The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm

Effects of
The effects of promotion promotion
framing on consumers’ framing
price perceptions
149
The moderating role of a personal
sense of power Received 4 November 2012
Revised 12 March 2013
Choongbeom Choi and Anna S. Mattila 28 May 2013
Accepted 13 June 2013
School of Hospitality Management, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The use of price-based promotions is common in the service industry due to their positive
impact on sales in the short run. To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of various types of
promotions, the current research aims to examine the contrasting effect of two popular framing methods
(i.e. percentage-off versus dollars-off) on consumers’ perceived savings and willingness to buy. More
importantly, this research examines the moderating effect of personal sense of power on such relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used 2 £ 2 between subjects quasi-experimental
design to test the hypotheses. Respondents were asked to read a scenario regarding booking a hotel
room and then complete scales that measured their perceptions of savings and willingness to book.
Findings – Results indicate that personal sense of power moderates the effects of the promotion
frame on perceived savings and willingness to book. Individuals with a low sense of power perceive
significantly more savings and exhibit significantly higher booking intentions when the promotion is
framed in dollars-off rather than in percentage-off format. The framing manipulation, however,
had minimal effects among high power individuals. In addition, the authors find that confidence in
estimating the promoted price is the psychological mechanism that potentially explains the casual link
from power to perceived savings and willingness to book.
Originality/value – Drawing on the social psychology theory, the current study discovered some
boundary conditions for the framing effect in the context of pricing of services. In addition, the current
research advances the theoretical understanding of power’s psychological and behavioural effects in
the context of price promotions.
Keywords Framing effects, Personal sense of power, Price promotions
Paper type Research paper

Price-based promotions are common, largely due to their positive impacts on sales
volume. When developing price-related promotions, retailers must determine carefully
how to frame the discount though, because framing strongly affects consumers’
perceptions (DelVecchio et al., 2007; Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). Among the various
ways to frame price-based promotions, “dollars-off” and “percentage-off” are perhaps the
most widely employed (DelVecchio et al., 2007; Yin and Dubinsky, 2004). Prior research
shows that consumers process information differently across these two frames (Chen et al.,
1998), such that percentage-off promotions require more cognitive effort to process than Journal of Service Management
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2014
does price information that has been framed in dollars-off terms (Morwitz et al., 1998). pp. 149-160
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-5818
The authors thank the Marriott Foundation for the funding of this research. DOI 10.1108/JOSM-11-2012-0234
JOSM However, relatively less research addresses framing effects in intangible service
25,1 contexts (Hardesty and Bearden, 2003). In an attempt to address this gap, the current
study contrasts the effects of the two different framing methods on consumers’
perceptions of savings and willingness to buy in a hotel room booking situation.
More importantly, the current study also considers the moderating effect of power in
these relationships. In accordance with the activation – inhibition framework
150 (Keltner et al., 2003), we propose that a sense of power encourages people to focus on
the “deal” or reward nature of the promotion, regardless of the frame. Conversely, less
powerful consumers likely are motivated to avoid risk and therefore prefer a less risky,
less ambiguous, dollars-off frame.

Literature review
Promotion frame effects
Consumers perceive and react differently to unique descriptions of the same price
discount (Chen et al., 1998). For example, a discount presented in dollar terms makes
calculating the revised price relatively easy and ensures a high level of accuracy.
Percentage-off discounts instead are more complex; they require both multiplication
and addition (Morwitz et al., 1998). The perceived difficulty associated with more
complicated mathematics induces heuristic processing, which makes consumers prone
to undervalue these promotions. Relying on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1974), Morwitz et al. (1998) find that consumers tend to recall
lower prices when the surcharge is framed as a percentage rather than as absolute
dollars saved. Thus, when consumers face percentage-off promotions, the increased
difficulty associated with information processing may result in lower evaluations
of perceived savings, which decreases their willingness to buy (Chen et al., 1998;
DelVecchio et al., 2007; Krishna et al., 2002).
Yet Chen et al. (1998) argue that consumers’ preferences for a promotion frame
(i.e. dollars-off or percentage-off) might vary with the price level. For example,
a $200 discount on a $2,200 international flight seems attractive, in terms of dollar
savings, but the equivalent 9.1 per cent discount appears less attractive. In contrast,
when the price level of the promoted product or service is low, a 40 per cent discount on
a $4 beverage likely is highly appealing, whereas an equivalent $1.60 discount seems
less attractive. Therefore, framing a promotion as a percentage off is more effective for
low-priced consumer goods (typically, under $10; Chen et al., 1998; DelVecchio et al.,
2007; Heath et al., 1995), whereas in a more expensive, service-based setting, such as
hotels, dollars-off discounts should be more effective.

