Consumer Response to Volume Display: Product Attitude, Price Evaluation, and Purchase Intention

ABSTRACT - Even though there is widespread use of special displays such as volume displays in retail stores, there is little empirical evidence as to why they are so effective. This study investigates effects that such displays, together with seasonality and price promotion, have on consumer responses. Our study found that the effect of a volume display largely depended on product type, display format, and the consumer’s evaluation of how useful the display was. Our additional study pertaining to volume display found that variety was not an influential factor, but discount size had a relationship to responses.

Citation:

Miyuri Shirai (2002) ,"Consumer Response to Volume Display: Product Attitude, Price Evaluation, and Purchase Intention", in AP - Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 5, eds. Ramizwick and Tu Ping, Valdosta, GA : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 193-199.

Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 5, 2002      Pages 193-199

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO VOLUME DISPLAY: PRODUCT ATTITUDE, PRICE EVALUATION, AND PURCHASE INTENTION

Miyuri Shirai, Yokohama National University, Japan

ABSTRACT -

Even though there is widespread use of special displays such as volume displays in retail stores, there is little empirical evidence as to why they are so effective. This study investigates effects that such displays, together with seasonality and price promotion, have on consumer responses. Our study found that the effect of a volume display largely depended on product type, display format, and the consumer’s evaluation of how useful the display was. Our additional study pertaining to volume display found that variety was not an influential factor, but discount size had a relationship to responses.

INTRODUCTION

The special display is one of the most common and popular promotional tools utilized in retail stores for all kinds of products. In the display, products are generally stacked in piles at the end of an aisle (end-aisle display) or a a prominent freestanding location within the store (island display). Past research has shown that this approach accounted for a significant proportion of a product’s sales (e.g., Kumar and Leone 1988; Wilkinson et al. 1982). More interestingly, it appears able to increase sales without any accompanying price discounts (McCarthy 1993). Despite this widespread use of the special display, few studies have focused on investigating why it is so effective. Does it merely attract the consumer’s attention? Does it improve the consumer’s attitude toward displayed products? Does it lead to the consumer making the assumption that the price of the product displayed in this way has been reduced? Does it raise the consumer’s motivation to purchase the product? Although the direct relationship between special displays and sales became analyzable for certain products due to emergence of POS data, these questions are yet answered and call for empirical investigation and theoretical explanation.

The purpose of this research is to attempt to answer some of the questions mentioned above. In this study, our focus for the special display is solely on volume (i.e., whether the product is stacked exclusively in an unusually large volume) and not on displays such as end-of-aisle or island displays. Effects of the latter are influenced heavily by their location within a store and the type of store (e.g., supermarket or discount variety store vs. department store) and we have no substantive interest in these aspects of displays. We also note that our focus is not on the attention effect of the display since the obvious role of the volume display is to attract the consumer’s attention to displayed products, especially for the consumer who has no prior intention to purchase. This is evident from the fact that sales of products displayed in this way increase.

In addition to the volume display, we will also consider two other factors in this study: product seasonality and price promotion. While these two factors are not our main concern, we speculate that they have some impact on the display effect. Volume displays, seasonality, and price promotions are interrelated in many selling situations. For example, many products are volume-displayed at the end of their season with large price discounts. Seasonality is an important factor that firms must take into consideration for efficient market planning. Manufacturers and retailers factor-in each product’s seasonal characteristics when planning marketing strategies for virtually all products. For example, a great variety of soccer goods are sold in large volumes during the soccer season; clothes in general are sold a few months before the start of a respective garment season. There are several uninvestigated questions regarding seasonality. Is the consumer’s attitude toward a product different in the early season from what it is late in the season? Does the consumer’s price evaluation change over this period? These questions are also explored in this study.

We investigate individual and combined effects of the display, seasonality, and price promotion on the consumer’s attitude toward products, price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase, for non-convenience products. The following section presents hypotheses development and describes the experiment used to test them. Finally, results are reported and implications are discussed.

HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses are related to the effects of the volume display and seasonality. Although seasonality is not our main research topic, as mentioned earlier, we take this opportunity to explore not only its interactive effect with the volume display, but also its main effect on consumer response due to its importance in marketing strategy. Seasonality is classified into two types: "early in the season" if the product is coming on the market for the season and "late in the season" if it is about to go off the market.

