prone consumer: some find-ings based on purchase behavior across product classes. Journal of Marketing,51(October), 99–110.

Bawa, K., Srinivasan, S. S., & Srivastava, R. K. (1997). Coupon attractiveness andcoupon proneness: A framework for modeling coupon redemption. Journal ofMarketing Research, 34(November), 517–525.

Blattberg, R., Buesing, T., Peacock, P., & Sen, S. (1978). Identifying the deal pronesegment. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 369–377.

Blattberg, R., & Neslin, R. (1990). Sales promotion: Concepts, methods, and strategies.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bonnici, J., Campbell, D. P., Fredenberger, W. B., & Hunnicutt, K. H. (1997). Con-sumer issues in coupon usage: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Applied Busi-ness Research, 13(1), 31–40.

Brumbaugh, A. M., & Rosa, J. A. (2009). Perceived discrimination, cashier meta-perceptions, embarrassment, and confidence as influencers of coupon use: Anethnoracial-socioeconomic analysis. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 347–362.

Chiang, J. (1995). Competing coupon promotions and category sales. MarketingScience, 14, 105–122.

Cotton, B. C., & Babb, E. M. (1978). Consumer response to promotional deals.Journal of Marketing, 42(July), 109–113.

Dhar, S. K., & Hoch, S. J. (1996). Price discrimination using in-store merchandising.Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 17–30.

Dutta, S., & Biswas, A. (2005). Effects of low price guarantees on consumer post-purchase search intention: the moderating roles of value consciousness andpenalty level. Journal of Retailing, 81(4), 283–291.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fogel, S. O., & Thornton, C. G. (2008). What a hassle! Consumer perceptions of costsassociated with sales promotions. Journal of Promotion Management, 14(1/2),31–44.

Fortin, D. R. (2000). Clipping coupons in cyberspace: A proposed model of behaviorfor deal-prone consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 17(6), 515–534.

Hale, T. (2010). The coupon comeback. The Nielsen Co. Retrieved August 10, 2011,from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/the-coupon-comeback/

Harmon, S. K., & Hill, C. J. (2003). Gender and coupon use. Journal of Product &Brand Management, 12(3), 166–179.

Inman, J. J., & McAlister, L. (1994). Do coupon expiration dates affect consumerbehavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 31(August), 423–428.

John, D. R., Scott, C. A., & Bettman, J. R. (1986). Sampling data for covariationassessment: the effect of prior beliefs on search patterns. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13(June), 38–47.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


Kang, H., Hahn, M., Fortin, D. R., Hyun, Y. J., & Eom, Y. (2006). Effects of perceivedbehavioral control on the consumer usage intention of e-coupons. Psychology& Marketing, 23(10), 841–864.

Kim, N., Lee, M., & Kim, H. R. (2008). The effect of service coupons on the con-sumer trade-offs between price and perceived quality. Journal of PromotionManagement, 14(1/2), 59–76.

Kingsbury, S. (1987). Study provides overview of who’s redeeming coupons- andwhy. Marketing News, January 2, p. 56.

Kondo, F. N., Uwadaira, Y., & Nakahara, M. (2007). Stimulating customer responseto promotions: the case of mobile phone coupons. Journal of Targeting, Mea-surement and Analysis for Marketing, 16(1), 57–67.

Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional helplessness: The moderating effect ofstate versus action orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,40(1), 155–170.

Kukar-Kinney, M., Walters, R. G., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2007). Consumer responsesto characteristics of price-matching guarantees: the moderating role of priceconsciousness. Journal of Retailing, 83(2), 211–221.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price accept-ability. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September), 243–252.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing couponproneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theoryperspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 54–67.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptionsand consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research,30(May), 234–245.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. (2001). Accounting for common method variance incross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

Mittal, B. (1994). An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer character-istics to supermarket coupon redemption. Journal of Marketing Research, 31,533–544.

Narasimhan, C. (1984). A price discrimination theory of coupons. Marketing Science,3, 128–147.

NCH Marketing Services, Inc. (2011a). U.S. year-end 2010 Consumer PackagedGoods (CPG) Coupon Facts Report. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consumers-save-2-billion-redeeming-coupons-in-first-half-of-2011-126250018.html

NCH Marketing Services, Inc. (2011b). U.S. mid-year 2011 Consumer PackagedGoods (CPG) Coupon Facts Report. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consumers-save-2-billion-redeeming-coupons-in-first-half-of-2011-126250018.html

Neslin, S. A. (1990). A market response model for coupon promotions. MarketingScience, 9, 25–45.

O’Neill, R. M., & Lambert, D. R. (2001). The emotional side of price. Psychology &Marketing, 18(3), 217–237.