The moderating role of power

Consistent with previous research, the current study defines individual-level power as
a person’s ability to influence others’ states by providing or withholding resources or
administering punishment (Anderson and Berdahl, 2002; Anderson et al., 2012;
Keltner et al., 2003). In extending this concept, Anderson et al. (2012) define a personal
sense of power as a person’s perception of his or her own ability to influence others’
states. Among the several avenues available for investigating power, we are most
interested in how power influences consumers’ perceptions and behaviours.
With their approach – inhibition theory, Keltner et al. (2003) posit that greater
power activates a behavioural approach, whereas reduced power triggers inhibition.
Thus, powerful people exhibit a heightened propensity to action and lower levels of Effects of
deliberation than their powerless counterparts (Galinsky et al., 2003). promotion
Why might power activate an approach – inhibition system? Anderson and
Berdahl (2002) argue that greater power is associated with increased access to rewards framing
and means to obtain them. Therefore, stronger power holders are prone to detect
opportunities for material rewards, such as money (Keltner et al., 2003). Lower power
instead is associated with increased attention to threats, which increase behavioural 151
inhibition. Findings from recent research also extend approach – inhibition theory,
noting that people with more power tend to be more optimistic (Anderson and
Galinsky, 2006) and single-minded in their choices (Galinsky et al., 2003), whereas
powerless people tend to weigh the pros and cons of assorted options more
(Galinsky et al., 2003; Gruenfeld and Kim, 2003).
Applying the notion of power to the context of promotions, the current study predicts
that power influences consumers’ perceptions of savings. For example, people with less
power generally perceive ambiguous rewards as more threatening (Keltner et al., 2003).
Because percentage-off discounts require relatively complex calculations, they appear
more ambiguous than dollars-off discounts. In turn, low power consumers should
perceive significantly more savings when they encounter a promotion framed in
dollars-off rather than percentage-off terms. Elevated power instead should increase
perceptions of rewards and opportunities in ambiguous situations (Keltner et al., 2003),
such that powerful people are quicker to detect reward information, even from
percentage-off discounts. In this case, the current study anticipates no difference in
perceived savings between the two types of promotions. Formally:
H1. People with a low sense of power perceive significantly more savings when
promotions are framed in dollars-off rather than in percentage-off terms. People
with a high sense of power exhibit no such differences in perceived savings.
Furthermore, power should influence consumers’ purchase intentions. Previous
research has demonstrated that power leads consumers to be more optimistic (Anderson
and Galinsky, 2006) and increases their action tendencies, even when the choice options
are ambiguous (Galinsky et al., 2003). Powerful people tend to focus on positive features,
which further accentuate their purchase likelihood (Mourali and Nagpal, 2011). Thus, the
current study predicts that consumers with a sense of high power make purchase
decisions according to the positive aspect of the promotion (i.e. price reduction),
regardless of its discount format. Conversely, powerless consumers focus on the
potential downsides of their purchase decisions, weighting the negative features of
the choice options more heavily (Mourali and Nagpal, 2011). For example, some evidence
suggests that service providers and retailers inflate a product’s regular price, prior to
applying discounts (Urbany et al., 1988), so consumers may be particularly suspicious of
price inflation when the promotion is framed in percentage terms (Chen et al., 1998).
Accordingly, the current study hypothesizes that powerless people focus on such
potential downsides of promotions framed in percentage-off terms, which should lead
them to exhibit lower purchase intentions than they would with dollars-off promotions:
H2. Consumers with a low sense of power exhibit significantly lower intentions to
buy when promotions are framed in percentage-off rather than in dollars-off
terms. Consumers with a high sense of power exhibit no such differences in
willingness to buy.
JOSM The mediating role of confidence
The current study also examines psychological mechanisms that might explain the
25,1 casual links from power to perceived savings and willingness to buy. Specifically,
confidence implies that people believe in the accuracy of their cognitive estimates
(Fast et al., 2012). Recent cognitive psychology research shows that power increases
such confidence in self-evaluations of knowledge and estimates; across five
152 experiments, Fast et al. (2012) find that the psychological experience of power
increases people’s confidence in their decisions. Furthermore, in a price promotion
setting, DelVecchio et al. (2007) suggest that confidence in the accuracy of the revised
price largely determines evaluations of the promotion frame. When the revised price is
not posted, consumers prefer dollars-off over percentage-off promotions, because of the
greater difficulty associated with calculating percentage-off promotions, which lowers
their confidence. This lowered confidence in turn reduces the consumers’ perceptions of
savings. Moreover, confidence in price information is linked to willingness to buy
(Lambert, 1972; Mazumdar and Jun, 1992). Price uncertainty caused by insufficient
processing has been shown to lower consumers’ purchase intention (Zeithaml, 1982;
Mazumdar and Monroe, 1992; Mazumdar and Jun, 1992).
Extending this line of research, the current study predicts that self-confidence in the
ability to estimate the promoted price accurately mediates the effects of power on
perceived savings and willingness to buy. A greater sense of power likely induces
self-confidence about the consumer’s own ability to estimate the promoted price, which
enhances perceptions of savings and willingness to buy:
H3. A consumer’s confidence in his or her ability to estimate the promoted price
mediates the effect of power on perceived savings.
H4. A consumer’s confidence in his or her ability to estimate the promoted price
mediates the effect of power on willingness to buy.

