27.10.2012 Views

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 7.22 c<strong>on</strong>tinued<br />

Hypothesis Findings<br />

H8: <strong>Household</strong>s where the shopping resp<strong>on</strong>sible pers<strong>on</strong> has a<br />

paid job are less promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sive.<br />

H8a: <strong>Household</strong>s where the shopping resp<strong>on</strong>sible pers<strong>on</strong> has a<br />

paid job are less out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-store promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sive, but not<br />

less in-store promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sive.<br />

H9: The presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-school age children in the household<br />

and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are negatively related.<br />

H9a: The presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-school age children in the household<br />

and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are negatively related, especially<br />

for out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-store promoti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

H10: Intrinsic variety seeking and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are not<br />

152<br />

related.<br />

H11: Store loyalty and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are negatively<br />

related.<br />

H11a: Store loyalty and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se are negatively<br />

related, especially for out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-store promoti<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

(NR=not rejected<br />

R = rejected)<br />

R<br />

Out <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the 10 hypotheses tested across in-store and out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-store promoti<strong>on</strong>s, 4<br />

hypotheses were not rejected. Two <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these empirical outcomes c<strong>on</strong>firm the two<br />

relati<strong>on</strong>ships most c<strong>on</strong>sistently described in literature. The positive relati<strong>on</strong>ship between<br />

size <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the household and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se (H3) and the negative relati<strong>on</strong>ship between<br />

promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se and the presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> young, n<strong>on</strong>-school age children (H9) were<br />

supported in this research. The presence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-school age children is found to be<br />

detrimental for promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se, especially for out-<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>-store promoti<strong>on</strong>s. The two other<br />

hypotheses supported by the empirical findings led to new insights as prior research led to<br />

inc<strong>on</strong>sistent results. Social class and promoti<strong>on</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>se were found to be positively<br />

related (H2), even more str<strong>on</strong>gly positive for in-store promoti<strong>on</strong>s (H2a), supporting the<br />

R<br />

NR<br />

NR<br />

NR<br />

R<br />

R

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!