Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

Too Unfair to Redeem? The Role of Fairness

and Pleasure in Social Coupon Redemption
Short Paper

Cheng Luo Ya Zhou

Department of Business National University of Singapore &
Administration Nottingham University Business
Tianjin University, China School China
cheng.luo@tju.edu.cn ainhoa0617@gmail.com

Abstract
To interest customers and drive redemption, social features are increasingly
incorporated into digital coupon, such as cooperation or competition with others to
acquire coupon. Besides, customers can easily evaluate their allocated coupon value
based on the comparison with others' allocated value. This social comparison behavior
may induce customers’ fairness perception and emotion, which could further influence
customers' behavior. However, there is little understanding of how social coupon could
affect customers' coupon redemption behavior. Motivated thus, we develop a research
model based on fairness heuristic theory and social comparison literature to explain the
effects of the coupon allocation outcome (i.e., equal, advantaged and disadvantaged
outcomes) on coupon redemption, where fairness perception and pleasure are
hypothesized as the mediators. In addition, we also incorporate the moderating effects
of coupon acquisition process and relationship closeness into our model. We design an
experiment to test our model. Contributions and implications are expected.

Keywords: Social coupon redemption, fairness perceptions, social comparison

Introduction
Given the advantage in precise targeting and convenient distribution, digital coupon is getting popular in
recent years and has been widely used as a promotion tool to attract new customers and stimulate
consumption (Ailawadi et al. 2006; Busse et al. 2010). Statistics show that 48% of US companies have
adopted digital coupon in their marketing campaign (Saleh 2018). Despite the popularity of digital
coupon, its redemption rate remains relatively low (Agency 2017; Brown 2018), which greatly impairs the
coupon effectiveness. Therefore, how to motivate customers to redeem the coupon has become a major
concern for both researchers and marketers.
To increase coupon redemption rate, marketers have incorporated social features in the digital coupon.
For example, a new type of coupon is designed and distributed to a group of customers who could
compete or cooperate with each other to acquire the coupon. Besides, customers can see the coupon value
obtained by other customers. Such coupon is becoming particularly appealing because it enriches social
interactions among customers (we call it social coupon hereafter). However, its effectiveness remains
untested.
Different from traditional coupon which is normally delivered to customers individually, social coupon is
distributed to a group of customers so that customers within the group are able to know the value of their
own coupon as well as others’. Given the coupon value may be the same or different among the customers,
the awareness of others’ coupon value likely activates one’s social comparison process. According to prior
literature, social comparison could elicit one’s fairness perceptions and emotional feelings, which may

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 1

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

further affect his/her behavior (Fliessbach et al. 2007; Xia et al. 2004). As prior studies on coupon
redemption have mainly focused on coupon content design (e.g., Fang et al. 2015; Krishna and Zhang
1999; Laran and Tsiros 2013), there is little understanding on how customers’ fairness perceptions and
emotional feelings induced by social comparison would influence their coupon redemption behavior.
Moreover, social coupon enables two kinds of coupon acquisition process, i.e., cooperation and
competition. On one hand, the cooperation process encourages collaboration among customers by
highlighting that customers need to work together to acquire the coupon and customers’ coupon value is
independent from each other. On the other hand, the competition process emphasizes the competitive
nature of the coupon acquisition through keeping the coupon value for the customer group constant such
that one customer’s coupon value depends on how much other customers within the group have acquired.
These two distinctive processes likely determine how customers interact with each other and the process
of their social comparison (Stapel and Koomen 2005). Even though a few studies have explored the
impact of social influence on customers’ behavior (e.g., Hong et al. 2017), the role of social interaction in
affecting customers' coupon redemption behavior has still been largely ignored.
Further, the relationship among consumers who participate in a social coupon group could be diverse. For
example, when a customer posts the social coupon on his/her social network sites, the other participants
of the social coupon are likely to be his/her friends with high closeness. If the social coupon is distributed
on a portal site, the participants of the social coupon may be strangers with low closeness. The different
relationship closeness among customers may affect their involvement in social comparison (Tesser 1988).
Thus, this study takes the relationship closeness among customers into consideration when examining the
impact of social comparison on customers’ coupon redemption behavior.
In response to the identified practical concerns and theoretical gaps, this study aims to investigate the
effectiveness of social coupon from a social comparison perspective. Specifically, we propose three
research questions: (1) How does coupon allocation outcome influence customers’ fairness perceptions
and emotions? (2) How do the fairness perceptions and emotions affect customers’ coupon redemption?
(3) How do coupon acquisition process and customers’ relationship closeness moderate the effect of
coupon allocation outcome? To address these proposed questions, we develop a theoretical model based
on fairness heuristic theory and social comparison literature. In the next section, a literature review on
coupon redemption is first conducted, followed by a discussion on our theoretical background.

Literature Review and Theoretical Background

Prior Literature on Coupon Redemption
Coupon has been popularly used in marketing campaigns. It is found that the provision of coupon
positively affects product sales (Heilman et al. 2002) and customers’ shopping enjoyment (Lee and Tsai
2014). Despite its great importance, coupon has a relatively low redemption rate (Agency 2017; Brown
2018). To address this problem, both IS and marketing researchers have investigated the factors that may
affect customers’ coupon redemption behavior. For instance, Bawa et al. (1997) found that the face value
of a coupon was positively associated with its redemption rate. Krishna and Zhang (1999) focused on the
coupon duration (i.e., how long will a coupon becomes expired) and showed that longer coupon duration
for a brand not only increased the redemption for coupons of that brand but also the redemption for
coupons of a competing brand. The impacts of many other factors, such as coupon distribution location
(e.g., Fang et al. 2015), coupon type (Kristofferson et al. 2017), coupon content framing (e.g., Cheema and
Patrick 2008), have also been discussed.
While prior research has examined various factors that could influence customers’ coupon redemption
behavior, it has mainly focused on coupon content design (e.g., face value, valid duration, etc). Little is
known about how interactions among customers would affect their coupon redemption behavior. In the
context of social coupon, customers are involved in a social interaction to obtain the coupon, i.e., they
need to work with others for coupon acquisition. According to prior literature, people’s interactions with
others may trigger a process of social comparison, which could affect their fairness perceptions, emotions
and behavior (Fliessbach et al. 2007; Xia et al. 2004). In order to address the above gap, we incorporate
fairness heuristic theory and social comparison literature to investigate the effect of social coupon on
coupon redemption.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 2

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

Fairness Heuristic Theory

Fairness heuristic theory proposes that when interacting with an authority, people tend to seek for
available information to form a fairness judgment, i.e., whether they are treated in an unbiased and fair
way (Lind 2001; Lind et al. 1993). Once people have formed such fairness judgment, they will use it to
interpret all the events and behaviors of the authority. Original fairness heuristic theory focuses on the
process information because the process information comes before the outcome information so as to exert
greater influence on people’s judgment of fairness. However, some researchers have further developed
this theory and suggested that people could form a heuristic fairness judgment based on either process or
outcome information (Qin et al. 2015; vandenBos et al. 1997). Fairness heuristic theory is appropriate to
be applied in our study context for two reasons. First, as the company decides the allocation of coupon
value among customers, it may be seen as the authority in its relationship with the customers. Thus,
customers likely form a fairness judgment when they participate in the social coupon. Second, from a
fairness heuristic perspective, customers will rely on their fairness judgment to decide their future
interaction with the authority (i.e., the company), which enables us to understand how fairness
perceptions would affect customers’ coupon redemption behavior.
Different from distributive justice theories, which focus on the fairness judgment based on outcome
information, and procedural justice theories, which emphasize the importance of process information in
forming fairness judgment, fairness heuristic theory provides a comprehensive view of fairness
perceptions, including both distributive and procedural fairness (vandenBos et al. 1997). Specifically,
distributive fairness refers to people’s perceived fairness of the outcome they have received (such as price
fairness), while procedure fairness focuses on people’s fairness judgment of the process used to determine
the outcome (such as promotion fairness, Xia et al. 2010). Accordingly, in our study, customers’ perceived
fairness is defined as their assessment of whether their coupon value and the process to allocate the value
are reasonable, acceptable, or justifiable. We include both distributive and procedural justice dimensions
because they are integral of a heuristic fairness perception.
Fairness perception influences people’s behavior in two ways. On one hand, it affects people’s attitude
toward the target (Xia et al. 2004). For example, customers’ feeling of price unfairness may reduce the
perceived value of the product, thus decreasing customers’ intention of purchasing the product. On the
other hand, it could also elicit people’s subjective feelings, such as guilt and anger (Weiss et al. 1999).
When people evaluate a monetary reward, they take considerations of both fairness judgment and their
own self-interest. For example, acquiring favorable payoff could lead to unfairness perception
accompanying with guilt, whereas it could also generate pleasure due to the extra benefits for personal
interest (vandenBos et al. 2006). To form fairness perception, people usually evaluate their
output/reward compared to their input/effort in an exchange relationship, e.g., customers and retailers.
Besides, during this evaluation, other people’s outcome is often used as an important reference
(vandenBos et al. 1997; Xia et al. 2004). In the context of social coupon, the awareness of coupon
allocation outcome likely elicits customers’ social comparison, which plays an important role in forming
fairness perception about the reward (Messe and Watts 1983). This motivates us to incorporate the
literature on social comparison to understand the impact of outcome information on fairness judgment.
In addition, different from previous studies on fairness perceptions (e.g., Qin et al. 2015; Xia et al. 2004)
which examine the impact of either outcome or process information, we incorporate the influence of
coupon acquisition process and relationship closeness among customers in affecting heuristic fairness
perception.

Social Comparison
Social comparison refers to people’s comparison with others on dimensions such as personal qualities or
conditions to achieve self-evaluation (Diener and Fujita 1997; Festinger 1954). According to the
comparison direction, there are upward comparison with those who are better-off in the comparison
dimensions and downward comparison with those whose conditions are worse (Diener and Fujita 1997).
In particular, social comparison theory identifies psychologically close others, such as friends with high
homophily, as the most important comparison target because they are comparable and salient (Major
1994; Tesser 1988; Wood 1989). In other words, compared to distant strangers, people are more likely to
engage in a comparison with close others.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 3

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

People rely on social comparison information to evaluate the outcomes they have received (Fliessbach et
al. 2007) and generate emotions (Berridge and Kringelbach 2008). For example, when a person gets a
better reward than others, s/he will actively process reward information and feel pleasant because the
superior reward satisfies his/her self-interest. The intensity of such pleasure will be lower when the
person finds his/her reward is not different from that of others. Further, if the person receives an inferior
reward, his/her reward processing will be less likely activated and they are unlikely to experience pleasure
(Fliessbach et al. 2007). In addition to generating emotions (e.g., pleasure), the social comparison
information could also serves as the reference for the formation of fairness judgment (Xia et al. 2004).
The social comparison in the above example emphasizes the differences between the target and the
referent person, which is called the contrast effect (Stapel and Koomen 2005). Social comparison can also
result in an assimilation effect, which leads the target person to focusing on the similarities with the
referent person (Collins 1996). In fact, people often seek to establish similarities with those performing
better or achieving better resources because these similarities could make people believe they are better
also (Stapel and Koomen 2005). For example, when acquiring a coupon, motivated by an assimilation
effect, the customer may focus on the similarities with the referent person, e.g. both of them have
obtained rewards (i.e., coupon). It is suggested that whether there is a contrast or assimilation effect
depends on how people process the comparison information. Specifically, when people differentiate
others from themselves, they will develop a differentiating mindset which drives a contrast effect.
However, when people include others in the self, they will have an integration mindset and an
assimilation effect may occur.

Model Development

Figure 1.Research Model

Drawing on fairness heuristic theory and literature on social comparison, we develop our research model
to examine the impacts of coupon allocation outcome on customers’ fairness perceptions, emotions, and
further their coupon redemption behavior (see Figure 1). Similar to price comparison context (Xia et al.
2004), there exist three outcomes of the coupon allocation, i.e., equal outcome, advantaged outcome and
disadvantaged outcome. Specifically, equal/advantaged/disadvantaged outcome suggests that the coupon
value received by the target person is equal/higher/lower to that of the referent. Moreover, we consider
the moderating roles of two different coupon acquisition processes (i.e., cooperation and competition)
and relationship closeness between the target person and the referent (i.e., high and low) in affecting the
impacts of coupon allocation outcome.
According to distributive justice theories, people’s fairness perception would be elicited when a
comparison process is conducted (Messe and Watts 1983). For example, if customers find their price for a
product is different from other customers’, they may feel the company who decides the product price
treats them in an unfair and untrustworthy way, which could trigger their perception of unfairness (Xia et
al. 2004). In the context of social coupon, the coupon allocation outcome is available to all customers who
have participated in the coupon campaign. When a customer finds his/her coupon value differs from
other customers’ (i.e., unequal outcome), the differences would reduce the customer’s perceived fairness.
However, people’s judgment of fairness can be biased by their own interest. Specifically, people tend to
maximize their own welfare compared with that of others (Oliver 2010; Oliver and Swan 1989). Thus,
people’s unfairness perceptions will be less severe when they receive an advantaged outcome (i.e., their