Methodology
Sample and design
The research design used a 2 (power: high versus low) £ 2 (promotion frame:
percentage off versus dollars off) between-subject quasi-experiment. Participants were
174 adults (response rate ¼ 74 per cent) recruited from an online panel, each of whom
received $1 in payment. Each cell contained between 41 and 46 participants. In terms of
their demographics, 53 per cent of participants were men; 54 per cent were aged
between 20 and 29 years, 20 per cent between 30 and 39, 6 per cent between 40 and 49,
and 11 per cent were older than 50 years. With regard to education levels, 19 per cent of
the respondents had a high school degree, 69.5 per cent had either two- or four-year
college degrees, and 11.5 per cent had earned graduate degrees. In addition,
nearly 50 per cent of participants earned more than $40,000 annually. This study
received approval from the Institutional Review Board at a large northeastern
US university.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two promotion frame conditions
(percentage off versus dollars off). The measure of their sense of power used an
eight-item Likert scale, adapted from Anderson and Galinsky (2006) and
Anderson et al. (2012). Example items included, “If I want to, I get to make the
decisions,” “Even if I voice them, my views have little sway” (reverse-coded),
and “I can get others to do what I want” (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.89). A median split Effects of
identified high and low sense of power groups (median ¼ 5.00, M ¼ 4.85, promotion
minimum ¼ 2.00, maximum ¼ 7.00).
framing
Stimuli and procedures
With hotel rooms as the focal product category for the hypotheses tests, we asked
participants to read a scenario that described the hotel as offering either a 153
percentage-off or a dollars-off promotion. The scenario read as follows:
You are planning a short trip to New York City and need to book a hotel room for one night.
You search the Web for 4-star hotels and it seems that Hotel NY has all the features and
attributes that you desire. The advertised rates for similar hotels seem to be around
$225 per night. Hotel NY is currently offering a special promotion: $56.25 [25%] off from the
original price of $225 per night.
In both scenarios, we provided a picture of a hotel room, alongside the description
(Figure 1). In accordance with prior research (Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Kalwani
and Yim, 1992) and actual market prices, we manipulated the promotion level as
25 per cent off, or $56.25 off, the base rate of $225. In addition, by informing
participants that advertised rates for similar properties were around $225, we reduced
the possibility that a lack of information would influence their perceptions of the
savings or willingness to book. After reviewing the stimuli, the participants offered a
ballpark estimate of the promoted price, such that they either needed to take 25 per cent
of $225 and then subtract the product from the base rate, or else they subtracted
$56.25 from $225. Similar procedures are common in promotion frame research
(Chen et al., 1998; DelVecchio et al., 2007; Morwitz et al., 1998).

