The influence of sharing versus self-use on the preference for different types of promotional offers

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The influence of sharing versus self-use on the preference for different types of promotional offers Annie Pei-I Yu a, Shih-Chieh Chuang a, Yin-Hui Cheng *, b, Yi-Chin Wu a a b

Department of Business Administration, National Chung Cheng University, 168, Section 1, University Road, Minxiung Township, Cha-Yi, 62102, Taiwan Department of International Business, National Taichung University of Education, No.140, Minsheng Rd., West Dist., Taichung City, 40306, Taiwan

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sharing Sales promotion Price discount Bonus pack Responsibility

Sharing, which refers to giving something you have to someone else, is one of the most ubiquitous forms of human behavior in the world. Everyone experiences it in various situations, including buying food. Nonetheless, although buying something to share with others is quite common in our daily lives, most consumer research on buying focuses on the condition of “self-use” rather than “sharing.” The main purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of promotional offers on consumers’ purchase decisions when buying food for self-use/ sharing with others. The authors conducted four experiments to answer the main research questions. The results indicated that consumers prefer “price discounts” over “bonus packs” when the shopping task relates to self-use due to their concern about “loss reduction.” In contrast, they prefer bonus packs over price discounts when the shopping task relates to sharing with others because of their focus on “extra gains.” In addition, consumers’ perceived responsibility is a moderator. When perceived responsibility is low and the purchase is for self-use (sharing with others), price discounts (bonus pack) are favored over bonus packs (price discounts). However, when perceived responsibility is high, consumer preference to promotional offers are not significant different either in self-use or sharing with others condition. It seems that role of responsibility is influential when the shopping task relates to self-use. This study not only contributes to a deeper understanding of consumer psy­ chology but will also be beneficial to practitioners in designing effective promotional strategies that consider motives for food shopping.

1. Introduction Sharing has been one of the most common forms of human economic behavior for hundreds of thousands of years (Price, 1975). Due to human nature, rituals, norms, and responsibilities, people share with each other at all times and in all places (Belk, 2010; Belk et al., 1989; Fine, 1980; Furby, 1978; Gurven, 2006). In all societies, sharing has helped create social ties between individuals and groups (Price and Belk, 2016). For example, in hunter-gatherer societies, men were responsible for hunting. After returning from their hunting expeditions, they shared their harvest with other members of the community (Hunt, 2005). In the modern world, this sharing behavior not only exists in Asian societies, but can also be found in Western cultures (Belk, 2010). Most people in the world share their possessions with other household members, from small things, such as food, accessories, and clothes, to big things, such as houses, furniture, cars, and even their money.

Early consumer research explored the concept of “sharing” in a number of contexts, with a focus on “gift giving,” “product exchange,” and “information sharing” (e.g., Gregory, 1982; Sun et al., 2016). These studies considered “sharing” as a form of market exchange. In this paper, we follow Belk (2010) definition. Because household sharing is related to our daily lives and work, it tends to dominate our purchase decisions. As household sharing is important for resource allocation and reciprocal obligation, a sense of duty can affect how people choose and buy. So far, little is known about how consumers make decisions or how they react to firms’ marketing stimuli when they buy for sharing with others rather than for themselves. We believe that people who are mainly motivated by sharing motives will have different attitudes toward firms’ marketing sales promotions. In addition, the role of consumer responsibility may affect decisionmaking (Dholakia, 1999), particularly in the context of sharing (Belk, 2010). Consumer responsibility studies have mainly examined the role

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.P.-I. Yu), [email protected] (S.-C. Chuang), [email protected] (Y.-H. Cheng), [email protected] (Y.-C. Wu). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102026 Received 7 May 2019; Received in revised form 4 November 2019; Accepted 16 December 2019 Available online 16 January 2020 0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

share with others? Do their purchase decisions change in this situation?

of gender (female/male) in decision making, based on the consumption of different types of products (Qualls, 1987). For example, women have been perceived as the main decision makers concerning food, and as responsible for food preparation and planning (Flagg et al., 2014). In other words, their purchases are primarily shared with other household members (e.g., family members, friends, housemates). However, these studies have not discussed the role of responsibility in moderating the effects of promotional offers on people’s choices in self-use/sharing situations. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study investigates how the conditions of sharing and self-use affect consumer preference for price discounts versus bonus packs. In addition, the moderating ef­ fect of consumers’ perceived responsibility is examined. This study conducted four experiments to better understand con­ sumers’ purchase decisions when presented with promotional offers in different shopping situations. Unlike previous research, this study also conducted a field experiment outside the laboratory to reflect real world purchase decisions. This study highlights the importance of situational factors (self-use versus sharing with others), along with the mediating role of “feeling of cost reduction” or “benefit gains” and the moderating role of “responsibility” in the preference for sales promotion offers. As poorly judged sales promotions can negatively affect perceived value and brand value, it is essential to understand how consumers react to sales promotion tools. In doing so, marketers should be in a better po­ sition to present target customers with the right promotional messages. Therefore, this study makes a major contribution to research on sharing and the sales promotion literature.

2.2. Sales promotion In retail, sales promotion refers to a variety of incentive tools used to generate consumer visits, impulse purchases, or more sales for a particular branded product over a limited period (Mussol et al., 2019), or to establish long-term relationships (Kim, 2019). Retailers use different monetary and non-monetary sales promotion tools to encourage their customers to spend more (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Feelings of “cost reduction” or “bonus gains” are major attrac­ tions driving consumers to buy impulsively. Monetary sales promotion tools are price-based (e.g., price discounts), but can be implemented by marketers in different forms, from promotion packages to premiums (or bonus packs), coupons (or rebates), and frequent shopper card discounts (Blattberg et al., 1995). Non-monetary sales promotions provide he­ donic benefits to customers by offering them gifts, chances to win prizes, or free trials (Sinha and Verma, 2020). Each promotional tool has a different goal. For example, promotional packages are designed to allow consumers to purchase a product at a lower price, giving them an im­ mediate incentive to save money (Darke and Chung, 2005; Quelch, 1989). Retailers can use price discounts to sell clearance items. In recent years, price discounts have become a common tool, appearing in regular or daily deals, particularly in e-commerce platforms (Carlson and Kukar-Kinney, 2018). Premiums (or bonus packs) involve giving buyers an additional amount of a product at the usual price (Ong et al., 1997). Coupons (or rebates) refer to a physical or virtual voucher, allowing customers to receive a discount on their purchase at the time or after the purchase (Blattberg et al., 1995). Frequent shopper card discounts are a tool used by stores to offer their customers special discounts based on their previous purchases (Blattberg et al., 1995). Non-monetary pro­ motions are designed to improve perceived brand quality and enhance brand association, in addition to building brand equity (Buil et al., 2013). Previous studies have been conducted in two major directions. In one direction, researchers have explored consumers’ evaluation of various �zquez-Casielles, sales promotion offers (e.g., Alvarez-Alvarez and Va 2005; Diamond, 1992; Diamond and Campbell, 1989; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Kahneman and Tversky, 1984; Nunes and Park, 2003; Thaler, 1985), the effectiveness of monetary and non-monetary sales promotions (Carlson et al., 2016; Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Lowe, 2010; Lowe and Barnes, 2012; Mishra and Mishra, 2011; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009), and consumers’ value perception and re­ sponses to promotion offers (Aydinli et al., 2014; Lee and Yi, 2019; Mussol et al., 2019). In the second direction, researchers have focused on other factors moderating the effectiveness of sales promotions, such as the role of product categories (Sinha and Verma, 2020), age, gender, and other characteristics, and in-store stimuli (Blom et al., 2017). In the following section, this paper discusses the preference for “price dis­ counts” over “bonus packs.”