The volume display is successful in attracting the consumer’s attention to products, as mentioned earlier. The consumer tends to favor the display. Perhaps he looks for some excitement during his shopping trips and the volume display meets this need. He also looks for bargains or special offers; the volume display is the easiest way to find those stimuli without spending much effort or time because it is so visually prominent and easily attract the attention of the shopper. The consumer has learned from his shopping experiences that special events offered in the store are typically accompanied with consumer benefits such as a temporary price reduction. Thus, the volume display results in the consumer having a more favorable price evaluation regardless of its accuracy; he feels compelled to take advantage of such special events. These assumptions lead to propositions stated in the following hypothesis.

H1: The consumer’s attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase it should be more positive when the product is volume-displayed rather than regularly-displayed.

Seasonal products are usually priced high early in their season and priced low late in the season. Pricing is linked with demand and demand is, of course, high early in the season compared with late in the season. Since this strategy has been employed widely in the retail sector, the consumer has become well aware of this strategy. Also, high demand implies high product attitude and high purchase intention of the consumer. Thus the following proposition can be postulated:

H2: The consumer’s attitude toward a product and his intention to purchase the product are more positive early in the product’s season than late in the season. The consumer’s price evaluation is more likely to be higher late in a product’s season than early in the season.

The volume display for seasonal products can be observed both early and late in their seasons. Retailers wish to attract the consumer throughout the season. From the consumer’s perspective, the volume display is likely to achieve a more favorable impression and excitement when it is offered early in the season rather than late in the season. This is because he does not have much expectation of seeing the volume display early in the season. The volume display late in the season is likely to be viewed as more natural by the consumer due to the rationale he derives for the special event, such as the retailer’s need for an inventory clearance for the late-season product. Hence,

H3: There is an interactive effect of the volume display and seasonality upon the consumer’s attitude toward the product and his level of intention to purchase.

METHOD

A laboratory experiment was designed to test the hypotheses.

Product Selection

Since subjects were students, products used in experiments were selected based on the following criteria: (1) students were familiar with the product, (2) students were usually interested in purchasing the product, (3) students usually had some idea about the product price, and (4) both male and female students were potential customers. Two product categories were selected: college sweatshirts and basketball souvenirs.

Experimental Design

Effects of display format, seasonality, and price promotion were examined by use of a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design and the two products were examined by a within-subjects design: the two levels of display format were regular-display and volume-display, the two levels of seasonality were the early season and the late season, and the two price promotion levels were manipulated by presence or absence of sales.

The display format was varied with a color photograph. In the regular-display condition, the photograph showed one unit of the product on a small display shelf. In the volume-display condition, sweatshirts were piled up on a large display shelf and basketball souvenirs were piled up on a display wagon. The retail price was indicated on a frame placed in a prominent position in front of the display. Manipulation of the dimension of seasonality (early or late) was conducted verbally. For sweatshirts, the expression used to indicate the early season was: "It is early autumn in North Carolina, so cool weather is just around the corner." The expression used to indicate the late season was: "It is early spring in North Carolina, so warm weather is just around the corner." For the basketball souvenir, the expression used to indicate the early season was: "Duke’s basketball team is expected to be very good this year, and the basketball season is just around the corner." The expression indicating the late season was: "Duke’s basketball team was very good this year, and the basketball season has just ended."

Manipulation of the price promotion dimension was conducted by varying information indicated on the frame mentioned above. In the presence of a sale condition, a highlighted big "SALE" marker and "25% OFF" were indicated above the retail price in the frame described above. This discount level, 25%, was perceived to be fairly common among college student subjects (Bobinski et al. 1996). In the absence of the sale condition, only the regular price was indicated in the frame center. Thus, there were four different display photographs that varied depending on display format and information indicated in the frame attached to the product.

Regular prices of the two products were based on actual prices of the same products offered in a university store. For the sweatshirt, the regular price was $31.99 and the discounted price was $23.99 (-25%). For the basketball souvenir, the regular price was $8.99, so that the discounted price was $6.69 (-25%). These prices were all adjusted to end in 9 because different price ending digits may lead to somewhat different consumer responses (e.g., Anderson and Simester 1999). Odd price points, those prices ending in 9 or 5, are known to increase demand and are commonly used in retail stores; thus, this adjustment was necessary to exclude such an effect.

Subjects

A total of 131 MBA and undergraduate student subjects of Duke University participated in the study. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of the eight experimental conditions, with between fifteen and eighteen subjects per cell. MBA students were recruited by sending e-mails (72 subjects) and undergraduate students were recruited by posting fliers (59 subjects). The experiment was individually conducted in a computer lab. To increase motivation and involvement with study tasks, a monetary incentive was provided to subjects.