Hotel NY Lowest per night avg

• Clock radio
• Desk
$ 225
• In-room safe
• Rollaway beds available
• Complimentary toiletries
• Electronic/magnetic keys SAVE $ 56.25
• Iron/ironing board Off Listed Price
• Cribs/infant beds available
• Electronic check-out
• Room service
BOOK NOW!

Hotel NY Lowest per night avg

• Clock radio $ 225
• Desk
• In-room safe
• Rollaway beds available
• Complimentary toiletries SAVE 25%
• Electronic/magnetic keys
• Iron/ironing board Off Listed Price
• Cribs/infant beds available Figure 1.
• Electronic check-out Stimuli for the dollars-off
• Room service
and the percentage-off
BOOK NOW!
conditions
JOSM Dependent measures
25,1 The primary dependent variables were perceived savings and willingness to buy
(i.e. book the room). For perceived savings, participants indicated the significance of
the savings that the promoted room rate represented, using two items adopted from
Berkowitz and Walton (1980): no saving at all – extremely large savings and trivial –
significant savings (r ¼ 0.77). For willingness to buy, we used Grewal et al.’s (1998)
154 three-item, seven-point scale, anchored by “very low” and “very high” (Cronbach’s
a ¼ 0.96). Considering its potential to influence willingness to buy, we also included
Grewal et al.’s perceived acquisition value scale as a covariate (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.96).
To measure confidence in calculating the promoted price, we applied Fast et al.’s (2012)
three-item scale (e.g. “I feel confident in my calculation of the promoted price”;
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.86).

Results
Perceived savings
We conducted a 2 (power: high versus low) £ 2 (promotion frame: percentage off
versus dollars off) analysis of variance (ANOVA), with perceived savings as the
dependent variable (see Table I for the means and standard deviations). The ANOVA
revealed significant main effects of both power (F(1, 170) ¼ 8.55, p , 0.01) and the
promotion frame (F(1, 170) ¼ 5.96, p , 0.05). The two-way interaction between power
and promotion frame also was significant (F(1, 170) ¼ 3.84, p , 0.05; see Figure 2,
Panel A). A simple effects test showed that for respondents with a low sense of power,
perceived savings were significantly higher with the dollars-off promotion rather than
the percentage-off promotion (Mdollars ¼ 5.33, Mpercentage ¼ 4.57; F(1, 170) ¼ 9.57,
p , 0.01). However, we found no significant difference in perceived savings among the
high power respondents (Mdollars ¼ 5.50, Mpercentage ¼ 5.42; F , 1). Taken together,
these results support H1, because people with a low sense of power perceived more
savings from dollars-off promotions, whereas people with a high sense of power noted
no perceived savings differences across promotion frames.

Willingness to book
The willingness to book assessment used a 2 (power: high versus low) £ 2 (promotion
frame: percentage off versus dollars off) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with
perceived acquisition value as the covariate. In line with prior research, perceived
acquisition value significantly affected willingness to book (F(1, 169) ¼ 155.35,
p , 0.001). The ANCOVA revealed significant main effects of both power
(F(1, 169) ¼ 5.98, p , 0.05) and the promotion frame (F(1, 169) ¼ 4.15, p , 0.05),
though these main effects were qualified by their significant interaction (F(1, 169) ¼ 6.23,
p , 0.05; see Figure 2, Panel B). As we predicted in H2, willingness to book was
higher for a dollars-off promotion than for a percentage-off promotion in the low

