Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Two studies explore the conditions under which redundant reference price information (ARP) is likely to influence consumers perceptions
of an advertised sale price. Study 1 suggests that an ARP enhances offer-value, but only for consumers who are not involved with the product.
Study 2 incorporates a wider array of price presentation tactics (SP Only, SP +ARP, SP +%Saving and SP +ARP +%Saving) and investigates
a range of responses (transaction value, acquisition value and subsequent purchase intentions). Again, results suggest that ARP only influences
perceived transaction value, and saving information only impacts purchase intentions. Most importantly, these effects are seen only when
involvement is low.
2004 by New York University. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Redundant comparison prices; Consumers evaluations; Purchase intentions
Introduction
Using comparison prices in retail price advertisements
to enhance consumers evaluations is a common tactic.
Chandrashekaran, Monroe, and Viswanathan (2003) conducted a content analysis of over eight hundred sale announcements by six popular retail chains and discovered that
approximately nineteen percent (19%) of the ads presented
a sale price (SP) by itself, an astounding seventy-three percent (73%) provided a comparison using the items regular,
non-sale price and a mere eight percent (8%) presented the
sale price in conjunction with the savings offered without
a comparison price. The authors report that approximately
sixty-six percent (66%) of ads providing a comparison price
advertised it in conjunction with the corresponding sale
price, and thirty-four percent (34%) presented it along with
both the selling price and the implied saving.
Almost two decades of research has consistently shown
that comparison prices influence consumers evaluations
positively (Blair & Landon, 1981; Della Bitta, Monroe,
& McGinnis, 1981; Grewal, Monroe, & Krishnan, 1998;
Mobley, Bearden, & Teel, 1988; Urbany, Bearden, &
Weilbaker, 1988). However, none of these studies has
specifically addressed the role of ARPs when other infor
0022-4359/$ see front matter 2004 by New York University. Published by Elsevier. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2004.01.004
54
presence of an ARP, but only when the level of involvement is low. The second study incorporates a wider array
of price presentation tactics and examines how the presence of ARP and Saving information (both separately and
together) influence consumers evaluations and subsequent
purchase intentions. Again, results are consistent in that
involvement plays a moderating role in determining how
ARP and Saving information influence perceptions of value
and subsequent purchase intentions.
Study 1
The data for this study was obtained from one hundred and
three graduate business students during regular class hours.
The task involved evaluating a retail price advertisement for
a model of Levis jeans that normally retails for about $42.
This product was selected because the student subjects are
likely to be familiar with the product/brand, and are likely
to have adequate personal experience in the category.
Method
First, subjects saw a picture of the product, and they provided information about their internal reference prices and
involvement.
55
Involvement
Subjects overall interest in the product/brand and their
perceived importance/relevance of the product/brand was
operationalized as the arithmetic mean of three scale
items (e.g., I am particularly interested in [the advertised
brand]), each ranging from a minimum of 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to a maximum of 5 (Strongly Agree).
Internal reference price
Consistent with previous research (Bearden, Kaicker,
de Borrero, & Urbany, 1992; Klein & Oglethorpe, 1987;
56
that the moderation will occur at all three levels of SP. The
significant ARP Involvement interaction (p .01) shown
in Table 1 generally supports the arguments made in this
study. Specifically, the presence of redundant ARP information exerts a significantly positive influence on evaluations
only when involvement is low (Mean Perceived Value =
3.43 and 2.92 in the ARP-present and ARP-absent conditions, respectively, t = 2.08, p .05). However, involved
consumers are unaffected by the presence/absence of ARP
information (Mean Perceived Value = 3.45 and 3.44 in the
ARP-present and ARP-absent conditions, respectively). Furthermore, the mean responses across the two involvement
groups are significantly different only in the ARP-absent
condition. However, this difference vanishes when the redundant ARP information is present.