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 4

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

outcome is better than others’) than when they obtain a disadvantaged outcome (i.e., their outcome is
worse than others’, Ordonez et al. 2000). Moreover, attribution theory suggests that people are less
motivated to seek explanations for the unequal outcomes when the inequality is to their advantage
compared to when the inequality is to their disadvantage (Weiner 1985). In this sense, although unequal
outcome leads to lower perceived fairness than equal outcome, customers would have stronger perception
of unfairness when they receive a disadvantaged (compared to advantaged) unequal outcome. Thus, we
propose,
H1a: Compared to unequal outcome, equal outcome leads to higher perceived fairness.
H1b: Compared to disadvantaged outcome, advantaged outcome leads to higher perceived fairness.
In addition to affecting customers’ fairness perceptions, social comparison could also lead to emotional
impact (Buunk et al. 1990). In this study, we are particularly interested in customers’ pleasure obtained
through participating in the social coupon because the evaluation of reward (e.g., coupon value) based on
social comparison often elicits customers’ pleasure (Berridge and Kringelbach 2008; Fliessbach et al.
2007). Specifically, when customers acquire an advantaged outcome and conduct downward comparison
with others, their pleasure induced by coupon acquisition would be high because they feel they have
acquired extra benefits to satisfy their own interest. In contrast, customers’ pleasure is likely to be reduced
when they are provided with a disadvantaged outcome and conduct an upward comparison. Besides,
while an equal outcome may not significantly enhance customers’ pleasure by providing extra benefits
(Fliessbach et al. 2007), it can still generate certain positive feelings (e.g., pleasure). Thus, we propose,
H2a: Compared to equal and disadvantaged outcomes, advantaged outcome leads to higher pleasure.
H2b: Compared to disadvantaged outcome, equal outcome leads to higher pleasure.
Fairness heuristic theory suggests that, in addition to the outcome, the process also plays an important
role in affecting customers’ assessment of fairness, particularly when we consider the effect of social
comparison process (Qin et al. 2015). Social coupon enables two different processes for coupon
acquisition, i.e., competition and cooperation. According to social comparison literature (Stapel and
Koomen 2005), the process determines the focus of social comparison. Specifically, a competitive process
generally leads people to focus on how distinctive they are with others (i.e., a differentiating mindset) and
drives a contrast effect. On the contrary, people engaged in a cooperative process tend to process
information by highlighting the similarities with others (i.e., an integration mindset) so that an
assimilation effect may occur.
In our context, when the coupon acquisition process is competitive, the customers would concentrate
their attention on the differences of the coupon allocation outcome, thus highlighting the contrast effect
and increasing the salience of outcome inequality. Consequently, the effect of coupon allocation outcome
on perceived fairness will become stronger. In contrast, when the coupon acquisition process is
cooperative, an assimilation effect may drive the customers to include others into themselves and focus
attention on the similarities while ignoring the differences of the coupon allocation outcome. For example,
the customer may regard the allocated coupon value as intra-group gains in participating in the social
coupon. Therefore, the impact of coupon allocation outcome on perceived fairness will become weaker.
Thus, we propose,
H3: The impact of coupon allocation outcome on perceived fairness is stronger when the coupon
acquisition procedure is competitive, compared to when the coupon acquisition procedure is
cooperative.
In a similar vein, when the coupon acquisition process is competitive, customers would become more
sensitive to the coupon allocation outcome because the contrast effect which directs their attention to
differences with others is dominated. In such case, the impact of coupon allocation outcome on their
pleasure likely becomes more salient. That is, the increase (decrease) in customers’ pleasure due to an
advantaged (disadvantaged) outcome and downward (upward) comparison would be larger. When the
process is cooperative, however, the assimilation effect puts less emphasis on the unequal outcome, and
hence the impact of social comparison elicited by coupon allocation outcome on customers’ pleasure
would be weakened. Thus, we propose,

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 5

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

H4: The impact of coupon allocation outcome on pleasure is stronger when the coupon acquisition
procedure is competitive, compared to when the coupon acquisition procedure is cooperative.
Another important characteristic of social coupon influencing customers’ social comparison process is the
relationship closeness among the customers who have participated in the coupon. According to social
comparison literature, people are more likely to be involved in social comparison when their relationship
with the referent person is close (Tesser 1988). Consequently, when relationship closeness among the
customers is high, the customers are more likely to make a fairness judgment based on the comparison of
coupon allocation outcome. In contrast, when the relationship closeness among the customers is low, the
customers would be less likely involved in social comparison. As a result, the impact of coupon allocation
outcome on customers’ fairness perception could be attenuated.
Moreover, based on reward allocation literature (Hong et al. 2017), people have a higher tendency to
prefer fair reward allocation outcome when they share the rewards with their close friends, compared to
strangers. Applying this argument in our context, when the relationship among customers is close, the
customers will prefer an equal outcome and become sensitive to an unequal outcome. As a result, the
effect of coupon allocation outcome on customers’ fairness perception would be more salient. When the
relationship among customers is distant, however, customers may have a lower tendency to pursue
outcome equity. Thus, they would be more tolerant towards unequal outcome, weakening the impact of
coupon allocation outcome on perceived fairness. Based on above justifications, we propose that,
H5: The impact of coupon allocation outcome on perceived fairness is stronger when the relationship
closeness is high, compared to when the relationship closeness is low.
As mentioned above, relationship closeness is positively related to people’s tendency to conduct social
comparison and their preference for equal outcomes. Thus, when the relationship among customers is
close, the social comparison process becomes more salient which strengthens the impact of coupon
allocation outcome on customers’ pleasure. In contrast, when the relationship closeness is low, customers
are less likely to be involved in social comparison or be influenced by the allocation outcome.
Consequently, the comparison of coupon allocation outcomes is less likely to be activated and drive the
change in customers’ pleasure. Based on above justifications, we propose that,
H6: The impact of coupon allocation outcome on pleasure is stronger when the relationship closeness is
high, compared to when the relationship closeness is low.
According to fairness heuristic theory (vandenBos et al. 1997), after people have formed a fairness
judgment, they will utilize this judgment to interpret others’ behaviors and decide their future interaction
with others. Besides, prior studies suggest that customers’ fairness perception is closely related to their
satisfaction and loyalty of a company as well as their purchase behavior of the company’s product (Darke
and Dahl 2003). In our context, if the customers believe that the company has not treated them in a fair
way in the coupon campaign, they will conduct a self-protection behavior, such as refusing to purchase
products from the company (Xia et al. 2004). Thus, their intention to redeem the coupon will be low. In
contrast, if customers find the coupon is fair, they are likely to perceive the company as trustworthy and
be willing to redeem the coupon and purchase products from the company. Thus, we propose that,
H7: Perceived fairness is positively related to customers’ intention to redeem a coupon.
Prior literature on customer behavior suggests that customers’ emotions, such as pleasure, could be an
important factor in determining their purchase behavior. For example, when a shopping experience is
pleasant, the customers will spend longer time and more money on shopping (Donovan et al. 1994).
Similarly, Aydinli et al. (2014) find that the pleasure generated by promotion (e.g., a coupon) motivates
customers to purchase the promoted products. In our context, the pleasure acquired through social
coupon is likely to increase customers’ intention to purchase the promoted product by redeeming the
coupon. Based on above justifications, we propose that,
H8: Pleasure is positively related to customers’ intention to redeem a coupon.

Proposed Methodology
To test our proposed hypotheses, a 3 (coupon allocation outcome: equal outcome, advantaged outcome
and disadvantaged outcome) × 2 (coupon acquisition process: cooperation vs. competition) × 2

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 6

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

(relationship closeness: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment is designed. We aim to recruit
participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk and randomly assign them to one of the twelve experimental
conditions.
Our experiment consists of two tasks. In the first task, the participants are required to work with another
person (i.e., their teammate) to play a team building computer game. The purpose of this game is to help
participants develop intimacy with their teammate who, in fact, is a virtual player with real human picture
and name. However, the participants do not know that their teammate is actually a virtual player. Upon
the completion of the game, the participants will be asked to conduct an online shopping task (i.e., our
second task). Specifically, they need to purchase a tennis racket on our simulated e-commerce website in
the same way as they do in real life.
After the participants have made their decision, a pop-up ad will automatically show up, informing the
participants that they have won a chance to get a coupon of tennis ball. All participants are told that the
coupon is designed for a group of two customers. For participants in the cooperation condition, they will
be told that the value of coupon for each customer within the group is independent. Participants in the
competition condition, however, read that the total coupon value for the group is fixed and they need to
compete with the other customer for higher coupon value. After participants have read the coupon
description and agreed to participate in the coupon, they will be shown the information about the
customers in the coupon group and the value of the coupon distributed to each customer. For participants
who decide to redeem the coupon, they shall choose their desired tennis balls among a variety of options.
All participants receive a coupon of the same face value (i.e., 5 dollars) to eliminate the potential influence
of different monetary values on participants’ coupon redemption. The coupon allocation outcome is
manipulated by varying the value of coupon the other customer within the group receives. In the equal
outcome condition, advantaged outcome condition, and disadvantaged outcome condition, the other
customer in the group will obtain a coupon of 5, 1 and 10 dollars, respectively. We manipulate the
relationship closeness by presenting different information about the other customer in the coupon group.
For participants in the high relationship closeness condition, the other customer in the group is their
teammate in the previous computer game represented by the same human picture and name used in the
game. However, for participants in the low relationship closeness condition, the other customer in the
group is a stranger represented by new human picture and name.
Upon the completion of the shopping task, the participants will be required to fill in a questionnaire which
captures the constructs of our interest. Specifically, measurement items for perceived fairness (e.g., I
think the coupon campaign I just participated in is (1) unfair – (7) fair) are adapted from Xia et al.
(2010). Measurement items for pleasure (e.g., I felt (1) unpleasant – (7) pleasant during the coupon
campaign I just participated in) are adapted from Laros and Steenkamp (2005). Measurement items for
intention to redeem the coupon (e.g., I will (1) definitely not – (7) definitely redeem the coupon I have just
acquired) are adapted from Cheema and Patrick (2008). Participants’ preference for tennis and their
perceived effort in acquiring the coupon are included as control variables. Given our model includes
multiple mediation and moderation relationships, we find the Model 9 proposed by Hayes (2018) is
appropriate to test our model.

Expected Contributions
Considering the low redemption rate of digital coupon, marketers have incorporated social features into
the coupon design to leverage social influence and motivate coupon redemption. However, there is a lack
of understanding of how these features affect coupon redemption. This study is expected to make several
theoretical contributions in this regard. First, this study will extend coupon literature by investigating how
customers’ social interactions influence their coupon redemption. Specifically, from a social comparison
perspective, we examine the factors that affect customers’ fairness perceptions, emotions and behavior.
Second, this study will contribute to fairness heuristic theory by integrating it with social comparison
literature. Specifically, we clarify the interaction effect of coupon allocation outcome and coupon
acquisition process on forming a heuristic fairness judgment. Moreover, this study adapts the fairness
heuristic theory to coupon context and examines the effect of heuristic fairness perception on coupon
redemption behavior.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 7

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

In terms of the practical implications, by explicating how coupon allocation outcome and coupon
acquisition process influence customers’ redemption behavior, this study will help marketers refine the
digital coupon design. For example, when the marketers incorporate social features into a coupon, such as
competitive or cooperative processes for coupon acquisition, they need to be careful that unequal reward
allocation may induce customers’ unfairness perception, which could harm coupon redemption.
Particularly, the unfairness perception could lead to negative evaluations about the product or the
company, as well as negative emotions (e.g., guilt and anger), which would prevent the customers from
redeeming the coupon. Besides, although an unequal outcome may bring greater pleasure to those with
advantaged outcome, it may reduce the pleasure of those receiving disadvantaged outcome. One
suggestion could be that the marketers choose a cooperative process or promote the coupon among those
with weak tie to alleviate the negative impact of unequal outcomes. The other suggestion is that when
marketers adopt a competitive process or distribute the coupon among the social network with strong tie,
they need to take other actions to enhance the fairness perception and improve the pleasant experience,
especially for the customers with disadvantaged outcome.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to sincerely thank four anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and
suggestions in helping improve this work. In addition, we thank the National Natural Science Foundation
of China for the support of this study (Project Number: 71702126).