High power Low power

Table I. Frame $ off % off $ off % off
Mean score
(standard deviation) Perceived savings 5.50 (0.95) 5.42 (1.04) 5.33 (1.15) 4.57 (1.38)
of dependent variables Willingness to book 5.07 (1.22) 5.31 (1.27) 4.85 (1.33) 4.10 (1.44)
 6 Effects of
promotion
framing
5.5
Perceived savings

5
155

4.5

4
Dollars-off Percentage-off

high power low power

(a)
6

5.5
Willingness to book

4.5

Figure 2.
4
Dollars-off Percentage-off Effects of power and
promotion frame on
high power low power perceived savings (a) and
willingness to book (b)
(b)

power group (Mdollars ¼ 4.85, Mpercentage ¼ 4.10; F(1, 169) ¼ 6.89, p , 0.01). Conversely,
the promotion frame did not affect willingness to book among high power respondents
(Mdollars ¼ 5.07, Mpercentage ¼ 5.31; F , 1).

Mediation analysis
To test H3, we examined the respondents’ confidence in calculating the promoted
price as a possible mediator of the effect of power on perceived savings, using Baron
and Kenny’s (1986) procedures. First, we regressed confidence about calculating the
promoted price on power. Second, we regressed perceived savings on power.
Third, we regressed perceived savings on both power and confidence. The results
suggested that confidence in calculating the promoted price mediated the effect
JOSM of power on perceived savings (Table II, Figure 3). The first regression equation
25,1 indicated that power significantly influenced confidence in calculating the promoted
price (b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05), and then the second regression equation demonstrated a
significant positive effect of power on perceived savings (b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.05).

Testing steps in mediation model B SE B b R2

156
(A) Testing Step 1
Outcome: confidence
Predictor: power 0.21 0.11 0.15 * 0.15
Testing Step 2
Outcome: perceived savings
Predictor: power 0.25 0.10 0.19 * 0.19
Testing Step 3
Outcome: perceived savings 0.33 0.06 0.35 * *
Predictor: power 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.40
Mediator: confidence
(B) Testing Step 1
Outcome: confidence
Predictor: power 0.21 0.11 0.15 * 0.15
Testing Step 2
Outcome: willingness to book
Predictor: power 0.40 0.11 0.26 * * 0.26
Testing Step 3
Table II. Outcome: willingness to book
Testing mediation Mediator: confidence 0.21 0.08 0.19 * *
effects on perceived Predictor: power 0.35 0.11 0.23 * * 0.33
savings (A) and
willingness to book (B) Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.01

β = 0.15* β = 0.35**
Perceived
Power Confidence
savings

β = 0.19* (reduced to 0.13, p > 0.05, when mediator is added)

β = 0.15* β = 0.19** Willingness to

Power Confidence
book

Figure 3. β = 0.26** (reduced to 0.23, p < 0.01, when mediator is added)

Mediation analysis
Note: Significant at: *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01
Notably, the third equation revealed a decreased effect of power (from b ¼ 0.19 to Effects of
b ¼ 0.13, p . 0.05) when we entered confidence into the regression (b ¼ 0.35, promotion
p , 0.01). These results are consistent with H3; confidence in calculating the promoted
price appears to fully mediate the effect of power on perceived savings. framing
The test of H4 used the same procedures as the test of H3. Confidence in calculating
the promoted price mediated the effect of power on willingness to book (Table II,
Figure 3). Specifically, power significantly influenced confidence (b ¼ 0.15, p , 0.05), 157
and we found a significant positive effect of power on willingness to book (b ¼ 0.26,
p , 0.01). Finally, confidence in calculating the promoted price continued to affect
willingness to book (b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.01), but when we included it, the effect of power
on willingness to book diminished (from b ¼ 0.26 to b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.01). Therefore,
confidence in calculating the promoted price partially mediates the effect of a sense of
power on willingness to book.

