Information congruity in scarcity appeal: A structural equation modeling study of time-limited promotions

References

• Andrews, J. C., S. Burton, and J. Kees. 2011. “Is Simpler Always Better? Consumer Evaluations of Front-of-Package Nutrition Symbols.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 30 (2): 175–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, J. C., R. G. Netemeyer, and S. Burton. 1998. “Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising.” The Journal of Marketing 62 (4): 62–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P., and J. R. Edwards. 1998. “A General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research.” Organizational Research Methods 1 (1): 45–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (2): 238–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bless, H., D. M. Mackie, and N. Schwarz. 1992. “Mood Effects on Attitude Judgments: Independent Effects of Mood Before and After Message Elaboration.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (4): 585–595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozzolo, A. M., and T. C. Brock. 1992. “Unavailability Effects on Message Processing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Empirical Test.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 13 (1): 93–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brannon, L. A., and T. C. Brock. 2001. “Limiting Time for Responding Enhances Behavior Corresponding to the Merits of Compliance Appeals: Refutations of Heuristic-Cue Theory in Service and Consumer Settings.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 10 (3): 135–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock, T. C. 1968. “Implications of Commodity Theory for Value Change.” In Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, edited by A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom, 243–275. New York, NY: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. 1987. “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion.” In Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, edited by M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, and C. P. Herman, 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A. H. Eagly. 1989. “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing Within and Beyond the Persuasion Context.” In Unintended Thought, edited by J. S. Uleman, and J. A. Bargh, 212–252. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. 1985. Influence: Science and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, E. P., III. 1980. “The Optimal Number of Response Alternatives for a Scale: A Review.” Journal of Marketing Research 17 (4): 407–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dens, N., and P. De Pelsmacker. 2010. “Consumer Response to Different Advertising Appeals for New Products: The Moderating Influence of Branding Strategy and Product Category Involvement.” Journal of Brand Management 18 (1): 50–65.
   Google Scholar
• Ditto, P. H., and J. B. Jemmott III. 1989. “From Rarity to Evaluative Extremity: Effects of Prevalence Information on Evaluations of Positive and Negative Characteristics.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1): 16–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folger, R. 1992. “On Wanting What We Do Not Have.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 13 (1): 123–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G., and C. Leavitt. 1985. “Cognitive Theory and Audience Involvement.” In Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research, and Applications, edited by L. F. Alwitt, and A. A. Mitchell, 221–240. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Jr., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Howard, D. J., and R. A. Kerin. 2006. “Broadening the Scope of Reference Price Advertising Research: A Field Study of Consumer Shopping Involvement.” Journal of Marketing 70 (4): 185–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacobucci, D., N. Saldanha, and X. Deng. 2007. “A Meditation on Mediation: Evidence that Structural Equations Models Perform Better than Regressions.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 17 (2): 139–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inman, J. J., A. C. Peter, and P. Raghubir. 1997. “Framing the Deal: The Role of Restrictions in Accentuating Deal Value.” Journal of Consumer Research 24 (1): 68–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent, G., and J. N. Kapferer. 1985. “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles.” Journal of Marketing Research 22 (1): 41–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, M. 1989. “Scarcity Effects on Value: Mediated by Assumed Expensiveness?” Journal of Economic Psychology 10 (2): 257–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynn, M. 1992. “The Psychology of Unavailability: Explaining Scarcity and Cost Effects on Value.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 13 (1): 3–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., and S. Chaiken. 1991. “Promoting Systematic Processing in Low Motivation Settings: Effects of Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (1): 13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mano, H. 1997. “Affect and Persuasion: The Influence of Pleasantness and Arousal on Attitude Formation and Message Elaboration.” Psychology and Marketing 14 (4): 315–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.” Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, C. C., and A. M. Colman. 2000. “Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences.” Acta Psychologica 104 (1): 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spears, N. 2001. “Time Pressure and Information in Sales Promotion Strategy: Conceptual Framework and Content Analysis.” Journal of Advertising 30 (1): 67–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephenson, M. T., W. L. Benoit, and D. A. Tschida. 2001. “Testing the Mediating Role of Cognitive Responses in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.” Communication Studies 52 (4): 324–337.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, L. D., S. Marrs, M. G. Millar, and E. Cole. 1984. “Processing Time and the Recall of Inconsistent and Consistent Behaviors of Individuals and Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47 (2): 253–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Symonds, P. M. 1924. “On the Loss of Reliability in Ratings Due to Coarseness of the Scale.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 7 (6): 456–461.
   Google Scholar
• Verhallen, T. M. M. 1982. “Scarcity and Consumer Choice Behavior.” Journal of Economic Psychology 2 (4): 299–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viswanathan, M., S. Sudman, and M. Johnson. 2004. “Maximum Versus Meaningful Discrimination in Scale Response: Implications for Validity of Measurement of Consumer Perceptions About Products.” Journal of Business Research 57 (2): 108–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weathers, D., S. Sharma, and R. W. Niedrich. 2005. “The Impact of the Number of Scale Points, Dispositional Factors, and the Status Quo Decision Heuristic on Scale Reliability and Response Accuracy.” Journal of Business Research 58 (11): 1516–1524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weijters, B., E. Cabooter, and N. Schillewaert. 2010. “The Effect of Rating Scale Format on Response Styles: The Number of Response Categories and Response Category Labels.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 27 (3): 236–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, C., and S. Hsing. 2006. “Less is More: How Scarcity Influences Consumers' Value Perceptions and Purchase Intents Through Mediating Variables.” Journal of American Academy of Business 9 (2): 125–132.
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3): 341–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar