Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior

more <strong>of</strong>ten (probably on a per-meal basis) are more likely to plan their purchases in
advance and are hence less in-store promotion responsive. But both Manchanda et al.
(1999) and Ainslie and Rossi (1998) concluded that families that make more shopping trips
are more price sensitive.
We conclude from these previous findings (which can be found in Table 3.11) that
shopping frequency and promotion response are probably related, but it is not clear in what
way. We therefore do not derive a hypothesis about the relationship between shopping
frequency and promotion response.
Table 3.11: Summary <strong>of</strong> studies relating shopping frequency with promotion response
66
Sign Relationship Study
+ Bell and Lattin (1998) in-store
Manchanda et al. (1998)
Ainslie and Rossi (1998)
- Bell and Lattin (1998) out-<strong>of</strong>-store
Inman and Winer (1998) in-store
Hypothesis
In this and the preceding section, drivers <strong>of</strong> promotion response (and possible interacting
variables) were identified, and hypotheses regarding their specific effects on promotion
response where derived. Table 3.12 presents an overview <strong>of</strong> these hypotheses. Two
hypotheses (H3, H9) were incorporated for validation purposes. Prior research has led to
consistent findings for these two drivers <strong>of</strong> promotion response. The empirical outcomes <strong>of</strong>
testing these two hypotheses will be used to validate the empirical approach applied. The
remaining hypotheses try to provide new insights into possible drivers <strong>of</strong> household
promotion response. This is done, either by trying to end the equivocality <strong>of</strong> prior empirical
findings, by using possible non-linear relations, or by taking possible interaction effects
with type <strong>of</strong> promotion into account (in-store versus out-<strong>of</strong>-store promotions).