Procedure

The experiment was conducted entirely on a personal computer. At first, it was explained to subjects that we were investigating how consumers generally think about products at the time of purchase; they were instructed that they would be participating in a shopping exercise. Then, subjects began participation in a task for one of the two products. The order of which product to start first was alternated. Subjects were given a verbal scenario and shown a color photograph of the product. The hypothetical scenario for the sweatshirt was: "You are in the university store and have been thinking of buying the Duke sweatshirt shown in the picture. It is gray, heavyweight, a 90% cotton and 10% polyester blend; all sizes are available for both men and women." For the basketball souvenir, the hypothetical scenario was: "You are in the university store and have been thinking of buying the Duke basketball souvenir shown in the picture."

The season situation was also defined verbally following the scenario presentation. Then subjects were exposed to a color photograph of the product display counter and asked to imagine that they had just walked up to the sweatshirt (basketball) counter shown in the photograph. After viewing the product display picture, subjects assessed their attitude toward the product, the offer, and their level of purchase intention. After the assessment task, subjects repeated the same task for the other product.

At the end of the experiment, subjects completed a questionnaire including manipulation checks and demographic questions. On average, the entire experimental task lasted 15 minutes.

Measures

After exposure to the product display photograph, subjects reported their attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and their level of intention to purchase the product. Attitude toward the product was measured for each product through two seven-point semantic differential scales by stating the following: "What are your impressions of the sweatshirt (basketball souvenir)?" The two scale items were dislike/like and unappealing/appealing (e.g. Bruner and Hensel 1992, p.100). The average of these two items represented the variable (r=0.833). For operationalization of price evaluation, the attitude toward the offer was used. The attitude toward the offer is defined as the attitude of a respondent about a certain product offered at a certain price. This is a more holistic assessment of product attractiveness at a particular price. It was measured for each product using two seven-point semantic differential scales by stating the following: "What are your impressions of the price of the sweatshirt (basketball souvenir)? That is, do you think that this is a bad price or a good one; are you unfavorably or favorably impressed with it?" The two scale items were bad/good and unfavorable/favorable (e.g., Lichtenstein and Bearden 1989; Biswas and Burton 1993). These two scale items were averaged to represent the variable (r=0.909). The level of purchase intention was measured by asking; "Imagine that you are now weighing up whether or not to buy the sweatshirt. How likely are you to buy it?" A response was recorded on a one-to-seven scale, with endpoints labeled "Extremely unlikely" and "Extremely likely".

After dependent measures were collected, subjects responded to questions about display usefulness, task involvement, product familiarity, and demographic questions. In addition, a question about their understanding of seasonality for each product was included to check on seasonality manipulation.

RESULTS

Seasonality Manipulation Check

Since the seasonality factor was manipulated verbally, it was possible that subjects could not get a feeling of the season they were meant to assume they were in. Thus, a manipulation check was necessary to confirm this. In the experiment, the question "In the hypothetical exercises you just finished, do you think that the sweatshirt and the basketball souvenir were near the beginning or the season end?" In other words, subjects were queried as to whether it was 'just coming on to the market for this year’ or 'about to go off the market until next year’. For the sweatshirt, 86% of subjects recognized the season assigned to them correctly. For the basketball souvenir, 82.3% of subjects recognized it correctly. Thus, the manipulation we employed was considered to work effectively.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed in a three-way, two-level repeated ANOVA on the attitude toward the product, the attitude toward the offer, and the level of purchase intention. Results of this ANOVA analysis are summarized in Table 1. Means for each cell for each product are reported in Table 2. Not surprisingly, since product prices differed, a significant main effect for the product was indicated for the attitude toward the offer. Also, a marginally significant interactive effect between display manipulation and the product was revealed on the attitude toward the product. A separate ANOVA by each product indicated that a significant main effect of display manipulation on the attitude toward the product existed for the basketball souvenir (F(1, 123)=4.26, p<.05, M_volume=4.21, M_regular=3.64) while no such effect was observed for the sweatshirt (F(1, 123)=0.05). Repeated ANOVA also indicated a significant interactive effect between price promotion manipulation and the product for the attitude toward the offer. Separate ANOVA by each product indicated that the main effect of price promotion was stronger for the sweatshirt (F(1, 123)=17.92, p<.01, M_sale=4.66, M_{no_sale}=3.44) than the basketball souvenir (F(1, 123)=2.79, p<.1, M_sale=4.72, M_{no_sale}=4.28). Furthermore, repeated ANOVA indicated that there was a three-way interactive effect among seasonality and price promotion manipulations, and the product for all dependent variables. In separate ANOVA by each product, for the basketball souvenir, a significant interactive effect between seasonality and price promotion manipulations was observed for the attitude toward the product (F(1, 123)=4.0, p<.05), the attitude toward the offer (F(1, 123)=5.42, p<.05), and purchase intention (F(1, 123)=5.04, p<.05). They all showed a larger difference for the sale condition existing between the late season and the early season. When price promotion was offered early in the season, evaluations were highest.