Ong, B. S. (2008). The impact of consumer perceptions of, and attitudes towardmail-in rebates on effectiveness of rebates. Journal of Promotion Management,14(1/2), 45–58.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


Palazon, M., & Delgado, E. (2009). The moderating role of price consciousnesson the effectiveness of price discounts and premium promotions. Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, 18(4), 306–312.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies forassessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. BehaviorResearch Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Guskey-Federouch, A. (1988). Couponing behaviors of themarket maven: Profile of a super-couponer. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances inconsumer research, Vol. 15 (pp. 354–359). Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Schindler, R. (1989). The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses concern-ing the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advancesin consumer research, Vol. 16 (pp. 447–453). Provo, UT: Association for Con-sumer Research.

Shimp, T., & Kavas, A. (1984). The theory of reasoned action applied to couponusage. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 795–809.

Shoham, A., & Brencic, M. M. (2004). Value, price consciousness, and consumptionfrugality: An empirical study. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,17(1), 55–69.

Swaminathan, S., & Bawa, K. (2005). Category-specific coupon proneness: The im-pact of individual characteristics and category-specific variables. Journal of Re-tailing, 81(3), 205–214.

Tat, P. K. (1994). Rebate usage: a motivational perspective. Psychology & Marketing,11(1), 15–26.

Tat, P. K., & Schwepker, Jr., C. H. (1998). An empirical investigation of the rela-tionships between rebate redemption motives: Understanding how price con-sciousness, time and effort, and satisfaction affect consumer rebate redemption.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Spring, 61–71.

Teel, J., Williams, R. H., & Bearden, W. O. (1980). Correlates of consumer suscep-tibility to coupons in new grocer product introductions. Journal of Advertising,9(3), 31–35.

Te’eni-Harari, T. (2008). Sales promotion, premiums, and young people in the 21stcentury. Journal of Promotion Management, 14(1/2), 17–30.

Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3),199–214.

Ward, R. W., & Davis, J. E. (1978). Coupon redemption. Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 18(4), 51–58.

Webster, F. E. (1965). The “deal prone” consumer. Journal of Marketing Research,2(2), 186–189.

Wells, W. D., & Tigert, D. (1971). Activities, interests, and opinions. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 11(August), 27–35.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2–22.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny:Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2),197–206.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


APPENDIX: SCALE ITEMS

Price Consciousness (Wells & Tigert, 1971)

1. I shop a lot for specials.2. I usually check the prices, even for inexpensive items.3. A person can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains.4. I usually pay attention to sales and specials.

Satisfaction/Pride (Babakus, Tat, & Cunningham, 1988)

1. I enjoy collecting coupons.2. Using coupons makes shopping more enjoyable.3. Collecting coupons is a good use of time.

Time Value (Babakus, Tat, & Cunningham, 1988)

1. Collecting coupons is too troublesome.2. The time spent on collecting coupons is not worth the money saved.3. I am too busy to collect coupons.4. There is no satisfaction in using coupons for small savings.

Value Consciousness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990)

1. I am very concerned about low prices, but I am equally concerned aboutproduct quality.

2. When grocery shopping, I compare the prices of different brands to besure I get the best value for the money.

3. When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize the quality I get forthe money I spend.

4. I generally shop around for lower prices on products, but they still mustmeet certain quality requirements before I will buy them.

5. When I shop, I usually compare the “price per ounce” information forbrands I normally buy. (removed)

6. I always check prices at the grocery store to be sure I get the best valuefor the money I spend.

Coupon Proneness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990)

Attitude

1. Redeeming coupons makes me feel good.2. I enjoy clipping coupons out of the newspapers.3. When I use coupons, I feel that I am getting a good deal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13


4. I enjoy using coupons, regardless of the amount I save by doing so.5. Beyond the money I save, redeeming coupons gives me a sense of joy.

Use

6. I have favorite brands, but most of the time I buy the brand I have acoupon for.

7. I am more likely to buy brands for which I have a coupon.8. Coupons have caused me to buy product I normally would not buy.

Offline Coupon Use

1. I clip coupons from the newspaper.2. I share coupons with other consumers.3. I trade coupons with other consumers.4. I redeem coupons clipped from the newspaper at retail stores.

Online Coupon Use

1. I search for coupons on the internet.2. I print coupons I find on the internet.3. I redeem coupons printed from the internet at retail stores.4. I redeem coupons I find on the internet while shopping online.5. I subscribe to websites that offer internet coupons received via e-mail.6. I often visit coupon websites.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mic

hael

D. H

artli

ne]

at 1

3:30

25

Apr

il 20

13

Documents

Antecedents of Coupon Proneness: A Key Mediator of Coupon Redemption