2. Theoretical background 2.1. Sharing Sharing is an active behavior that involves establishing basic in­ teractions or social ties with individuals and groups (Godelier, 2011). In contemporary societies, many things can be freely shared, such as in­ formation, food, and resources. People share not as part of a reciprocal exchange, but for its own intrinsic value (Price and Belk, 2016; Widlok, 2013). Sharing differs from gift giving because it happens every day and not on special occasions. It can be expressed in various ways, although researchers have identified several key characteristics of sharing behavior. First, sharing is a form of nonreciprocal prosocial behavior (Benkler, 2004; Widlok, 2004). Recipients can benefit from this behavior, but those who share what they have can also make sacrifices without expecting reciprocity (Benkler, 2004; Widlok, 2004). Second, when individuals decide to share, they agree to give part of their ownership of something to others, so those with whom they share use that object without permission. Finally, sharing differs from commodity exchange because its monetary value, weight, and measure are difficult to calculate (Belk, 2007, 2010). Sharing does not necessarily involve a monetary transaction, i.e., people can share their love and care with families, friends, neighbors, or even strangers. Unlike commodity ex­ change, sharing does not involve any obligation to exchange products equally or simultaneously (Belk, 2007; Humphrey and Hugh-Jones, 1992). Why are people willing to share their possessions with others? The answer may lie in human nature, rituals, or norms, or in people’s sense of responsibility (Belk et al., 1989; Fine, 1980; Furby, 1978; Gurven, 2006). Sharing can be related to the desire to show that one cares, to form a connection, to demonstrate solidarity, or simply to help (Belk, 2007; Fischer and Arnold, 1990). Schwartz and Howard (1980, 1981) suggested three important motives: awareness of consequences, ascrip­ tion of responsibility, and personal norms. However, if individuals engage in prosocial behavior to benefit others, they may simply be focused on the welfare of others (Staub, 1978). Although sharing is clearly of significant research interest, few studies have discussed how the intention to share affects consumer purchase decisions. Why do people decide to purchase something to

2.3. Preference for price discounts over bonus packs Among the variety of promotional tools available to firms, price discounts and bonus packs have proven to be the most effective and have thus attracted the most attention from researchers (Carlson, 2018; Chen et al., 2012; Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). The two main questions posed by these studies have been the following: “do consumers prefer price discounts or bonus packs?” and “which sales promotion is most effective under which condition?” Regarding the first question, some studies have found that consumers have different views on price discounts and bonus packs (Diamond, 1992; Diamond and Campbell, 1989; Kahneman and Tver­ sky, 1979, 1984; Nunes and Park, 2003; Thaler, 1985). Prospect theory suggests that people’s choices of alternative promotions are determined by how they frame price discounts and bonus packs: price discounts are 2

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

framed as “reduced loss” and bonus packs as “obtained gains” (Kahne­ man and Tversky, 1979, 1984). According to Thaler (1985), in the face of larger losses (such as product payments), individuals prefer to segregate gains rather than reduce losses. In short, between two sales promotions with the same monetary value, a bonus pack will be favored over a price discount because it is segregated from the price of the product. Other researchers have expressed a similar view but explained the preference in different ways (Chandran and Morwitz, 2006; Dia­ mond, 1992; Diamond and Campbell, 1989; Nunes and Park, 2003). They have suggested that a “bonus pack” is likely to make consumers feel that they are “getting something extra.” They are thus more likely to pay attention to what they gain than to the value of the bonus pack, because its “extra amount” increases the value of the promotion. A price discount, in contrast, is easy to calculate in monetary terms and is thus considered as a monetary promotion. Accordingly, this type of discount may lead consumers to feel that they are simply losing less money than usual. Many factors influence the effectiveness of price discounts and bonus packs. Despite their ubiquity, previous research has shown that price discounts may have negative effects on brand equity and reference prices, particularly when applied frequently (Blattberg et al., 1995; Mela et al., 1997; Yoo et al., 2000), ultimately damaging the company’s brand and profitability. However, the long-term effects of these discounts are still unclear (Boulding et al., 1994; Neslin et al., 1985). A price discount is simply one of the promotional tools available to a firm, and it is sometimes difficult to determine whether it directly poses a threat to a company’s brand. Nonetheless, retailers look for alternatives, such as bonus packs or product enlargements, to avoid the negative effects of price discounts (Carlson et al., 2016). The growing importance of sales promotions in business strategies means that it is essential to determine the best way to use various types of promotions. Thus, previous studies have attempted to understand consumers’ preferences for both types of sales promotion tools. Researchers have discussed the framing effects of different promotional benefit levels (low, moderate, and high) and presentation types (dollars and per­ centages) on sales promotions (Grewal et al., 1996; Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). Grewal et al. (1996) stated that when the value gained from a price discount is easy to understand, consumers do not consider other details. For example, a low price discount with little monetary value and a high discount with clear benefits both make consumers feel less uncertain, allowing them to easily determine whether or not to buy the product. In summary, a price discount is preferred for a high promotional benefit level because the monetary value obtained is so appealing that the consumer will make an immediate decision. Moreover, the extra money saved allows him or her to buy other products (Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Heilman et al., 2002; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). In contrast, when the promotional benefit level is low, a bonus pack is preferred because its non-monetary value is difficult to evaluate (Ofir, 2004; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). However, when the promotional benefit level is moderate, for instance 20%, research has shown that there is no dif­ ference in consumer preference between a price discount and a bonus pack (Diamond and Sanyal, 1990; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). Mishra and Mishra (2011) also found differences in consumer pref­ erence for price discounts versus bonus packs for different types of products. For example, price discounts are preferred for unhealthy products, because they reduce post-consumption guilt. In other words, price discounts justify the purchase of products whose consumption is considered a vice. In comparison, consumers have a positive view of healthy products and tend to choose bonus packs because no guilt is associated with their purchase. Thus, it seems that the fit of sale pro­ motion tools and product type and their impact on consumers’ choice is as important as the fit of message framing in advertisement (Kuo et al., 2019).

2.4. Role of sharing versus self-use in the preference for price discounts versus bonus packs As noted previously, sharing can be defined as a form of nonrecip­ rocal prosocial behavior (Benkler, 2004; Widlok, 2004). Prior research on the framing effect has shown that bonus packs are framed as “ob­ tained gains” (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1984). Thus, in a sharing condition, there is a greater likelihood that individuals will choose a bonus pack to obtain something extra and then share that premium with others (Diamond and Campbell, 1989; Diamond, 1992). Alternatively, when consumption is intended for self-use, individuals show little re­ sponsibility because they do not consider the benefit to others. Thus, they may put more emphasis on cost reduction and choose a price dis­ count. Integrating the aforementioned literature, it was assumed in this study that participants would exhibit distinct preferences for price dis­ counts and bonus packs under two scenarios: sharing and self-use. The following Hypothesis was thus proposed and tested. H1. Individuals are more likely to prefer price discounts when buying for self-use, but bonus packs when buying to share. H2. Consumers’ perceived cost reduction (perceived gains) mediates the relationship between situational factors (self-use versus sharing with others) and their preference for sales promotion tools (price discounts versus bonus packs). 2.5. Role of responsibility in the preference for price discounts versus bonus packs Responsibility refers to the duty to deal with or take care of some­ body/something, so that one may be blamed if something goes wrong (Oxford Dictionary). Thus, being a responsible consumer means having a duty to make wise purchase decisions. In the context of household shopping, decisions can be viewed in a number of ways, such as what products to buy, where to buy them, and how much to buy when there are many alternatives on the market. Previous studies have argued that women are usually the primary consumers responsible for household shopping (Dholakia, 1999; Qualls, 1987; Flagg et al., 2014). They have also shown that price deals can influence food consumption (Chandon and Wansink, 2012). The primary shopper of the household may be perceived as responsible for purchasing wisely because the decisions made by that person affect the whole family. Accordingly, people who are more responsible tend to collect and compare price information before making any decision (Mano and Elliott, 1997). Highly responsible shoppers tend to notice and compare promotional offers because they need to control grocery expenses (Dr� eze et al., 2004). In addition to expenses, they need to consider the quantity of food needed to meet the consumption needs of each family member. Promotional offers that focus on “quantity” and “extra gains” may therefore be more attractive than price discount promotions for them. Given that both highly/less responsible shoppers need to consider household expenses, price dis­ counts may be more attractive to less responsible consumers, as quantity may not be one of their concerns. In summary, responsibility plays an important role in the preference for bonus packs. Concerning the moderating effect of responsibility on shopping, in Chinese cultures, people are influenced by traditional Confucianism, whose ethical system emphasizes relationships. Chinese people thus feel more responsible and are more willing to share with family members, with whom they have blood kinship (Ren, 2008). In Western countries, people also feel responsible for family members because they have learned this since childhood (Valdes, 1996). Sharing occurs less often outside the family because individuals feel less responsibility to share with non-family members (Belk, 2010). Those who feel more respon­ sible for sharing their possession with others are expected to show a greater tendency to choose bonus packs. However, consumers who feel less responsible, particularly those who focus on self-use, may prefer price discounts to bonus packs because they do not have to meet the food 3

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

consumption needs of other people. Therefore, we proposed the following Hypothesis and conducted an experiment to test the moder­ ating effect of responsibility.

the manipulation of the conditions. Then the participants read the promotional information: “On the shelf, there were cookies with special offers. The original price for a pack of cookies was NT$20. The first offer was for a 20% price discount on 10 packs of cookies (regular price was NT$200; 10 packs for NT$160 after the discount); the second offer gave the partici­ pants an extra 20% more cookies, i.e., two additional packs of cookies for the same price (12 packs of cookies for NT$200).” They were asked which promotional offer they would choose when purchasing 10 packs of cookies (price discount or bonus pack).

H3. When consumers are in a condition of low rather than high re­ sponsibility, they tend to choose price discounts over bonus packs when buying for self-use rather than for sharing. 3. Overview of experiments We tested the hypotheses and theoretical accounts using four ex­ periments designed to examine the role of the shopping situation, mo­ tives, and their influence on consumer preference for promotional offers. Studies 1 and 2 examined the preference for price discounts and bonus packs under sharing and self-use conditions using laboratory experi­ ments. Study 3 was then conducted as a field experiment to investigate whether individuals’ purchase choices differ under four conditions because of the different motives underlying their choices (loss reduction or willingness for extra gains). Study 4 was carried out to test the moderating effect of responsibility. When individuals perceive more responsibility, they are more likely to behave altruistically toward those they feel close to and are willing to share with.

3.1.3. Results Manipulation check. The manipulation check for sharing was suc­ cessful, with the self-use participants showing a higher degree of “pur­ chasing for self” (Mself ¼ 6.11, SD ¼ 1.09 versus Msharing ¼ 2.74, SD ¼ 1.354, t ¼ 16.4, p < 0.001) and “eating for self” (Mself ¼ 5.45, SD ¼ 1.44 versus Msharing ¼ 2, SD ¼ 1.02, t ¼ 16.57, p < 0.001) than their sharing counterparts. Hypothesis testing results. We posited that individuals exhibit distinct preferences for price discounts versus bonus packs under sharing and self-use conditions. A log-linear analysis was performed to test this hy­ pothesis. The results showed a significant interaction x2 ð1Þ ¼ 39:11; x ¼ :00Þ between conditions (sharing versus self-use) and sales promotions (price discount versus bonus pack). Therefore, the purchase condition affected the preference for a price discount versus a bonus pack. In the self-use condition, 74% of the participants chose the price discount, with only 26% choosing the bonus pack (selfuse: price discount > bonus pack). However, in the sharing condition, 34% of the participants chose the price discount and 66% chose the bonus pack (sharing: price discount < bonus pack), thereby supporting our prediction. This suggested that more participants preferred price discounts to bonus packs in the self-use condition because of the loss reduction motive, whereas the participants in the sharing condition were focused on obtaining extra gains.

3.1. Study 1 The main purpose of Study 1 was to investigate whether individuals are more likely to choose a price discount over a bonus pack when buying for self-use and to make the opposite decision when buying to share with others. In Study 1, a single product, cookies, was selected as the target product. 3.1.1. Method 3.1.1.1. Design. Study 1 used a one-factor (condition: sharing versus self-use) between-subjects design. An experimental scenario with two conditions (buying cookies to share or for self-use) was created to test the Hypothesis. The limitation of Study 1 was that we kept the price constant for every pack of cookies, following Mishra and Mishra (2011). In addition, Study 1 set up the promotional offer at a moderate benefit level (Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009), about 20%, in the experi­ ment, to avoid the framing effect of low and high sales promotions. The experiment included two types of promotional offers: a 20% price dis­ count for one pack of cookies or 20% more cookies for the same price.

3.1.4. Discussion The results revealed that consumers display a significant preference for price discounts when buying for self-use, but a significant preference for bonus packs when buying to share. When buying for self-use, they may focus on reducing their loss (by receiving a price discount). How­ ever, when purchasing to share, they may be concerned about how to benefit others (Staub, 1978) and a bonus pack gives more to share. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, the effectiveness of a price discount was conspicuous in the self-use condition, whereas the bonus pack became more effective under the sharing condition.

3.1.2. Procedure Two hundred and forty-four participants took part in Study 1 to earn partial course credit or an opportunity to participate in a lottery game. Most of the participants were students (56%), 44% were employed in various occupations, and their ages ranged from 19 to 38 years old. The participants were randomly assigned to the self-use or sharing condition. They were brought into a room one at a time and asked to read a note on the experimental scenario. They were then asked to do their best to focus on the scenario assigned to them. After that, each participant completed a questionnaire on a computer. The participants in the sharing scenario read the following descrip­ tion: “You live with a family member (please fill in the name of the family member you are imagining) and you regularly purchase cookies to take home and share with him or her. Today, you visited a retail outlet and saw a special promotion on cookies that you and your family member love.” Their coun­ terparts in the self-use scenario read the following description: “You live alone and regularly purchase cookies for home consumption. Today, you visited a retail outlet and saw a special promotion on cookies that you love.” After reading the scenario, the participants were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with two statements: “I will purchase the cookies for self-use” and “I will eat the cookies by myself,” measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 7 ¼ “strongly agree”), to check

3.2. Study 2 The results of Study 1 showed that the participants had a preference for the bonus pack over the price discount in the sharing scenario. However, one could argue that their preference for the bonus pack was due to the larger quantity of cookies (12 packs versus 10 packs). In other words, they chose the bonus pack because there were more cookies to share. Therefore, in Study 2 a limitation was placed on the quantity to eliminate this possibility. The quantity was kept constant in both pur­ chasing scenarios. 3.2.1. Method 3.2.1.1. Design. Study 2 adopted a 2 (condition: sharing versus selfuse) � 2 (promotion: price discount versus bonus pack) betweensubjects design. The only difference between this study and Study 1 was the quantity offered in the price discount and bonus pack pro­ motions. In Study 2, the original offer was 12 packs for NT$240 and the promotional offer was NT$192 after a 20% price discount. For the bonus pack promotion, the original offer was NT$200 for 10 packs. The 4

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

promotional offer was NT$200 for 12 packs. In other words, the par­ ticipants would have 12 packs, regardless of the promotion chosen.

and a bonus pack is more effective in the sharing condition. Moreover, the results of Study 2 provided evidence that the willingness to buy a product with a bonus pack offer in the sharing condition was not affected by quantity. Conversely, a significant preference for a price discount was observed in the self-use condition, supporting Hypothesis 1.

3.2.2. Procedure One hundred and forty-five participants took part in Study 2 for a chance to enter a lottery or to earn partial course credit. Of all partici­ pants, 46.2% were men and 53.8% were women, 57.2% were students and 42.8% were employed. Their ages ranged from 16 to 35 years old. As in Study 1, the participants were randomly assigned to a condi­ tion. All participants were individually directed to a room. After reading the scenario, they were asked to answer questions on a computer, including two questions for a manipulation check: 1) “Will you purchase the cookies for self-use?” 2) “Will you eat the cookies yourself?” The final question in both scenarios was: “In this scenario, would you be willing to purchase the cookies with a price discount (bonus pack promotion)?”

3.3. Study 3 Studies 1 and 2 confirmed the Hypothesis that consumers show a preference for price discounts (bonus packs) when buying for self-use (sharing with others). As both studies were laboratory experiments, we conducted Study 3, a field experiment, to see what consumers would purchase with real money. The main reasons for planning the field experiment were as follows. First, there is a growing trend toward conducting field experiments in marketing (Gneezy, 2017; Li et al., 2015; Simester, 2017), particularly if the research topic is pricing and promotion offers (e.g., Anderson and Simester, 2003; Shu and Gneezy, 2010). Second, as Li et al. (2015) pointed out, field experiments provide an alternative approach to identifying exogenous sources that establish causation. They also constitute a suitable methodology for optimizing marketing decisions and refining current theories (Campbell, 1969). Third, field experiments in natural settings can help researchers identify variables in real-life situations and recreate them in situations that are likely to happen. For these reasons, we conducted Study 3 to confirm that our arguments and hypotheses are supported under real conditions. We assumed that when people buy for themselves, “loss reduction” is their main concern. Conversely, when they buy to share with others, “obtaining extra gains” is their focus. However, previous studies have argued that consumer preferences for price discounts or bonus packs are related to the nature of the type of food. For example, Mishra and Mishra (2011) pointed out that con­ sumers prefer bonus packs to price discounts for virtue food, whereas they prefer price discounts to bonus packs for vice food. In Studies 1 and 2, we used cookies, which are considered a vice. Thus, in our field experiment, we used a healthy (virtue) food to exclude the possible ef­ fect of the type of food and to further examine the merits of our argument. In Study 3, one type of healthy food was selected as the target product. The pilot study identified 12 typical examples used in previous consumer research (e.g., candy, cereal, yogurt, hamburgers, etc.). Fortyfive participants were asked to rate how healthy these examples were for people, from 1 (not at all healthy) to 7 (very healthy). Yogurt was identified as the healthiest food, and thus Study 3 used it as the target product. Similar to Study 2, the purchase quantity was kept constant in both scenarios. The only difference was that Study 3 controlled the volume of the target to avoid the influence of other factors. In addition to the target product and its promotional offer (blueberry yogurt), we used alterna­ tives (plain yogurt and strawberry yogurt) for the participants to choose from. This was also different from Study 2, in which the participants were only asked whether or not they would choose the target product.

3.2.3. Results Manipulation check. The participants in the self-use scenario rated “purchasing for self” higher than those in the sharing scenario (Mself ¼ 6.03, SD ¼ 0.754 versus Msharing ¼ 2.38, SD ¼ 0.84, t ¼ 27.59, p < 0.001). Similarly, the self-use group reported a significantly higher de­ gree of “eating for self” than their sharing counterparts (Mself ¼ 5.7, SD ¼ 0.81 versus Msharing ¼ 1.97, SD ¼ 0.85, t ¼ 16.4, p < 0.001). The manipulation was thus deemed effective. Hypothesis testing results. Hypothesis 1 predicted different preferences for price discounts and bonus packs under sharing and self-use condi­ tions. A log-linear analysis was performed to test this prediction. The results showed a significant interaction x2 ð1Þ ¼ 39:11; x ¼ :00Þ be­ tween conditions (sharing versus self-use), sales promotions (price dis­ count versus bonus pack), and willingness to buy (yes versus no). The results in Fig. 1 suggest that the purchase condition affects consumer preference for price discounts and bonus packs. In the self-use condition, 65.7% of the participants stated that they would be willing to purchase the product with a price discount, and 39.5% stated that they would be willing to do so with a bonus pack. In the sharing condition, 52.8% said that they would be willing to purchase the product with a price discount and 83.3% with a bonus pack, showing a significant preference for the latter (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the results of Study 2 clearly showed that the two purchase conditions led to different preferences for the two types of promotions, providing further support for Hypothesis 1. 3.2.4. Discussion The results of Study 2 revealed a significant difference in consumer preference for a price discount versus a bonus pack between sharing and self-use conditions. A price discount is preferable when buying for selfuse, but a bonus pack becomes more preferable when buying to share. In other words, a price discount is more effective in the self-use condition

3.3.1. Method Study 3 adopted a 2 (condition: sharing versus self-use) x 2 (pro­ motion: price discount versus bonus pack) between-subjects design. There were two differences between Study 3 and the previous two studies. First, for each condition in Study 3, we placed three flavored yogurts on the shelf: blueberry, plain, and strawberry. The blueberry yogurt was the item with the special promotional offer (either a price discount or a bonus pack). The participants were asked to decide whether they would choose the promoted item. This setting was closer to a real-life situation. Second, in the price discount group, the participants were informed that the food they purchased would either be for self-use or for sharing with others. The original price for a container of yogurt (1200 ml) was NT$150. The participants were shown blueberry yogurt

Fig. 1. Ratio of willingness to buy cookies with a price discount or bonus pack in Study 2. 5

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

with the 20% discount and no promotional offer for the other two yo­ gurts. The bonus was that the original price of NT$120 per yogurt was for a 1000 ml container and the special offer was for 1200 ml (20% more) of blueberry yogurt for the same price. The volume and price of plain yogurt and strawberry yogurt remained the same (no promotional offer). The yogurt sizes (1000 ml and 1200 ml) were the standard sizes sold by the local yogurt supplier. In this experiment, we assumed that the consumer participants had no particular preference for yogurt flavor (Mblueberry ¼ 5.09, Moriginal ¼ 5.36, Mstrawberry ¼ 5.12), as confirmed by the pilot study (Wilks’ lambda ¼ 0.978, F(2, 118) ¼ 1.304, p > 0.05). The field experiment was conducted in a small shop on campus. The three yogurt products were placed side by side in the display fridge. The experiment lasted 4 h a day for four business days. Each experiment condition was rotated. On each day of the experiment, we invited the shoppers at the entrance of the shop to participate. After receiving their agreement, we gave them a note explaining the situation. In the self-use scenario, the participants read the following note: “You live on your own. It’s a weekend and you’re planning to relax and watch TV all night. You just realized there is not enough yogurt at home, so you just grab your purse and money to get some.” In the sharing scenario, the note read: “You live with your family. It’s a weekend and you love hanging out with your family. Sometimes your aunt who lives a few miles away comes to visit. After dinner, you realize that there is not enough yogurt to serve your family and guests, so you just grab your purse and go to the shop to get some.” After the participants read the scenario and understood their task, we gave each of them NT$150 and took them to the display fridge, asking them to make a purchase. After they made their decisions, we took them to another room and asked them to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts, including a manipulation item: “I purchase yogurt for my own use.” The items related to their motives for choosing the promotional offer were the following. 1) “My decision can save me money.” 2) “My decision can help me obtain more yogurt.” There were also questions related to their preferences for the three flavored yogurts. All responses were measured on a 7-point Likert scale to determine the participants’ degree of agreement. After completing the questionnaire, the participants were allowed to leave with the yogurt they bought and the rest of the money (based on their choice) as in­ centives. Thus, a total of 120 participants were randomly assigned to one condition. Among them, 59.2% were women and their ages ranged from 18 to 26 years.