Separate ANOVA by each product revealed more effects on the level of purchase intention. It indicated a significant main effect of seasonality manipulation for the sweatshirt (F(1, 123)=4.04, p<.05, M_early=3.49, M_late=2.91) and the basketball souvenir (F(1, 123)=6.92, p<.01, M_early=3.59, M_late=2.80). Price promotion manipulation was revealed as having a significant main effect for the sweatshirt (F(1, 123)=6.07, p<.05, M_sale=3.56, M_{no_sale}=2.84). There was a marginally significant interactive effect between display and seasonality manipulations for the basketball souvenir only (F(1, 123)=2.61, p<.1), with a larger difference for the volume display existing between the early season and the late season. When the product was in a volume display, the purchase intention was higher early in the season than it was late in the season.

These results are not completely consistent with our hypotheses. The effect of volume display depended upon product type. It was related to the attitude toward the product, but not to price evaluation and purchase intention. However, as can be seen in Table 2, the direction of mean scores was consistent with the hypothesis. Thus, H1 was partially supported. Seasonality influenced both products; however, it only related to purchase intention. The direction of mean scores was consistent with our predictions except for the attitude toward the offer. On the contrary, the attitude toward the offer was more favorably evaluated at the early season than late in the season, meaning that the consumer’s price evaluation ws more severe late in the season. This implies that the consumer’s internal reference price was used in evaluation (e.g., Kalyanaram and Winer 1995) and it was higher early in the season than at the season end. Thus H2 was partially supported. Hypothesis H3 had only marginal support since an interactive effect between display and seasonality manipulations was observed only for purchase intention of the basketball souvenir. Divergent results for the two products may arise from differential display formats and size; the volume display for the basketball souvenir attracted attention of subjects to a greater extent than the sweatshirts display.

Some consumer characteristics, such as a propensity to notice and be attracted to special displays more readily, may relate to the effect of volume displays. Volume displays may more influence the consumer who finds such displays a useful tool when shopping. To investigate this, we conducted a further analysis employing those subjects who evaluated the product display as being useful. Seventy-seven subjects were extracted from original data for each product. The number of subjects per cell was between seven and twelve for the sweatshirt, and between seven and thirteen for the basketball souvenir.

Results show that, for the sweatshirt, no significant main effect arising from volume display manipulation was again observed. However, a significant interaction between volume display and seasonality on the attitude toward the offer was revealed in this case, with a larger difference for the regular display condition existing between the early season and the late season (F(1, 69)=4.81, p<.05). When the product was in a regular display, the early season condition had a stronger influence on a positive attitude toward the offer, but when it was in a volume display, the late season condition showed a higher value. Similar to the ANOVA result across all subjects, it also revealed a significant main effect of price promotion manipulation on the attitude toward the offer (F(1, 69)=11.26, p<.01) and the level of intention to purchase (F(1, 69)=4.55, p<.05). The effect of seasonality on the purchase intention became insignificant in this analysis (F(1, 69)=0.68).

TABLE 1

ANOVA RESULTS (POOLED)

For the basketball souvenir category, a significant main effect of volume display manipulation was revealed on all three dependent variables (F(1, 69)=4.70, p<.05; F(1, 69)=4.06, p<.05; F(1, 69)=3.13, p<.1, respectively) with a higher value for the volume display (M_volume=4.472, 4.827, and 3.620) versus the regular display (M_regular=3.658, 4.266, and 2.986). A significant main effect of seasonality manipulation was again revealed on the level of intention to purchase (F(1, 69)=8.99, p<.01). There was again a significant effect of price promotion manipulation on the attitude toward the offer (F(1, 69)=3.7, p<.1). Similar to the result of ANOVA across all subjects, it also revealed a significant interaction between seasonality and price promotion manipulations on the attitude toward the product (F(1, 69)=3.21, p<.1), the attitude toward the offer (F(1, 69)=6.35, p<.05) and the level of intention to purchase (F(1, 69)=4.18, p<.05).

These results imply that the volume display format could very effectively influence the consumer who thought the display was useful for certain products. But again, these results may vary depending on how they were displayed.

In summary, it is difficult to generalize from results across two products since quite different results were observed in each case. Attitude toward product, price evaluation, and level of intention to purchase are not influenced by volume display, seasonality, and price promotion in a uniform manner. Effects vary depending on product type, display format, and consumer evaluation of display usefulness. However, consistent findings across the two products are the following. First, display format has no bearing on price evaluation and the level of intention to purchase. Second, seasonality has no bearing on the attitude toward the product or price evaluation, but seems to have some influence on the level of intention to purchase the product. Third, price promotion has some influence on the attitude toward the offer, but not on the attitude toward the product.

ADDITIONAL STUDY

Volume displays are often conducted by offering several kinds (e.g., brands) of products in the same product category instead of offering just one kind. The consumer may evaluate these two formats differently. Although volume display effects were not consistent between the two products in our study, we thought it was important to conduct an additional experiment to confirm the effect of variety in a volume display format. Also, it was important to investigate the effect of discount size since a constant magnitude of discount, 25%, was employed in the first study. Thus, the purpose of this additional study was to investigate whether variety and discount size offered in the volume display had an affect on consumer product evaluations.

TABLE 2

CELL MEANS

METHOD

Product Selection

Using the same criteria described in the first, we selected a college T-shirt as an experimental stimulus.

Experimental Design

Effects of discount size and variety in a volume display on the attitude toward the product and price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase were examined by way of a 2 x 2 between-subject design. These two factors were manipulated through a product display photograph that subjects viewed; thus, four display photographs were made. The two discount levels were 25% and 50%. The two variety levels consisted of four different kinds of T-shirt in one display and one kind of T-shirt in the other display. Where four T-shirts were shown, the display photograph showed four stacks of four different T-shirts including the target T-shirt described in a hypothetical scenario. In the single-type condition, a display photograph showed four stacks of the target T-shirt. The number of T-shirts used and the way they were displayed in both situations were kept exactly the same so that these effects could be excluded from our analysis.

The actual retail price of T-shirts was $15.00. Accordingly, the sale price having the 25% discount was $11.19 and $7.49 for the 50% discount. These prices were again adjusted to end in 9.

Subjects

Forty-two MBA students, who were recruited by an e-mail system, participated in this study on a voluntary basis. They were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions resulting in cell sizes of ten to twelve people.

Procedure

The procedure was virtually identical to the one used in the first study except that students were not exposed to any expression conveying seasonality and no regular display was used in product display photographs. This experiment took approximately 10 minutes.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed in a two-way, two-level ANOVA on the attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase. ANOVA indicated no significant main effect when the number of different kinds of T-shirts was manipulated for all three dependent variables. However, a significant main effect arising from discount size was demonstrated on all of these dependent variables (F(1, 38)=3.48, p<.1; F(1, 38)=18.06, p<.0001; and F(1, 38)=5.94, p<.05). As expected, effects were more pronounced when the discount size was 50% rather than 25%. Mean scores of the 50%-OFF condition were 5.135, 6.344, and 5.889 for the attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase, respectively; mean scores of the 25%-OFF condition were 4.44, 4.702, and 4.865, respectively. These results suggest that variety in a volume display does not affect the consumer. However, discount size offered in a volume display leads to different consumer evaluations with respect to the attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and level of intention to purchase.

DISCUSSION

This research investigated whether special displays (e.g., volume displays), seasonality, and price promotion affect consumer responses in terms of their attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and the level of intention to purchase. Two different non-convenience products were considered. Our study found that the volume display had no effect on price evaluation and level of intention to purchase the product. The effect also largely depended on product type and display format. It worked more effectively for the college basketball souvenir than for the college sweatshirt. For the basketball souvenir, while the attitude toward the product was influenced significantly across all subjects, price evaluation and purchase intention only positively influenced those subjects who found such displays to be useful tools for shopping. The effect of seasonality was basically consistent across the two products; it had no bearing on the attitude toward the product or price evaluation, but had some influence on the level of intention to purchase the product. However, although there was no significant effect of seasonality on the price evaluation, contrary to our prediction, there was a tendency for subjects to evaluate prices more favorably at the early season than late in the season. While price promotion naturally had an impact on the price evaluation, it had no effect on the attitude toward the product itself. The level of intention to purchase was affected in the case of the sweatshirt. For the basketball souvenir, seasonality and price promotion were found to interact with each other to exert a combined influence on the attitude toward the product, price evaluation, and level of intention to purchase the product. Also, for the basketball souvenir, volume display and seasonality showed a tendency to interactively affect the purchase intention. Our additional study also found that variety in volume display had no bearing on the attitude toward the product, price evaluation, or level of intention to purchase the product. However, discount size in the volume display influenced all these factors.