Discussion
General discussion
Drawing on Keltner et al.’s (2003) activation – inhibition frame work, this study has
examined the moderating effects of power on consumers’ perceptions of savings and
intentions to buy. Prior research notes the effects of promotion framing on when and
how to promote (Chen et al., 1998; DelVecchio et al., 2007); we outline some boundary
conditions for these framing effects in the context of service pricing. Congruent with
prior research (Hardesty and Bearden, 2003; Morwitz et al., 1998; Xia and Monroe, 2004),
we find that consumers’ perceptions of savings and willingness to book a hotel room
depend on whether the discount is presented in dollars off or a percentage off the base
price. Consistent with our first two hypotheses, people with a lower sense of power
perceive significantly more savings and exhibit significantly higher booking intentions
when the promotion is framed in a dollars-off rather than in a percentage-off format.
The framing manipulation had minimal effects among high power participants though.
These findings align with the approach – inhibition theory of power (Keltner et al., 2003)
and indicate that people with a low sense of power interpret the ambiguity of
percentage-off promotions as more suspicious (e.g. inflated base prices), whereas those
with a high sense of power focus on rewards and the means for obtaining those rewards,
regardless of the discount format.
In addition, this research advances our theoretical understanding of power’s
psychological and behavioural effects in the context of price promotions. Prior research
offers conflicting arguments about the relationship between power and confidence.
Whereas Anderson and Brion (2010) argue that confident people are more likely to
obtain power than their less confident peers, Fast et al. (2012) indicate that power is an
antecedent of confidence. With this experimental approach, the results indicate that
confidence in estimating the promoted price is the psychological mechanism that links
power to both perceived savings (H3) and intention to buy (H4). For power to have an
impact on perceived savings and purchase intentions, a sense of power must be
accompanied by confidence.

Managerial implications
These findings have several important implications for service providers.
First, when implementing price-based promotions aimed at low power consumers,
JOSM service providers should frame their promotions as dollars-off rather than percentage-off
25,1 offerings. Dollars-off discounts seem to result in higher perceptions of savings and
enhanced purchase intentions among consumers with a low sense of power. Conversely,
framing seems to have a minimal impact among consumers with high power. Service
providers can use either percentage-off or dollars-off formats for their price-based
promotions aimed at powerful people. Previous findings (Magee and Galinsky, 2008)
158 indicate that power and status are highly correlated, in that powerful people usually
have high status, and high-status people also have power. Therefore, service providers
can differentiate their promotion formats, according to their customer segment.
For high-status customers, service providers can use either framing method for their
price promotions. To attract low status customers, it might be better to use dollars-off
framing and thereby induce higher levels of perceived savings and purchase intentions.
The results further indicate that power creates confidence in the person’s own
ability to estimate the promoted price, which leads to higher perceptions of savings and
purchase intentions. Therefore, service providers might want to enhance the
customer’s sense of power temporarily at the point of purchase to boost sales volume,
such as by manipulating the servicescape. For example, Wright et al. (2001) suggest
that a pleasant atmosphere or ambience can enhance consumers’ feelings of power.
Thus, by altering the ambient conditions (e.g. music, scent), service providers can
temporarily increase customers’ sense of power, which then enhances their confidence
in their estimation and strengthens their purchase intentions in the context of
price-based promotions.

Limitations and further research

The present study contains several limitations. We manipulated the promotion level
as either 25 per cent off or $56.25 off, in accordance with existing market prices for
hotels in New York City. However, consumers might process information differently
for very large discounts (. 50 per cent) or very small discounts (, 5 per cent).
For example, when the promotion is small, consumers are unlikely to engage in
elaborate information processing. In a similar vein, when promotions are steep,
consumers are unlikely to process information extensively, because they might suspect
price inflation and feel less certain about the merits of the deal. Further studies with
different promotion levels thus should be conducted.
The current study employed power as a moderator in the context of price
promotions. Further research should explore other potential moderating variables,
such as people’s self-regulatory goal orientation. Because people with a prevention
focus tend to regulate their behaviours to obtain safety and security (Higgins, 1997),
they might prefer dollars-off discounts over percentage-off discounts. In contrast,
consumers with a promotion focus might make purchase decisions because the notion
of a “deal” appeals, regardless of the discount format.