References
Agency, C. D. 2017. "Digital Coupon Trends Q4 2017." Retrieved September 2, 2018, from
https://www.slideshare.net/CreativeDigitalAgency/digital-coupon-trends-q4-2017
Ailawadi, K. L., Harlam, B. A., Cesar, J., and Trounce, D. 2006. "Promotion Profitability for a Retailer:
The Role of Promotion, Brand, Category, and Store Characteristics," Journal of Marketing Research
(43:4), pp. 518-535.
Aydinli, A., Bertini, M., and Lambrecht, A. 2014. "Price Promotion for Emotional Impact," Journal of
Marketing (78:4), pp. 80-96.
Bawa, K., Srinivasan, S. S., and Srivastava, R. K. 1997. "Coupon Attractiveness and Coupon Proneness: A
Framework for Modeling Coupon Redemption," Journal of Marketing Research (XXXIV), pp. 517-
525.
Berridge, K. C., and Kringelbach, M. L. 2008. "Affective Neuroscience of Pleasure: Reward in Humans
and Animals," Psychopharmacology (199:3), pp. 457-480.
Brown, A. 2018. "Study Shows Roi for Mobile Coupon Redemption." Retrieved Apr 24, 2018, from
https://pointofsale.com/Success-stories/Study-Shows-ROI-for-Mobile-Coupon-Redemption.html
Busse, M. R., Simester, D. I., and Zettelmeyer, F. 2010. ""The Best Price You'll Ever Get": The 2005
Employee Discount Pricing Promotions in the Us Automobile Industry," Marketing Science (29:2),
pp. 268-290.
Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., and Dakof, G. A. 1990. "The Affective
Consequences of Social Comparison: Either Direction Has Its Ups and Downs," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology (59:6), pp. 1238-1249.
Cheema, A., and Patrick, V. M. 2008. "Anytime Versus Only: Mind-Sets Moderate the Effect of Expansive
Versus Restrictive Frames on Promotion Evaluation," Journal of Marketing Research (45:4), pp.
462-472.
Collins, R. L. 1996. "For Better or Worse: The Impact of Upward Social Comparison on Self-Evaluations,"
Psychological Bulletin (119:1), pp. 51-69.
Darke, P. R., and Dahl, D. W. 2003. "Fairness and Discounts: The Subjective Value of a Bargain," Journal
of Consumer Psychology (13:3), pp. 328-338.
Diener, E., and Fujita, F. 1997. "Social Comparisons and Subjective Well-Being," in Health, Coping, and
Well-Being: Perspectives from Social Comparison Theory, B. Buunk and F. Gibbons (eds.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, pp. 329-357.
Donovan, R. J., Rossiter, J. R., Marcoolyn, G., and Nesdale, A. 1994. "Store Atmosphere and Purchasing
Behavior," Journal of Retailing (70:3), pp. 283-294.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 8

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

Fang, Z., Gu, B., Luo, X., and Xu, Y. 2015. "Contemporaneous and Delayed Sales Impact of Location-
Based Mobile Promotions," Information Systems Research (26:3), pp. 552-564.
Festinger, L. 1954. "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes," Human Relations (7:2), pp. 117-140.
Fliessbach, K., Weber, B., Trautner, P., Dohmen, T., Sunde, U., Elger, C. E., and Falk, A. 2007. "Social
Comparison Affects Reward-Related Brain Activity in the Human Ventral Striatum," Science
(318:5854), pp. 1305-1308.
Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, (Second ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Heilman, C. M., Nakamoto, K., and Rao, A. G. 2002. "Pleasant Surprises: Consumer Response to
Unexpected in-Store Coupons," Journal of Marketing Research (39:2), pp. 242-252.
Hong, Y. L., Pavlou, P. A., Shi, N., and Wang, K. L. 2017. "On the Role of Fairness and Social Distance in
Designing Effective Social Referral Systems," MIS Quarterly (41:3), pp. 787-809.
Konovsky, M. A. 2000. "Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business Organizations,"
Journal of management (26:3), pp. 489-511.
Krishna, A., and Zhang, Z. J. 1999. "Short- or Long-Duration Coupons: The Effect of the Expiration Date
on the Profitability of Coupon Promotions," Management Science (45:8), pp. 1041-1056.
Kristofferson, K., McFerran, B., Morales, A. C., and Dahl, D. W. 2017. "The Dark Side of Scarcity
Promotions: How Exposure to Limited-Quantity Promotions Can Induce Aggression," Journal of
Consumer Research (43:5), pp. 683-706.
Laran, J., and Tsiros, M. 2013. "An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Uncertainty in Marketing
Promotions Involving Free Gifts," Journal of Marketing (77:2), pp. 112-123.
Laros, F. J., and Steenkamp, J.-B. E. 2005. "Emotions in Consumer Behavior: A Hierarchical Approach,"
Journal of Business Research (58:10), pp. 1437-1445.
Lee, L., and Tsai, C. I. 2014. "How Price Promotions Influence Postpurchase Consumption Experience
over Time," Journal of Consumer Research (40:5), pp. 943-959.
Lind, E. A. 2001. "Fairness Heuristic Theory: Justice Judgments as Pivotal Cognitions in Organizational
Relations," in Advances in Organizational Justice, J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (eds.). Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, pp. 56-88.
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., and de Vera Park, M. V. 1993. "Individual and Corporate Dispute
Resolution: Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic," Administrative Science Quarterly
(38:2), pp. 224-251.
Major, B. 1994. "From Social-Inequality to Personal Entitlement - the Role of Social Comparisons,
Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (26),
pp. 293-355.
Messe, L. A., and Watts, B. L. 1983. "Complex Nature of the Sense of Fairness - Internal Standards and
Social-Comparison as Bases for Reward Evaluations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(45:1), pp. 84-93.
Oliver, R. L. 2010. "Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer," Asia Pacific Journal of
Management (2:2), pp. 285-286.
Oliver, R. L., and Swan, J. E. 1989. "Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in
Transactions - a Field Survey Approach," Journal of Marketing (53:2), pp. 21-35.
Ordonez, L. D., Connolly, T., and Coughlan, R. 2000. "Multiple Reference Points in Satisfaction and
Fairness Assessment," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (13:3), pp. 329-344.
Qin, X., Ren, R., Zhang, Z.-X., and Johnson, R. E. 2015. "Fairness Heuristics and Substitutability Effects:
Inferring the Fairness of Outcomes, Procedures, and Interpersonal Treatment When Employees Lack
Clear Information," Journal of Applied Psychology (100:3), pp. 749-766.
Saleh, K. 2018. "Digital Coupon Marketing – Statistics and Trends." Retrieved Apr 24, 2018, from
https://www.invespcro.com/blog/digital-coupon-marketing/
Stapel, D. A., and Koomen, W. 2005. "Competition, Cooperation, and the Effects of Others on Me,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (88:6), pp. 1029-1038.
Tesser, A. 1988. "Toward a Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior," in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier, pp. 181-227.
vandenBos, K., Peters, S. L., Bobocel, D. R., and Ybema, J. F. 2006. "On Preferences and Doing the Right
Thing: Satisfaction with Advantageous Inequity When Cognitive Processing Is Limited," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology (42:3), pp. 273-289.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 9

 Role of Fairness and Pleasure in Coupon Redemption

vandenBos, K., Vermunt, R., and Wilke, H. A. M. 1997. "Procedural and Distributive Justice: What Is Fair
Depends More on What Comes First Than on What Comes Next," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology (72:1), pp. 95-104.
Weiner, B. 1985. "An Attributional Theory of Achievement-Motivation and Emotion," Psychological
Review (92:4), pp. 548-573.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., and Cropanzano, R. 1999. "Effects of Justice Conditions on Discrete Emotions,"
Journal of Applied Psychology (84:5), pp. 786-794.
Wood, J. V. 1989. "Theory and Research Concerning Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes,"
Psychological Bulletin (106:2), pp. 231-248.
Xia, L., Kukar-Kinney, M., and Monroe, K. B. 2010. "Effects of Consumers' Efforts on Price and
Promotion Fairness Perceptions," Journal of Retailing (86:1), pp. 1-10.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., and Cox, J. L. 2004. "The Price Is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price
Fairness Perceptions," Journal of Marketing (68:4), pp. 1-15.

Thirty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco 2018 10