Implications

These findings have a number of implications. First, a volume display does not work uniformly for all products. Manufacturers and retailers should be aware that its effect largely depends on product type and the way it is displayed. It seems that display works more effectively for highly seasonal products such as sporting goods rather than clothes of a more general nature. Also, this display does not affect the consumer’s product evaluation, price evaluation, and level of intention to purchase uniformly either; it seems to affect the attitude toward the product more readily than it affects the other two variables. Thus, the role of volume display is basically to attract the consumer with a more favorable product attitude and some additional promotional tools should be accompanied with it in order to enhance his purchase intention. Second, although a volume display may be capable of leading the consumer to assume that products are bargains regardless of accompanying actual price discounts, different discount sizes still lead to different response levels. Of course, the larger the discount size, the greater the consumer’s response. Thus, it is suggested that discount size should be clearly indicated in the volume display to catch the consumer’s eye more powerfully and to enhance display attractiveness, especially when the discount is relatively large. Third, seasonality is not necessarily related to price evaluation. Just because products are offered late in their season, the consumer is unlikely to immediately assume that their prices have been reduced. Our results imply that the consumer only becomes aware that prices have been reduced when he observes sales signs, even when it is late in the season. Therefore, regardless of seasonality, sales signs should be used to inform him of price discounts. In addition, we note that the consumer's price evaluation tends to be more severe late in the season than at the beginning. Manufacturers and retailers should be aware that the consumer expects much lower prices for the late-season product.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this research. First, experiments were done in a laboratory setting and conducted entirely on a personal computer. Displays were controlled through photographs and seasonality was controlled verbally. Therefore, field experiments are necessary to assess these effects in more natural settings. Second, in this study, we focused on only one dimension of special displayBvolume display. Many other aspects of special display could affect the consumer’s responses, for example, the amount of product displayed, locations, and prominence. Third, experiments did not require subjects to make an actual purchase. It is possible that subjects behave differently when making actual purchases rather than just evaluating some product aspects. Further research is necessary to examine actual purchasing behavior and to provide subjects with economic incentives for making certain decisions. Fourth, existence of a competing brand was not included. If this factor were to be included, brand switching behaviors due to the special display could be analyzed. Finally, results presented here were generated within a limited set of product categories, samples, and measures.

Overall, this study should be considered as a first step only. Results suggest that continuous research is necessary to achieve clearer empirical support.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was completed while the author was a visiting scholar at Duke University. The author thanks Darryl Banks for his advice and making funds available for the research.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Eric and Duncan Simester (1999), "$9 Endings: Why Stores Sell More at $49 than at $44," paper presented at the workshop of the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Biswas, Abhijit and Scot Burton (1993), "Consumer Perceptions of Tensile Price Claims in Advertisements: An Assessment of Claim Types Across Different Discount Levels, " Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (Summer), 217-229.

Bobinski, George S., Dena Cox, and Anthony Cox (1996), "Retail "Sale" Advertising, Perceived Retailer Credibility, and Price Rationale," Journal of Retailing, 72 (3), 291-306.

Bruner, Gordon C. and Paul J. Hensel (1992), Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of Multi-Item Measures, volume 2, Chicago American Marketing Association.

Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy and Russel S. Winer (1995), "Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research," Marketing Science, 14 (3), Part 2 of 2, G161-169.

Kumar, V. and Robert P. Leone (1988), "Measuring the Effect of Retail Store Promotions on Brand and Store Substitution," Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (May), 178-185.

Lichtenstein, Donald R. and William O. Bearden (1989), "Contextual Influences on Perceptions of Merchant-Supplied Reference Prices," Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 55-66.

MaCarthy, Michael (1993), "James Bond Hits the Supermarket: Stores Snoop on Shoppers’ Habits to Boost Sales," The Wall Street Journal: Marketplace, August 25, B1 & B8.

Wilkinson, J. B., J. Barry Mason, and Christie H. Paksoy (1982), " Assessing the Impact of Short-Term Supermarket Strategy Variables," Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 72-86.

----------------------------------------