References
Anderson, C. and Berdahl, J.L. (2002), “The experience of power: examining the effects of power
on approach and inhibition tendencies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 1362-1377.
Anderson, C. and Brion, S. (2010), “Overconfidence and the attainment of power”, unpublished
manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Anderson, C. and Galinsky, A.D. (2006), “Power, optimism, and the proclivity for risk”, European Effects of
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 511-536.
promotion
Anderson, C., Oliver, P.J. and Keltner, D. (2012), “The personal sense of power”, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 313-344. framing
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182. 159
Berkowitz, E.N. and Walton, J.R. (1980), “Contextual influences on consumer price responses:
an experimental analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 349-358.
Chen, S.F.S., Monroe, K.B. and Lou, Y.C. (1998), “The effects of framing price promotion
messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74
No. 3, pp. 353-372.
DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H.S. and Smith, D.C. (2007), “Cents or percent? The effects of promotion
framing on price expectations and choice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 158-170.
Fast, N.J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N.D. and Galinsky, A.D. (2012), “Power and overconfident
decision-making”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 117 No. 2,
pp. 249-260.
Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Magee, J.C. (2003), “From power to action”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 453-466.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B. and Krishnan, R. (1998), “The effects of price-comparison advertising
on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions”,
The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 46-59.
Gruenfeld, D.H. and Kim, P.H. (2003), “Dissent and decision making on the US Supreme Court:
conflict with a minority predicts cognitive complexity in the majority”, unpublished
manuscript.
Hardesty, D.M. and Bearden, W.O. (2003), “Consumer evaluations of different promotion types
and price presentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Heath, T.B., Chatterjee, S. and France, K.R. (1995), “Mental accounting and changes in price: the
frame dependence of reference dependence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 90-97.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1280-1300.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”,
Econometrica, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 263-291.
Kalwani, M.U. and Yim, C.K. (1992), “Consumer price and promotion expectations:
an experimental study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 90-100.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Anderson, C. (2003), “Power, approach, and inhibition”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 265-284.
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Yuan, H. (2002), “A meta-analysis of the impact of
price presentation on perceived savings”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 101-118.
Lambert, Z.V. (1972), “Price and choice behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 35-40.
Magee, J.C. and Galinsky, A.D. (2008), “Social hierarchy: the self-reinforcing nature of power and
status”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 351-398.
JOSM Mazumdar, T. and Jun, S.Y. (1992), “Effects of price uncertainty on consumer purchase budget
and price thresholds”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 323-329.
25,1 Mazumdar, T. and Monroe, K.B. (1992), “Effects of inter-store and in-store price comparisons on
price recall accuracy and confidence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 66-89.
Morwitz, V.G., Greenleaf, E.A. and Johnson, E.J. (1998), “Divide and prosper: consumers’
reactions to partitioned prices”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 453-463.
160 Mourali, M. and Nagpal, A. (2011), “The powerful select, the powerless reject: power’s influence
in decision strategies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66, pp. 874-880.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases”,
Science, Vol. 185 No. 4157, pp. 1124-1131.
Urbany, J.E., Bearden, W.O. and Weilbaker, D.C. (1988), “The effect of plausible and exaggerated
reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 95-110.
Wright, L.T., Nancarrow, C. and Kwok, P.M.H. (2001), “Food taste preferences and cultural
influences on consumption”, British Food Journal, Vol. 103 No. 5, pp. 348-357.
Xia, L. and Monroe, K.B. (2004), “Price partitioning on the internet”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 63-73.
Yin, W. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2004), “Framing effects of coupon face value on coupon redemption:
a literature review with propositions”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 877-896.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1982), “Consumer response to in-store price information environments”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 357-369.

About the authors

Choongbeom Choi is a PhD candidate in hospitality management at the Pennsylvania
State University. Choongbeom Choi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
cuc259@psu.edu
Anna S. Mattila, PhD, is the Marriott Professor of lodging management at the School of
Hospitality Management at the Pennsylvania State University. She holds a PhD in services
marketing from Cornell University. Dr Mattila is the Chief Editor of the Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research and currently serves on numerous editorial boards of journals specializing in
services management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints