IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v32y2011i6p951-961.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risky discounts: Do people prefer them on a per-item or per-purchase basis and why?

Author

Listed:
  • Kamleitner, Bernadette
  • Mandel, David R.
  • Dhami, Mandeep K.

Abstract

Risky discounts differ from other discount formats in that the actual discount level is determined by chance (e.g., “scratch & save” cards). Four studies investigated whether consumers prefer to receive risky discounts on a per-purchase or per-item basis. Although these options do not differ with regard to expected value, they entail multiple differences (e.g., savings distribution, amount of individual gains, excitement, and effort involved) that may lead to differential consumer perceptions and experiences. Controlling for expected value of savings, participants preferred per-item over per-purchase discounts. As hypothesized, the main reasons for this preference were a partly incorrect perception of the properties of the savings distribution, the adoption of a narrow mindset focusing on the best outcome in a series of discount gambles, and the greater excitement provided by multiple discount gambles.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamleitner, Bernadette & Mandel, David R. & Dhami, Mandeep K., 2011. "Risky discounts: Do people prefer them on a per-item or per-purchase basis and why?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 951-961.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:32:y:2011:i:6:p:951-961
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487011001176
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy B. Heath & Subimal Chatterjee & Karen R. France, 1995. "Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence," Post-Print hal-00670476, HAL.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Heath, Timothy B & Chatterjee, Subimal & France, Karen Russo, 1995. "Mental Accounting and Changes in Price: The Frame Dependence of Reference Dependence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 90-97, June.
    4. Gilles Laurent & Pierre Chandon & Brian Wansink, 2000. "A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness," Post-Print hal-00458440, HAL.
    5. Holbrook, Morris B & Hirschman, Elizabeth C, 1982. "The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(2), pages 132-140, September.
    6. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    7. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    8. Sanjay K. Dhar & Claudia González-Vallejo & Dilip Soman, 1999. "Modeling the Effects of Advertised Price Claims: Tensile Versus Precise Claims?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(2), pages 154-177.
    9. LAURENT, Gilles & CHANDON, Pierre & WANSINK, Brian, 2000. "A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness," HEC Research Papers Series 698, HEC Paris.
    10. Elke U. Weber & Richard A. Milliman, 1997. "Perceived Risk Attitudes: Relating Risk Perception to Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 123-144, February.
    11. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    12. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "The moderating effects of need for cognition and cognitive effort on responses to multi-dimensional prices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 193-203, July.
    13. Halamish, Vered & Liberman, Nira & Higgins, E. Tory & Idson, Lorraine Chen, 2008. "Regulatory focus effects on discounting over uncertainty for losses vs. gains," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 654-666, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Sungchul & Park, Sang-June & Qiu, Chun (Martin) & Stanyer, Mike, 2013. "The discount is unfair: Egocentric fairness in risky discounts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 32-43.
    2. Attari, Amin & Chatterjee, Promothesh & Singh, Surendra N., 2022. "Taking a chance for a discount: An investigation into consumers’ choice of probabilistic vs. sure price promotions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 366-374.
    3. Karl Akbari & Udo Wagner, 2021. "Playing When Paying and What Happens Next: Customer Satisfaction and Word-of-Mouth Intention in Gambled Price Promotions," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 243-271, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chu, Hsunchi & Liao, Shuling, 2010. "Buying while expecting to sell: The economic psychology of online resale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(9-10), pages 1073-1078, September.
    2. Ann Shawing Yang, 2015. "Lottery Payment Cards: A Study of Mental Accounting," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 201-226, July.
    3. Scott B. Jackson & Paul A. Shoemaker & John A. Barrick & F. Greg Burton, 2005. "Taxpayers' Prepayment Positions and Tax Return Preparation Fees," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 409-447, June.
    4. Shi, Haijiao & Chen, Rong & Xu, Xiaobing, 2021. "How reward uncertainty influences subsequent donations: The role of mental accounting," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 383-391.
    5. Marco Bertini & Luc Wathieu, 2008. "Research Note—Attention Arousal Through Price Partitioning," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 236-246, 03-04.
    6. Connor, Robert A., 1996. "More than risk reduction: The investment appeal of insurance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 39-54, February.
    7. Wen, Tong & Leung, Xi Y. & Li, Bin & Hu, Lingyan, 2021. "Examining framing effect in travel package purchase: An application of double-entry mental accounting theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Wang, Huijun & Yan, Jinghua & Yu, Jianfeng, 2017. "Reference-dependent preferences and the risk–return trade-off," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 395-414.
    9. Friedrich, James & Lucas, Gale & Hodell, Emily, 2005. "Proportional reasoning, framing effects, and affirmative action: Is six of one really half a dozen of another in university admissions?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 195-215, November.
    10. Nicole Koschate-Fischer & Katharina Wüllner, 2017. "New developments in behavioral pricing research," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(6), pages 809-875, August.
    11. Syed Aliya Zahera & Rohit Bansal, 2018. "Do investors exhibit behavioral biases in investment decision making? A systematic review," Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(2), pages 210-251, May.
    12. Hsu, Yuan-Lin & Chow, Edward H., 2013. "The house money effect on investment risk taking: Evidence from Taiwan," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1102-1115.
    13. Ashworth, Laurence & Darke, Peter R. & McShane, Lindsay & Vu, Tiffany, 2019. "The rules of exchange: The role of an exchange surplus in producing the endowment effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 11-24.
    14. Raghubir, Priya, 2006. "An information processing review of the subjective value of money and prices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1053-1062, October.
    15. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    16. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    17. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    18. Weber, Martin & Camerer, Colin F., 1998. "The disposition effect in securities trading: an experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 167-184, January.
    19. Azar, Ofer H., 2009. "Do consumers make too much effort to save on cheap items and too little to save on expensive items? experimental results and implications for business strategy," MPRA Paper 20962, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Mathies, Christine & Gudergan, Siegfried P., 2011. "The role of fairness in modelling customer choice," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 22-29.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Discount; Risk perception; Price promotion; Preference; Consumer decision making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:32:y:2011:i:6:p:951-961. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.