Double discount is an effective format for promoting purchase decisions comparing to single discount (economically equivalent). However, previous studies have overlooked how the discount level applied affects consumers' processing. This study details how consumers evaluate double discount and use different processes according to discount level (low, medium and high), this study extends understanding of computational error and anchoring & Adjustment processes: Low discount leads consumers to anchor on the first piece of information. Medium and high discount instead induces computational error. This paper reveals better ways for managers to present double discounts in markets. Finally, the paper concludes with a present implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Ammar, N., & Alleil, J. (2019). When 25% Off Plus 20% off is Equal to 40% Off: Multiple Discount Promotions are Preferred to Single-Discount Promotions. International Journal of Academic research in business and sciences, 9(6).
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer Decision Making. In Handbook of Consumer Behavior, T. Robertson AND H. Kassarjian, Eds. Prentice Hall, 50–84.
Chen, S. F. S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(99)80100-6
Chen, H. A., 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. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.044
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Chen, H. A., & Rao, A. R. (2007). When Two Plus Two Is Not Equal to Four: Errors in Processing Multiple Percentage Changes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1086/518531
Davis, D. F., & Bagchi, R. (2018). How Evaluations of Multiple Percentage Price Changes Are Influenced by Presentation Mode and Percentage Ordering: The Role of Anchoring and Surprise. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(5), 655–666.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243718808554
Schley, D. R. (2013). When 15% Off Plus 10% Off is More Than 30% Off: Multiple-Discount Promotions are Preferred to Larger Single-Discount Promotions. NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 41, 733-734.
Dhar, R., & Nowlis, S. (1999). The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 369–384.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209545
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 399–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1017
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The Effects of Price-Comparison Advertising on Buyers’ Perceptions of Acquisition Value, Transaction Value, and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252160
Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating Price Information through Semantic Cues: The Moderating Effects of Situation and Discount Size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 148. https://doi.org/10.1086/209473
Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(03)00004-6
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4359(02)00072-6
Kim, H. M., & Kramer, T. (2006). “Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions. Marketing Letters, 17(4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-9309-7
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374. https://doi.org/10.1086/209174
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price Perceptions and Consumer Shopping Behavior: A Field Study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172830
Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers’ Judgments of Prices and Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 92–104.
https://doi.org/10.1086/374696
Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: The Left?Digit Effect in Price Cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 54–64.
https://doi.org/10.1086/429600
Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2009). The Ease-of-Computation Effect: The Interplay of Metacognitive Experiences and Naive Theories in Judgments of Price Differences. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 81–91.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.81
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
In-Text Citation: (Dib & Alleil, 2022)
To Cite this Article: Dib, H., & Alleil, J. (2022). How Evaluations of Double Discount Are Influenced by Discount Level: The Role of Anchoring and Systematic Computational Error. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(5), 614 – 622.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