Although the results are consistent with the hypotheses,
they are qualified by the presence of a significant three-way
ARP SP Level Involvement interaction that was not hypothesized (see Table 1). The exact nature of the three-way
interaction is shown graphically in Fig. 1AC. In addition,
Table 2 displays the comparison of mean responses across
ARP conditions (absent vs. present) within each involvement group for each level of SP. These exhibits show a sig-
Table 1
Effect of ARP and sale price on perceived value (Study 1)
Source
df
Mean square
36.55
87
Total
1210.38
101
92.59
100
Corrected total
Significance
10.26
15.46
20.30
13.35
0.88
32.32
1.26
0.14
8.67
0.09
3.42
.00
.00
.00
.00
.35
.00
.27
.87
.00
.91
.04
Mean response
SD
0.42
Sale price
Involvement
ARP
Cell sizes
Low
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
8
8
7
11
3.63
4.22
4.29
3.98
0.94
0.43
0.62
0.84
1.63
(.13)
.83
(.42)
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
9
8
7
9
3.06
3.34
3.04
3.47
0.48
0.42
0.53
0.88
1.31
(.21)
1.16
(.27)
Absent
Present
Absent
Present
8
11
10
6
2.06
2.91
3.18
2.42
0.78
0.76
1.05
1.20
2.38
(.03)
1.33
(.21)
High
$29.95
Low
High
$37.95
Low
High
|t-value| (p)
(A)
5.0
4.5
Perceived Value
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Involvement
1.5
Low
1.0
ARP Absent
(B)
High
ARP Present
Discussion
Perceived Value
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Involvement
1.5
Low
1.0
ARP Absent
High
ARP Present
5.0
4.5
4.0
Perceived Value
5.0
4.5
(C)
57
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Involvement
1.5
Low
1.0
ARP Absent
High
ARP Present
Fig. 1. Effects of sale price, ARP information and involvement on evaluation (Study 1). Sale price: (A) $20.95; (B) $29.95; (C) $37.95.
Study 1 addressed the specific case where ARP information is redundant, i.e., when SP and saving information are
readily available. The results support the conjecture that such
contextual cues as ARPs influence evaluations only under
low involvement conditions and with a relatively high SP.
A key question that was raised at the outset is whether retailers can follow an undifferentiated communications strategy and provide redundant information for all consumers, or
whether they need to adopt a segmented strategy. The results
obtained here indicate that the redundancy enhances evaluations significantly among low involved consumers without
actually lowering evaluations among those who are involved
with the product. Therefore, it appears that the optimal approach would be for retailers to implement an undifferentiated strategy and offer redundancy for all.
Interestingly, the content analysis revealed that almost
10% of the retail price advertisements surveyed presented
price information using a SP + Saving format. The results
obtained here indicate that such a tactic is not likely to yield
overall optimum results because individuals with low levels
of involvement are unable to process the saving information provided. One implication of the findings is that retailers may be able to deceive consumers who have low levels
of involvement by simply including a (redundant) ARP, in
conjunction with a high sale price and saving information.5
4 One reason for the different results may be the context in which
ARP effects are examined. It appears that prior researchers were mainly
concerned with investigating the effects of the presence/absence of ARP
by comparing a SP Only condition with a SP + ARP format. However,
one key difference is that this study investigates the role of ARP when
its presence is redundant. Specifically, it compares SP + Saving and
SP + Saving + ARP formats.
5 Given the relatively small cell sizes, one must exercise caution when
interpreting the results and drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, this result
is new and may contain implications for practice and public policy.
Therefore, this issue is one of the objectives of Study 2.
58
Table 2
Pattern of factor loadings (Study 2)
Involvement
Perceived quality
.85
.89
.91
.11
.21
.33
.22
.07
.13
.29
.25
.15
.79
.84
.77
.09
.06
.10
.04
.10
.10
.08
.02
.02
.77
.90
.77
Purchase intention
Transition value
.77
.80
.77
.05
.07
.05
.34
.22
.09
.23
.09
.89
.85
.00
.20
.23
measuresa
(A) Independent
Perceived relevance
Level of interest
Overall involvement
Levis are durable
Levis are of good quality
Levis are comfortable
Maximum price
Normal/average price
Lowest price
Offer evaluation
Acquisition value
measuresb
(B) Dependent
Low likelihood of buying (reverse coded)
Intend to take advantage of this sale
High probability that I will buy the advertised product
Advertised deal is attractive
Finding a good deal like this makes me happy
I am getting a lot more than I will be giving up
Good quality jeans for reasonable price
Good value for money
.11
.00
.29
.08
.20
.83
.75
.79
a %Variance: involvement = 28.7; perceived quality = 23.4; IRP = 22.5. Scale properties (coefficient alpha): involvement = .91; perceived quality =
.78; IRP = .72.
b %Variance: AV = 25.10, TV = 25.04, PI = 20.86. Scale properties: AV (coefficient alpha) = .76; TV (bivariate correlation) = .59, p < .01; and PI
(coefficient alpha) = .70.