with a preference for particular types of promotions react differently in different purchase situations (see Fig. 2). Regarding the motives underlying their decisions, the results showed that there was a significant difference across the four groups in terms of loss reduction (F ¼ 4.111, p < 0.01) and obtaining extra gains (F ¼ 21.42, p < 0.01). The participants in the self-use/price discount condi­ tion perceived the highest level of loss reduction (M ¼ 5.4). In addition, the participants in the sharing/bonus pack condition perceived the highest level of extra gains (M ¼ 5.7). We then adopted a bootstrap method to test the mediating effect of loss reduction and perceived extra gains to confirm that their choices were influenced by their motives in different shopping situations. 3.3.3. Mediation effect Regression analysis and the bootstrap method were used to test the mediation effect. The data analysis was conducted using SPSS and an add-on module called PROCESS developed by Hayes (2017). PROCESS uses an ordinary least squares or logistic regression-based path analytic framework to estimate direct and indirect effects. The bootstrap approach was used to test the indirect effect. Based on suggestions from previous studies (e.g., Preacher and Hayes, 2004), bootstrapping is conducted by taking a large number of samples in N (original sample size), sampling with replacements, and computing the indirect effect in each sample. In this case, bootstrapping was performed by taking 1000 samples from the original sample. The standardized regression coeffi­ cient between IV (promotion offer*shopping situation) and DV (pur­ chase choice) was statistically significant (b ¼ 1.06, SE ¼ 0.41, p < 0.05 and the 95% confidence interval (CI) ranged from 0.24 to 1.8). We tested the significance of this indirect effect using bootstrapping procedures. Unstandardized indirect effects were computed for each of the 5000 bootstrapped samples, and the 95% CI was computed by determining the indirect effects at the 2.5 and 97.5 percentiles. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was 1.27 with a 95% CI between 0.30 and 2.29. As 0 was not included in the 95% CI, we concluded that the in­ direct effect was statistically significant. Furthermore, as 0 was included in the CI in the direct effect, the result confirmed that the participants’ purchase choices were fully mediated by “loss reduction.” We used the same process to test the mediation effect of “obtaining extra gains.” The standardized regression coefficient between IV (promotion offer*shop­ ping situation) and DV (purchase choice) was statistically significant (b ¼ 1.37, SE ¼ 0.44, p < 0.01 and the 95% CI ranged from 2.24 to 0.49). The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was 0.81, and the 95% CI ranged from 1.48 to 0.35. Thus, the indirect effect was statistically significant. As 0 was not included in the CI in the direct effect, we concluded that the participants’ purchase choices were partially mediated by “obtaining extra gains.”

3.3.2. Results Manipulation check. The manipulation check was successful, with the self-use participants showing a high degree of “purchasing for self” (Mself ¼ 5.8, SD ¼ 1.23 versus Msharing ¼ 3.95, SD ¼ 1.23, t ¼ 7.413, p < 0.001). The success of the manipulation check proved that the experiment was also successful. Hypothesis testing results. Study 3 used a log-linear analysis to assess the prediction that more people tend to choose products with price discounts under self-use conditions, but more people tend to choose products with bonus packs under sharing conditions. We expected the participants to make different purchase choices for price discounts and bonus packs, in addition to the other two items without promotion, under sharing and self-use conditions. The results showed a significant interaction (x2 (1) ¼ 10.905; x < 0.05) between conditions (sharing versus self-use) and sales promotions (price discount versus bonus pack). Under the self-use/price discount condition, 22 out of 30 participants (73.3%) chose the blueberry yogurt, compared with 14 out of 30 par­ ticipants (46.7%) who chose the blueberry yogurt under the self-use/ bonus pack condition. Among the participants in the sharing/price discount condition, 16 out of 30 (53.3%) chose the blueberry yogurt, and 25 out of 30 (83%) chose the blueberry yogurt in the sharing/bonus pack condition. The pattern of the results supported the proposed assumption and further confirmed the association between promotion types and purchase conditions. These results showed that consumers

Fig. 2. Ratio of the number of participants who choose to buy blueberry yogurt for self-use or sharing. 6

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

3.3.4. Discussion The results of Study 3 further confirmed the significant difference in customer preference for a price discount or a bonus pack in the three conditions. In the field experiment, the participants with real moneymaking consumer decisions revealed a stronger preference for the price discount in the self-use condition, in which they were more likely to focus on reducing the cost of their purchase than on obtaining extra packs. However, when buying products to share with others, the par­ ticipants were more likely to choose the bonus pack option for the benefit of others. The mediation effect test further confirmed that con­ sumer choices are mediated by their motives for “loss reduction” and “obtaining extra gains.” In summary, Study 3 showed that bonus pack promotions are most effective when consumers make a purchase to share with family members, while price discounts are most effective when consumers are buying for self-use. Study 3 also confirmed that consumer preference for promotional offers does not change based on the type of food. Indeed, the results were the same for virtue food and vice food. Thus, the Hypothesis 1 and 2 were supported. Previous research has suggested that people feel greater re­ sponsibility for those with whom they feel closer, such as family mem­ bers (Guadalupe, 1996; Ren, 2008), and are therefore more willing to act to benefit them. The results of Study 3 supported the conclusion that individuals show a greater preference for bonus packs when purchasing a product to share with family members. It is possible that the level at which they perceive greater responsibility based on how they feel about them is related to the moderating effect of responsibility. Hence, Study 4 was conducted to test the role of responsibility.

self-use with low responsibility. They were asked to individually com­ plete a questionnaire on a computer. First, they were asked to do their best to imagine the given scenario. The scenarios were the same as those in Study 1, except that in Study 4, a description of responsibility was added. For example, in the sharing with high responsibility condition, the participants read the following description: “You live with a family member (please fill in the name of the family member you are imagining: ___), and you have sole responsibility for purchasing cookies and taking them home to share.” Their counterparts in the sharing with low responsibility condition were asked to imagine that others shared responsibility for buying cookies. Those in the self-use with high responsibility condition read the following description: “You live at home, but you are the only person who eats cookies and you are solely responsible for buying them for self-use.” Finally, those in the self-use with low responsibility condition shared responsibility for buying cookies with others. After reading the scenario assigned to them, the participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the same two statements presented in the previous studies to check whether the sharing manip­ ulation was successful. In addition, they were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a responsibility-related statement: “I think I would feel very responsible if there were no cookies at home.” All of the manipulation statements were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼ “strongly disagree” to 7 ¼ “strong agree”). Finally, the participants were asked which promotional offer they would choose when buying 10 packs of cookies: the price discount or the bonus pack (Plan 1: 20% off, which means 10 packs of cookies for NT$160 versus Plan 2: an extra 20% for the same price, which means 12 packs of cookies for NT$200).

3.4. Study 4

3.4.2. Results Manipulation check. The participants in the self-use scenarios rated “purchasing for self” higher than those in the sharing scenarios (6.1 versus 2.8, t ¼ 20.29, p < 0.001). Similarly, the self-use groups scored “eating for self” significantly higher than the sharing groups (5.39 versus 2.1, t ¼ 15.18, p < 0.001). The results showed that the sharing manip­ ulation was effective. Further analysis revealed a significant difference in the level of responsibility between the high and low responsibility conditions (5.17 versus 3.89, t ¼ 6.12, p < 0.00). Hypothesis testing results. We expected the participants in a low rather than a high responsibility condition to choose a price discount rather than a bonus pack when buying for self-use rather than for sharing. A log-linear analysis was performed to test our prediction and the results revealed a significant interaction (x2 ð1Þ ¼ 8:13; x < :001Þ between re­ sponsibility (high versus low), purchase conditions (sharing versus selfuse), and sales promotions (price discount versus bonus pack). In the low responsibility scenario, there was also a significant interaction (x2 ð1Þ ¼ 20:79; x < :01Þ between conditions (sharing versus self-use) and sales promotions (price discount versus bonus pack). In the selfuse condition with low responsibility, 72% of the participants chose the price discount and only 28% chose the bonus pack (self-use: price discount > bonus pack). In the sharing condition with low re­ sponsibility, 36% of the participants chose the price discount and 64% chose the bonus pack (sharing: price discount < bonus pack). The results were similar to those in Study 1, which did not manipulate re­ sponsibility. The participants in the self-use with low responsibility condition showed a strong preference for the price discount over the bonus pack. However, in the high responsibility scenario, there was no significant interaction (x2 ð1Þ ¼ :22; x < :5Þ between conditions (sharing versus self-use) and sales promotions (price discount versus bonus pack). The result exhibited that participants’ preference to both promotional offers are not significant different either in self-use or sharing conditions. In the self-use condition with high responsibility, 52% and 48% of the participants chose the price discount and the bonus pack, respectively. In the sharing condition with high responsibility, 47% of the partici­ pants opted for the price discount and 53% for the bonus pack (see

The results of Studies 1, 2, and 3 suggested that the preference for bonus packs under the sharing condition is not the result of a desire for larger quantities. Instead, responsibility seems to be the crucial differ­ ence between sharing and self-use conditions. When consumers perceive greater responsibility for others in the sharing condition, it leads to a stronger preference for bonus packs, which are framed as “obtained gains.” When consumers perceive less responsibility for others in the self-use condition, it leads to a stronger preference for price discounts. We further conducted Study 4 to examine the moderating result of responsibility. 3.4.1. Method Design. Study 4, which was carried out to test the moderating role of responsibility, adopted a 2 (scenario: sharing versus self-use) � 2 (re­ sponsibility: high versus low responsibility) between-subjects design. Responsibility was manipulated via the condition descriptions. The participants in the high responsibility condition were asked to imagine that they were responsible for purchasing and bringing cookies home. Those in the low responsibility condition, in contrast, were asked to imagine that others shared responsibility for buying cookies. The par­ ticipants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and were asked to imagine that they were purchasing from a retailer. After answering four questions for a manipulation check, they were asked to indicate which promotional offer they would choose when purchasing 10 packs of cookies. Conditions such as the price of the cookies and the benefit level of the sales promotion were the same as those in Studies 1 (i.e., regular price: 10 packs of cookies for NT$200; price discount: 10 packs of cookies for NT$160; bonus pack: 12 packs for NT$200). Participants. Study 4 involved 157 participants, who joined for a chance to enter a lottery or to earn partial course credit. The majority (54%) were employed in various professions and 46% were students. Their ages ranged from 16 to 35 years old, and there were fewer men (43%) than women (57%). Procedure. As noted previously, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four scenarios: sharing with high responsibility; sharing with low responsibility; self-use with high responsibility; and 7

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

promotional offers can be affected by the type of food. For example, people may realize that vice food is bad for them in the long run. Thus, in a sharing condition, they may choose the bonus pack because this choice can reduce their guilt for consuming vice food (Mishra and Mishra, 2011). We conducted Study 3 as a field experiment to test whether consumer preference for bonus packs in the sharing condition would also be significant for virtue food. The results revealed the strongest preference for a bonus pack when buying to share with family members. In contrast, the bonus pack was the least popular choice when the pur­ chase in question was for self-use. This further confirms that the type of food does not change the pattern of choice and the feeling of guilt, emphasizing that the shopping condition is the main reason for the change in consumer decisions. In Study 3, we also performed regression analysis and bootstrapping to test the mediation effect. The results showed that Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Regarding household shopping, the role of responsibility may be a moderator of purchase decisions. Therefore, Study 4 included responsibility as a variable to test its potential effect on the preference for a bonus pack. The results showed that consumers who feel more responsible for a purchase are more likely to choose a bonus pack. This is consistent with the findings of previous studies on household shopping (e.g., Dholakia, 1999; Flagg et al., 2014; Qualls, 1987). People who are in charge of family shopping focus on the commuting benefits. Highly responsible people tend to care about whether the purchase is the right decision to avoid regret. Such people focus more on quantity than on cost. In addition, in Study 4 also indicated that the effect of responsibility on preference on promotion offer was higher in the self-use condition than in the sharing condition. Thus, the final study confirmed Hypothesis 3.

Fig. 3. Ratio of the preference for a price discount versus a bonus pack in two low responsibility conditions in Study 4.

Fig. 3). However, the results showed a greater willingness to choose a bonus pack as the degree of responsibility increased only in the self-use condition. The percentage of participants who chose the bonus pack was higher than those who chose the price discount in the sharing condition, regardless of the level of responsibility. Although the results revealed a slight decrease in the willingness to choose a bonus pack from 64% (sharing with low responsibility condition) to 53% (sharing with high responsibility condition), the magnitude of the decrease was not statis­ tically significant (p > 0.05). 3.4.3. Discussion The results of Study 4 showed a clear difference in the preference for a price discount versus a bonus pack based on the level of responsibility. This suggests that consumers have a stronger preference for price dis­ counts when buying for self-use with a low degree of responsibility, as their only concern is to benefit themselves and reduce their loss. How­ ever, when consumers have a high degree of responsibility, even when buying for self-use, they consider the details of the sales promotions beyond their monetary value (Grewal et al., 1996). For example, a bonus pack may seem attractive, as it means having a given food product longer or reducing the number of shopping trips to buy it. In contrast, when consumers have greater responsibility for sharing, they may choose a bonus pack because it is good for them and for others. In addition, the greater individuals’ sense of responsibility for sharing, the more likely they are to choose bonus packs. Responsibility is thus a crucial factor in consumer preference for price discounts and bonus packs. Whether a purchase is made for self-use or sharing, those who feel more responsible for that purchase are more likely to choose a bonus pack. A price discount is most effective when individuals buy for self-use and have a low degree of purchasing re­ sponsibility. Conversely, a bonus pack is most effective when purchased to share with others by people with a high degree of responsibility. As mentioned previously, the results of Study 4 supported Hypothesis 3.

4.1. Theoretical implications For thousands of years, sharing has been one of the most ubiquitous forms of behavior in the world (Price, 1975). When buying food in particular, consumers often think about sharing it with others, which in turn influences their preference for certain types of sales promotions. Faced with a choice between a price discount and a bonus pack, many prefer the latter because they frame it as an “obtained gain” (Diamond, 1992; Diamond and Campbell, 1989; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1984; Nunes and Park, 2003; Thaler, 1985). However, the degree of preference for bonus packs is likely to change with different levels of promotional benefits and types of food (Grewal et al., 1996; Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Mishra and Mishra, 2011; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). However, little research has addressed how the intention to buy for sharing or self-use may affect the preference for a price discount versus a bonus pack. This study was thus carried out to examine whether consumers tend to choose a price discount rather than a bonus pack when they make a purchase for self-use rather than for sharing. The results of the four experiments have several theoretical impli­ cations. First, previous studies have suggested that price discounts are preferred when the promotional benefit level is high or low (Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Heilman et al., 2002; Ofir, 2004; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009), whereas there is no difference between price discounts and bonus packs when the level is moderate (Diamond and Sanyal, 1990; Palazon and Delgado-Ballester, 2009). However, the findings of this study suggest that even for a moderate level of promo­ tional benefit, consumers tend to prefer bonus packs when buying to share, as the additional amount of product they receive benefits others. When buying for self-use, in contrast, they tend to focus on reducing their loss, and thus show a stronger preference for price discounts. Second, sharing is a form of nonreciprocal prosocial (or altruistic) behavior (Benkler, 2004; Widlok, 2004). Individuals are expected to be more altruistic toward family than friends because of their greater closeness to the former (Curry et al., 2013; Madsen et al., 2007). This study reveals that people are more likely to choose a bonus pack when making a purchase to share with family members rather than with

4. General discussion The purpose of this study was to examine whether consumers tend to choose price discounts rather than bonus packs when buying for self-use rather than for sharing. Four experiments were conducted. Study 1 involved two scenarios, purchasing to share and for self-use, and it limited the price of cookies. In other words, the price was kept constant under all conditions. Although the results supported Hypothesis 1, it could be argued that quantity was the determining factor in the par­ ticipants’ choice of the bonus pack in the sharing condition. In Study 2, the total number of cookies was the same in both scenarios, and the results confirmed Hypothesis 1. Previous studies have indicated that consumer preferences for 8

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026

friends. Third, this study proves that responsibility plays an important role in the sharing condition and may explain why sharers tend to prefer bonus packs. When consumers feel more responsible for a purchase, they are more likely to choose bonus packs even when buying for self-use.

use influences the preference for price discounts versus bonus packs, it has several limitations. Half of the participants in the experiments were students and may not be representative of the general population. Future research should repeat the experiments using a more varied sample to test the consistency of the results. To establish internal validity, this study focused on food product categories for products currently available in the market, but whose brand name was not revealed. The objective was to prevent previous brand experience from affecting the experimental manipulations. Future research should assess the external validity of the current results by examining several well-known manufacturer (or private retailer) brands. In addition, many factors, such as personality, norms, and rituals, can affect individuals’ sharing behavior. This study considered the role of responsibility alone. Future studies should explore how factors other than responsibility influence consumer preference for price discounts and bonus packs under sharing and self-use conditions. Moreover, the preference for bonus packs versus price discounts was shown to vary under sharing and self-use conditions. The experimental conditions of this research were set in physical retail outlets. It would be interesting to determine the degree of generalizability of the results for price discounts versus bonus packs in other retail channels (such as the online context) and shopping styles (personal visits/mobile shopping/ online shopping by computer). While this study argued and found evidence that bonus packs are often better in the sharing condition, this does not mean that bonus packs would never be chosen in the self-use condition. In our experi­ ments, we found a greater willingness to choose a bonus pack as the degree of responsibility increased in the self-use condition. In addition, we chose virtue food (yogurt) and vice food (cookies) to analyze the participants’ respondence. It would be useful to choose other nonperishable consumer goods to examine whether the bonus pack/price discount is still preferred under sharing/self-use conditions. Perhaps if the product is capable of lasting a few weeks and consumers wish to avoid having to buy more, the bonus pack may be preferred in the selfuse condition. Therefore, future research should investigate this possibility. Finally, the participants in this study were limited to imagining sharing with their family. However, individuals may show a stronger preference for bonus packs if they intend to share with other peer groups or social communities because of the greater responsibility involved. This condition deserves further study.

4.2. Managerial implications In real shopping scenarios, consumers often decide which sales promotion option to choose based on their purchase intention. It is thus important for marketers to understand the relationship between pur­ chase intention and sales promotion preferences. This study provides general guidance for marketers. First, in the self-use condition, price discounts were more appealing, whereas bonus packs were more appealing in the sharing condition. Due to current trends toward multichannel retail, many firms sell their products both online and offline. From the point of view of marketers, the emergence of different marketing channels responds to the needs of different customer seg­ ments. A number of studies have indicated the effectiveness of market­ ing strategies, including developing integrated sales and communication channels, in achieving synergy (Nakano and Kondo, 2018), as con­ sumers choose a particular marketing channel due to the utility it can offer. For instance, a single person (or a small household) tends to shop online, while a family tends to shop in supermarkets or hypermarkets. This study offers insights into the choice of sales promotion techniques and communication messages to attract consumers’ attention by considering their motives for shopping (sharing or self-use), particularly in seasonal promotional offer (e.g., Christmas, Easter Holiday, Back to School). Second, when consumers make a purchase, responsibility may affect their tendency to choose a particular promotion. When buying to share, they feel more responsible for themselves and others. Thus, they may choose a bonus pack promotion because the extra packs will benefit others. Even when buying for self-use, those with a high degree of re­ sponsibility show a stronger preference for bonus packs, as they are focused not only on reducing their loss, but also on future benefits. The results of this study should encourage marketers to consider the framing of sales promotion messages in product packaging. When marketers offer a bonus pack, the promotional message on the advertisement or product package should reflect the benefits to both buyers and potential users (sharing recipients) to increase its effectiveness. The main contribution of this study is its analysis of individual decision-making behavior when the decisions are made on behalf of others. It contributes to consumer research and provides comprehensive information for researchers and practitioners to design promotions that consider consumers’ shopping motives. For example, supermarket marketers can predict what their customers buy by categorizing their products by self-use or sharing. During the sports season, when men invite their friends over or spend time with their family at home to watch games, promoting bonus packs may be more lucrative than offering price discounts. However, for convenience stores that mainly serve single customers, bonus packs may not be the best way to promote sales because obtaining extra gains is not the main concern. This study also provides a perspective on the effectiveness of big data analytics. Although data mining is useful for examining the effectiveness of sales promotion tools by collecting behavioral data, many retailers still struggle to obtain these data. In addition, these data-driven techniques begin with a researcher having access to a data source on a phenomenon, rather than with theory (Johnson et al., 2019; Simsek et al., 2019). Data cannot tell us consumers’ motivations. Hence, this study contributes to addressing the shortcomings of big data analytics by using experimental design to establish the validity of those measures before employing them in the big data context and processing huge amount of data, as suggested by Simsek et al. (2019).

Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102026. References Alvarez-Alvarez, B., V� azquez-Casielles, R., 2005. Consumer evaluations of sales promotion: the effect on brand choice. Eur. J. Market. 39 (1/2), 54–70. Anderson, E., Simester, D., 2003. Effects of $9 price endings on retail sales: evidence from field experiments. Quant. Mark. Econ. 1 (1), 93–110. Aydinli, A., Bertini, M., Lambrecht, A., 2014. Price promotion for emotional impact. J. Mark. 78 (4), 80–96. Belk, R., 2007. Why not share rather than own? Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 611 (1), 126–140. Belk, R., 2010. Sharing. J. Consum. Res. 36 (5), 715–734. Belk, R.W., Wallendorf, M., Sherry, J.J.F., 1989. The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: theodicy on the odyssey. J. Consum. Res. 16 (1), 1-1. Benkler, Y., 2004. Sharing nicely: on shareable goods and the emergence of sharing as a modality of economic production. Yale Law J. 114, 273–358. Blattberg, R.C., Briesch, R., Fox, E.J., 1995. How promotions work. Mark. Sci. 14 (3), 122–132. Blom, A., Lange, F., Hess Jr., R.L., 2017. Omnichannel-based promotions’ effects on purchase behavior and brand image. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 39, 286–295. Boulding, W., Lee, E., Staelin, R., 1994. Mastering the mix: do advertising, promotion, and sales force activities lead to differentiation? J. Mark. Res. 31 (2), 159-159. Buil, I., Martínez, E., de Chernatony, L., 2013. The influence of brand equity on consumer responses. J. Consum. Mark. 30 (1), 62–74.

4.3. Limitations and future research directions Although this study offers a new perspective on how sharing or self9

A.P.-I. Yu et al.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54 (2020) 102026 Lee, S., Yi, Y., 2019. “Retail is detail! Give consumers a gift rather than a bundle”: promotion framing and consumer product returns. Psychol. Mark. 36 (1), 15–27. Li, J.Q., Rusmevichientong, P., Simester, D., Tsitsiklis, J.N., Zoumpoulis, S.I., 2015. The value of field experiments. Manag. Sci. 61 (7), 1722–1740. Lowe, B., 2010. Consumer perceptions of extra free product promotions and discounts: the moderating role of perceived performance risk. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 19 (7), 496–503. Lowe, B., Barnes, B.R., 2012. Consumer perceptions of monetary and non-monetary introductory promotions for new products. J. Mark. Manag. 28 (5–6), 629–651. Madsen, E.A., Tunney, R.J., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H.C., Dunbar, R.I.M., Richardson, J.M., McFarland, D., 2007. Kinship and altruism: a cross-cultural experimental study. Br. J. Psychol. 98 (2), 339–359. Mano, H., Elliott, M.T., 1997. Smart shopping: the origins and consequences of price savings. Adv. Consum. Res. (24), 504–510. Mela, C.F., Gupta, S., Lehmann, D.R., 1997. The long-term impact of promotion and advertising on consumer brand choice. J. Mark. Res. 34 (2), 248-248. Mishra, A., Mishra, H., 2011. The influence of price discount versus bonus pack on the preference for virtue and vice foods. J. Mark. Res. 48 (1), 196–206. Mussol, S., Aurier, P., de Lanauze, G.S., 2019. Developing in-store brand strategies and relational expression through sales promotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 47, 241–250. Nakano, S., Kondo, F.N., 2018. Customer segmentation with purchase channels and media touchpoints using single source panel data. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41, 142–152. Neslin, S.A., Henderson, C., Quelch, J., 1985. Consumer promotions and the acceleration of product purchases. Mark. Sci. 4 (2), 147–165. Nunes, J.C., Park, C.W., 2003. Incommensurate resources: not just more of the same. J. Mark. Res. 40 (1), 26–38. Ofir, C., 2004. Reexamining latitude of price acceptability and price thresholds: predicting basic consumer reaction to price. J. Consum. Res. 30 (4), 612–621. Ong, B., Ho, F., Tripp, C., 1997. Consumer perceptions of bonus packs: an exploratory analysis. J. Consum. Mark. 14, 102–112. Palazon, M., Delgado-Ballester, E., 2009. Effectiveness of price discounts and premium promotions. Psychol. Mark. 26 (12), 1108–1129. Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2004. Spss and sas procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36 (4), 717–731. Price, J.A., 1975. Sharing: the integration of intimate economies. Anthropologica 17 (1), 3-3. Price, L., Belk, R., 2016. Consumer ownership and sharing: introduction to the issue. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1 (2), 193–197. Qualls, W.J., 1987. Household decision behavior: the impact of husbands’ and wives’ sex role orientation. J. Consum. Res. 14 (2), 264–279. Quelch, J.A., 1989. Sales Promotion Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Ren, Y.-H., 2008. Exploration into Chinese traditional confucian thoughts on responsibility. Acta Psychol. Sin. 40 (11), 1221–1228. Schwartz, S.H., Howard, J.A., 1980. Explanations of the moderating effect of responsibility denial on the personal norm-behavior relationship. Soc. Psychol. Q. 43 (4), 441-441. Schwartz, S.H., Howard, J.A., 1981. A normative decision-making model of altruism. In: Rushton, P.J., Sorrentino, R.M. (Eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior: Social, Personality, and Developmental Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 189–211. Shu, S.B., Gneezy, A., 2010. Procrastination of enjoyable experiences. J. Mark. Res. 47 (5), 933–944. Simester, D., 2017. Field Experiments in Marketing. , Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, pp. 465–497. Simsek, Z., Vaara, E., Paruchuri, S., Nadkarni, S., Shaw, J.D., 2019. New ways of seeing big data. Acad. Manag. J. 62 (4), 971–978. Sinha, S.K., Verma, P., 2020. Impact of sales promotion’s benefits on perceived value: does product category moderate the results? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101887. Staub, E., 1978. Chapter 5 - prosocial behavior in response to varied needs. In: Staub, E. (Ed.), Positive Social Behavior and Morality. Academic Press, pp. 197–276. Sun, J., Supangkat, H., Balasubramanian, S., 2016. Peer-to-peer sharing of private goods: sellers’ response and consumers’ benefits. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1 (2), 262–276. Thaler, R., 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 4 (3), 199–214. Valdes, G., 1996. Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools. Teachers College Press. Widlok, T., 2004. Sharing by default? Anthropol. Theor. 4 (1), 53–70. Widlok, T., 2013. Sharing. HAU: J. Ethnogr. Theor. 3 (2), 11–31. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Lee, S., 2000. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (2), 195–211.

Campbell, D.T., 1969. Reforms as experiments. Am. Psychol. 24 (4), 409-409. Carlson, J.P., 2018. Consumer evaluations of bonus packs offered with price discounts. J. Consum. Mark. 35 (1), 22–31. Carlson, J.P., Weathers, D., Swain, S.D., 2016. Consumer responses to bonus pack and product enlargement claims. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 24 (1), 59–71. Carlson, J.R., Kukar-Kinney, M., 2018. Investigating discounting of discounts in an online context: the mediating effect of discount credibility and moderating effect of online daily deal promotions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 41, 153–160. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., 2012. Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutr. Rev. 70 (10), 571–593. Chandran, S., Morwitz, V.G., 2006. The price of “free”-dom: consumer sensitivity to promotions with negative contextual influences. J. Consum. Res. 33 (3), 384–392. Chen, H., Marmorstein, H., Tsiros, M., Rao, A.R., 2012. When more is less: the impact of base value neglect on consumer preferences for bonus packs over price discounts. J. Mark. 76 (4), 64–77. Curry, O., Roberts, S.G.B., Dunbar, R.I.M., 2013. Altruism in social networks: evidence for a ‘kinship premium’. Br. J. Psychol. 104 (2), 283–295. Darke, P.R., Chung, C.M.Y., 2005. Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: it depends on how you frame it. J. Retail. 81 (1), 35–47. Dholakia, R.R., 1999. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behaviors and motivations. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 27 (4), 154–165. Diamond, W.D., 1992. Just what is a’dollar’s worth’? Consumer reactions to price. J. Retail. 68 (3), 254-254. Diamond, W.D., Campbell, L., 1989. The framing of sales promotions: effects on reference price change. Adv. Consum. Res. 16, 241–247. Diamond, W.D., Sanyal, A., 1990. The effect of framing on the choice of supermarket coupons. Adv. Consum. Res. 17, 488–493. Dr�eze, X., Nisol, P., Vilcassim, N., 2004. Do promotions increase store expenditures? A descriptive study of household shopping behavior. Quant. Mark. Econ. 2, 59–92. Fine, S.H., 1980. Toward a theory of segmentation by objectives in social marketing. J. Consum. Res. 7 (1), 1–13. Fischer, E., Arnold, S.J., 1990. More than a labor of love: gender roles and christmas gift shopping. J. Consum. Res. 17 (3), 333–345. Flagg, L.A., Sen, B., Kilgore, M., Locher, J.L., 2014. The influence of gender, age, education and household size on meal preparation and food shopping responsibilities. Public Health Nutr. 17 (9), 2061–2070. Furby, L., 1978. Sharing: decisions and moral judgments about letting others use one’s possessions. Psychol. Rep. 43 (2), 595–609. Gneezy, A., 2017. Field experimentation in marketing research. J. Mark. Res. 54 (1), 140–143. Godelier, M., 2011. The Metamorphoses of Kinship. Verso, London. Gregory, C.A., 1982. Gifts and Commodities. Academic Press, London. Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., Sharma, A., 1996. Communicating price information through semantic cues: the moderating effects of situation and discount size. J. Consum. Res. 23 (2), 148-148. Guadalupe, V., 1996. Con Respecto: Bridging the Distances Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools. Columbia University: Teachers College Press. Gurven, M., 2006. The evolution of contingent cooperation. Curr. Anthropol. 47 (1), 185–192. Hardesty, D.M., Bearden, W.O., 2003. Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level. J. Retail. 79 (1), 17–25. Hayes, A.F., 2017. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications. Heilman, C.M., Nakamoto, K., Rao, A.G., 2002. Pleasant surprises: consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons. J. Mark. Res. 39 (2), 242–252. Humphrey, C., Hugh-Jones, S., 1992. Barter, Exchange and Value: an Anthropological Approach. Cambridge University Press. Hunt, R.C., 2005. One-Way Economic Transfers. In: Carrier, James G. (Ed.), A Handbook of Economic Anthropology. Elgar, Cheltanham, UK, pp. 290–301. Johnson, S.L., Gray, P., Sarker, S., 2019. Revisiting is research practice in the era of big data. Inf. Syst. (29), 41–56. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2), 263-263. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., 1984. Choices, values, and frames. Am. Psychol. 39 (4), 341–350. Kim, J., 2019. The impact of different price promotions on customer retention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. (46), 95–102. Kuo, K., Chuang, S., Huang, M., Wu, P., 2019. Fit or not? Bringing regulatory fit into the frame on health food preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 31 (5), 1388–1404. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2018-0434.

10