Study 2
Motivation and objectives
Study 2 was designed to addressed some of the limitations of Study 1 and to gain a more complete understanding
of consumers utilize and respond to additional price-related
information. Specifically, the second study further explores
the ARP Involvement interaction obtained in the high SP
condition. It also includes two additional price presentation tactics (SP Only and SP + ARP) that were revealed by
the content analysis. Such a study is likely to offer a more
comprehensive understanding of how different ARP and
Saving (both separately and together) influence consumers
evaluations.6
Another difference between the two studies is in the way
the saving information is presented. Study 1 assumed that
$-off information should be easier to process than relative
(%-off) information. However, there is evidence that consumers utilize $-off information and/or ARP to estimate
the relative saving (see Chen & Monroe, 1998; Grewal &
Marmorstein, 1994; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984).
Most recently, Chatterjee, Heath, Milberg, and France
(2000, p. 67) discovered that, when faced with price changes
presented in percentage terms, consumers do not convert
59
60
Experiment
Study 2 employed a 2 (Presence/Absence of ARP Information) 2 (Presence/Absence of Saving Information) design. Consistent with current practice (see discussion of content analysis), SP information was always made available.
These manipulations yielded the four conditions for Study
2(i) ARP absent-Saving absent (SP Only condition), (ii)
ARP present-Saving absent (SP+ARP condition), (iii) ARP
absent-Saving present (SP+Saving condition), and (iv) ARP
present-Saving present (SP+ARP+Saving condition). Consistent with the objectives of the second study, the analysis
focuses on how consumers with differing levels of involvement (high vs. low) evaluate an advertised (high) sale price
in the presence/absence of ARP and Savings information.
The procedure employed in Study 2 closely matches that
followed in Study 1. One hundred and sixty graduate students participated in the study. As with Study 1, subjects
were initially shown a picture of the product (without any
price information) and were asked to provide estimates of
IRP. In addition, subjects indicated their perceptions of the
quality of the product and extent of involvement.
Perceived quality
Subjects indicated their perceptions of the quality of
the advertised brand on three scale items (ranging from
1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). These
items corresponded to perceived durability (The advertised product is likely to last for a reasonably long time),
comfort (It is unlikely that the advertised product will fit
me comfortablythis item was reverse coded) and overall
quality (Overall, I think the advertised jeans are of good
quality).
Involvement
This construct was operationalized as the mean of responses on three scale items corresponding to (i) overall interest in the product (I am particularly interested in the advertised product), (ii) perceived personal relevance (Given
my personal interests, this product is not very relevant to
me) and (iii) overall feeling of involvement (Overall, I am
quite involved when I am purchasing a pair of jeans for personal use).8 Each item was measured on a five-point scale
ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
After a brief interlude, each subject was exposed to one
of four advertisements for a pair of jeans (the same product/brand used in Study 1). The four versions corresponded
8 In response to reviewers concerns that the involvement construct may
have been under-conceptualized, a posterior analysis of the scales used
in Studies 1 and 2 was conducted (N = 100) to compare them with
the more comprehensive 20-item PII scale developed by Zaichkowsky
(1985). This test confirmed that the involvement scales used here have
high correlations with the Zaichkowskys scale (.76 with Study 1 scale
and .92 with Study 2 scale). Therefore, it appears that the items used
in this research might not have compromised the assessment of subjects
involvement with the product.
Acquisition value
This construct was operationalized as the arithmetic mean
of three scale items corresponding to subjects perceptions
of overall offer value (e.g., The advertisement shows a good
quality product at a reasonably price).
Transaction value
This component of offer evaluation was operationalized as
the mean of two scale items to reflect subjects evaluations of
the attractiveness of the deal relative to IRP (e.g., Compared
to the price I would normally expect to pay, the sale price
represents a significant saving).
Purchase intention
Subjects intentions to purchase the advertised item at the
posted (or implied) sale price were assessed as the average
of their responses to three scale items (e.g., There is a good
chance that I will take advantage of the advertised sale).
Analysis and results
After confirming that the dependent and independent
measures load onto distinct factors and yield scales that
are highly reliable (see Table 2A and B),10 three separate
ANOVA procedures were performed to assess the roles of
amount/type of information (presence/absence of ARP and
9 The sale price for Study 2 was adjusted very slightly to bring the
saving close to 10% of the regular price. Note that the implied relative
saving in Study 1 was closer to 9.5% than to 10%. It is unlikely that this
degree of change will unduly influence the results.
10 Although this study used fewer measures to assess each construct (see
scales validated by Grewal et al., 1998), it is encouraging to note that the
results of the factor analysis are consistent with previous research and
support the categorization of the dependent measures into three distinct
components corresponding to AV, TV and PI.
5.0
4.5
61
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
Involvement
1.5
Low
High
1.0
Absent
Present
ARP Information
Fig. 2. Effect of ARP on transaction value: the moderating role of involvement (Study 2).
62
Table 3
Univariate analyses of variance (Study 2)
Source
df
(A) Transaction value: tests of between-subjects effects (dependent variable: transaction value)
Corrected model
36.24a
8
Intercept
60.67
1
Covariate: IRP
2.26
1
Saving information
0.09
1
ARP information
11.27
1
Involvement
0.22
1
Saving ARP
0.53
1
Saving Involvement
0.29
1
ARP Involvement
19.26
1
Saving ARP Involvement
0.02
1
Error
98.58
131
Total
1815.00
140
134.82
139
Corrected total
(B) Acquisition value: tests of between-subjects effects (dependent variable: acquisition value)
Corrected model
15.76b
9
Intercept
15.76
1
Transaction value
6.85
1
Perceived quality
2.34
1
Saving information
0.15
1
ARP information
0.32
1
Involvement
0.50
1
Saving ARP
0.38
1
Saving Involvement
0.20
1
ARP Involvement
0.00
1
Saving ARP Involvement
0.03
1
Error
57.95
129
Total
1808.11
139
73.72
138
Corrected total
a
b
c
Significance
4.53
60.67
2.26
0.09
11.27
0.22
0.53
0.29
19.26
0.02
6.02
80.62
3.00
0.12
14.98
0.29
0.70
0.39
25.59
0.03
.00
.00
.09
.73
.00
.59
.40
.53
.00
.87
3.90
39.45
15.25
5.21
0.33
0.70
1.11
0.84
0.43
0.01
0.06
.00
.00
.00
.02
.57
.40
.29
.36
.51
.92
.81
9.56
15.41
0.05
15.02
6.04
0.15
25.74
5.52
0.86
11.79
11.88
.00
.00
.82
.00
.02
.70
.00
.02
.35
.00
.00
0.75
1.75
17.72
6.85
2.34
0.15
0.32
0.50
0.38
0.20
0.00
0.03
0.45
9.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.60
10.64
0.04
10.37
4.17
0.11
17.77
3.81
0.60
8.14
8.20
0.69
Error
88.38
128.00
Total
1407.89
138.00
147.82
137.00
Corrected total
Mean square
are influenced directly by AV, but TV and ARP do not influence it directly (see Table 3C).12 Overall the hypotheses
are strongly supported, and the results provide additional
63
(A) 5.0
4.5
Purchase Intention
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
ARP Absent
Saving Information
Absent
Present
ARP Present
(B) 5.0
4.5
Purchase Intention
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
ARP Absent
Saving Information
Absent
Present
ARP Present
Fig. 3. Effect of ARP, saving information and involvement on purchase intention (Study 2): (A) low involvement; (B) high involvement.
support the conclusion that, regardless of the level of involvement, consumers perceptions of TV and AV are not
influenced by the presence of saving information. However, Table 3C shows several significant two-way interactions that are qualified by the presence of a highly significant
three-way (ARP Saving Involvement) interaction. This
finding is consistent with the arguments set forth to develop
the hypotheses (see H5a, H5b and H6) and suggests that
the influence of Saving information on PI is probably being
moderated by level of involvement and by the presence of
ARP information.
Fig. 3A shows how consumers respond to the presence/absence of Saving information and ARP information when involvement is low. In the absence of ARP
information, purchase intentions are significantly higher
64
(A)
5.0
4.5
Group statistics
Transaction Value
4.0
SP Only
3.5
TV
3.0
AV
2.5
PI
2.0
Involvement
1.5
Low
1.0
High
SP + ARP
TV
AV
SP
SP
SP
SP
+A
+S
R
S
P+
g
in
av
y
nl
O
+A
PI
g
in
av
(B)
TV
5.0
AV
4.5
PI
4.0
Purchase Intention
SP + Saving
SP + ARP +
Saving
3.5
TV
AV
3.0
PI
2.5
Involvement
Mean
SD
|t-value| (p)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
18
27
18
28
18
28
2.67
3.48
3.44
3.51
2.94
2.95
0.89
0.92
0.93
0.88
0.99
0.80
2.94
(.005)
.25
(.81)
.03
(.98)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
17
13
17
13
17
13
4.12
3.38
3.92
3.38
3.43
2.33
0.84
1.04
0.45
0.68
0.90
1.01
2.13
(.04)
2.61
(.01)
3.15
(.004)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
18
14
18
12
18
14
2.94
3.57
3.56
3.58
3.35
2.33
0.82
0.87
0.65
0.71
0.55
0.80
2.09
(.05)
.11
(.91)
3.45
(.002)
Low
23
4.11
0.77
3.12
High
Low
High
Low
High
12
23
11
23
12
3.25
3.55
3.30
2.91
2.28
0.78
0.62
0.81
0.82
0.98
(.004)
.98
(.33)
2.03
(.05)
Involvement
2.0
1.5
Low
1.0
High
R
+A
SP
ng
ng
vi
Sa
P+
vi
a
+S
SP
y
nl
O
R
+A
SP
SP
Putting it together
Fig. 4A and B summarize consumers responses (TV and
PI) to the four presentation formats. Consumers with low
levels of involvement perceive highest TV when ARP information is readily available (i.e., in the SP + ARP and
SP+ARP+Saving conditions). The mean responses to these
two formats in the low involvement group (Mean TVlow inv =
4.12 and 4.11 in the SP + ARP and SP + ARP + Saving
conditions, respectively) are significantly higher (p .01)
than the mean responses in the other two conditions (Mean
TVlow inv = 2.67 and 2.94 for SP Only and SP + Saving
formats, respectively). However, evaluations of TV made by
involved consumers are not significantly different across the
formats (p > .10).
The mean purchase intention among consumers with low
levels of involvement (Fig. 4B) is highest in the SP + Saving
condition, and is significantly higher (p .01) than purchase intentions evoked by the other three formats. In sharp
contrast, involved consumers express highest intentions (significantly different than other three formats) when presented
with SP information only. Again, these results are consistent
with expectations.
Finally, Table 4 compares the responses of the two involvement groups to each of the price presentation formats.
These results are consistent with the premise that consumers
with low levels of involvement find it difficult to evaluate the
deal in the absence of ARP information, whereas involved
consumers rely primarily on SP information (and on their
own internal standards).13
Discussion
Study 2 addressed many limitations present in Study 1
and intended to gain a better understanding of how ARP
and Saving information (separately and together) influence
each aspect of evaluation (TV, AV and PI). Results support
the conjecture that retailers price presentation tactics are
influential only in particular market segments, and only in
particular stages of the evaluation process. Theoretical and
13 Although this research did not trace subjects thoughts during the
evaluation process and did not explicitly test whether SP and IRP are
more influential when involvement is high, the results are consistent such
a premise.
Conclusion
The results reported here offer insights that are both new
and interesting. Study 1 questioned the use of ARP in situations when its presence appears redundant and sought to
investigate whether and under what conditions such redundancy may be justified. Consistent with well-established
theory elucidating the role of involvement in consumer
information processing, this study discovered that only
consumer with low levels of involvement are influenced
positively by redundant comparison prices. On a related
note, this research examined whether retailers need to implement different communication tactics in different market
segments, but this conclusion was not supported. Clearly,
this could be good news for retailers! However, this conclusion may be premature because of several limitations in
Study. Building on the first study, Study 2 investigated a
wider array of presentation formats not addressed in previous research and investigated the roles of ARP and Saving
information in different stages of the evaluation process
(TV, AV and PI). Again, results suggest that involvement
plays a moderating role in determining how consumers are
likely to respond to various price presentation formats.
The findings from Study 2 have crucial implications for
practice. An expanded conceptual framework and the inclusion of an exhaustive set of presentation formats helped
uncover crucial differences in the roles of ARP and Saving information among consumers with differing levels of
involvement. Results underscore the need for retailers to
consider implementing different communications tactics in
the two segments. For involved consumers, retailers may
not be able to enhance evaluations and purchase intentions
by including ARP and/or Saving information. Although
perceptions of TV are generally unaffected by inclusion of
additional/redundant information, these consumers express
significantly lower intentions to purchase the product when
any additional information is provided along with SP. Consistent with the evaluability hypothesis, these consumers prefer to evaluate SP in isolation (SP Only format). Therefore,
for involved consumers, retailers must consider presenting
information in SP Only format.14 In contrast, the presence
of ARP is crucial to communicate enhanced TV when involvement is low. For this purpose, retailers may utilize
either SP + ARP or SP + ARP + Saving formats. However,
if the objective is to encourage purchase, retailers should
consider emphasizing the (relative) saving without providing ARP information. In conjunction, these findings suggest
14 Of course, the success of such a tactic rests heavily on the ability of
the retailer to appropriately profile and distinguish consumers who are involved from those who may have low levels of involvement. Alternatively,
retailers may manipulate situational factors to elicit high/low involvement.
65
66
Chandrashekaran, Rajesh, & Grewal, Dhruv. (2003). Assimilation of advertised reference prices: The moderating role of involvement. Journal
of Retailing, 79(1), 5362.
Chandrashekaran, Rajesh, Viswanathan, Madhubalan, & Monroe, Kent B.
(2003). Effects of font size incongruity and order of presentation of
price information on price recall accuracy. Working Paper.
Chase, William G. (1978). Elementary information processes. In W. K.
Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (Vol. 5,
pp. 1920). Human information processing, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Chatterjee, Subimal, Heath, Timothy B., Milberg, Sandra J., & France,
Karen R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and
losses: The effects of frame and need for cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 6175.
Chen, Shih-Fen S., & Monroe, Kent B. (1998). The effects of framing
price promotion messages on consumers perceptions and purchase
intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(Fall), 353372.
Compeau, Larry D., Grewal, Dhruv, & Chandrashekaran, Rajesh. (2002).
The effects of advertised reference prices and sale prices on perceptions
of value: The role of believability. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2,
Winter), 284298.
Compeau, Larry D., & Grewal, Dhruv. (1998). Comparative price advertising: An integrative review. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,
17(2), 257273.
Della Bitta, Albert J., Monroe, Kent B., & McGinnis, John M. (1981).
Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(November), 416427.
Grewal, Dhruv, & Compeau, Larry D. (1992). Comparative price advertising: Informative or deceptive? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11, 5262.
Grewal, Dhruv, & Marmorstein, Howard. (1994). Market price variation,
perceived price variation and consumers price search decisions for durable goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(December), 452460.
Grewal, Dhruv, Monroe, Kent B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects
of price-comparison advertising on buyers perceptions of acquisition
value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62, 4659.
Hsee, Christopher K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation
of preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
67(September), 247257.
Hsee, Christopher K., & Leclerc, France. (1998). Will products look more
attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer
Research, 25(September), 175186.
Johnson, Eric J., Payne, John W., & Bettman, James R. (1988). Information
displays and preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 42(1), 121.
Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 47(March), 263
291.
Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1984). Choices, values and frames.
American Psychologist, 39, 341350.
Klein, Noreen M., & Oglethorpe, Janet E. (1987). Cognitive reference points in consumer decision making. In Melanie Wallendorf
& Paul Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14,
pp. 183187). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Mayhew, Glenn E., & Winer, Russell S. (1992). An empirical analysis of
internal and external reference prices using scanner data. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19(June), 6270.
Mazumdar, Tridib, & Monroe, Kent B. (1992). Effects of inter-store and
in-store price comparison on price recall accuracy and confidence.
Journal of Retailing, 68(Spring), 6689.
Mobley, Mary F., Bearden, William O., & Teel, Jesse E. (1988). An
investigation of individual responses to tensile price claims. Journal
of Consumer Research, 15(September), 273279.
Monroe, Kent B. (1973). Buyers subjective perceptions of price. Journal
of Marketing Research, 10(February), 7080.
Morwitz, Vicki G., Greenleaf, Eric A., & Johnson, Eric J. (1998). Divide
and prosper: Consumers reactions to partitioned prices. Journal of
Marketing Research, 35(November), 453463.
Petty, Richard E., Cacioppo, John T., & Schumann, David. (1983). Central
and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating
role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September),
135146.
Rajendran, K. N., & Tellis, Gerard J. (1994). Contextual and temporal
components of reference price. Journal of Marketing, 58(January),
2234.
Thaler, Richard. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(Summer), 199214.
Urbany, Joel E., Bearden, William O., & Weilbaker, Dan C. (1988).
The effect of plausible and exaggerated reference prices on consumer
perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(June),
95110.
Winer, Russell S. (1986). A reference price model of brand choice
for frequently purchased products. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(September), 250256.
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 341352.