A little something for me and maybe for you, too:Promotions that relieve guilt

Sooyeon Nikki Lee-Wingate & Kim P. Corfman

Published online: 16 October 2009# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Guilt often accompanies and discourages self-indulgent, nonessentialconsumption. We show that gift-with-purchase promotions designed with carefulattention to the nature of the gift and its intended user can reduce guilt bycounterbalancing the self-indulgence or creating a favorable comparison withanother’s consumption. We find that gift-with-purchase promotions diminish guiltwhen (a) the gift is guilt-neutral (e.g., practical or necessary) and intended for use bythe purchaser or when (b) the gift is guilt-inducing (e.g., hedonic or self-indulgent)and intended to be enjoyed by someone else.

Keywords Consumer promotions . Gift-with-purchase promotions .

Consumption guilt

1 Introduction

Our society consumes a large volume of products and services unnecessary to ourbasic well-being. Despite this, our feelings and behaviors are influenced by thenotion that consumption for practical purposes is justified, while nonessential, self-

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395DOI 10.1007/s11002-009-9093-2

S. N. Lee-Wingate (*)Charles F. Dolan School of Business, Fairfield University, 1073 North Benson Road, DSB 1114,Fairfield, Connecticut 06824, USAe-mail: slee-wingate@fairfield.edu

K. P. CorfmanStern School of Business, New York University, 44 West Fourth Street, KMC 11-56,New York, New York 10012, USAe-mail: kcorfman@stern.nyu.edu

indulgent consumption is not (e.g., Kivetz and Simonson 2002a, 2002b; Lascu 1991;Strahilevitz and Myers 1998; Thaler 1980). Feelings of guilt discourage manyconsumers from purchasing products and services that they associate primarily withpleasure (Okada 2005), especially when consuming them is considered unhealthy orimproper (Prelec and Herrnstein 1991; Wertenbroch 1998), models or packages thatare higher priced because they include unnecessary features (Nowlis and Simonson1996), and other items whose purchase is perceived as violating social or culturalnorms (Lascu 1991; Thaler and Shefrin 1981).

Consistent with Krugler and Jones (1992), we define consumption guilt as “thedysphoric feeling associated with the recognition that one has violated a personallyrelevant moral or social standard” in the consumption of a product or service. Weargue that consumption guilt results primarily from two forces. The first isintrapersonal and derives from the desire to counterbalance guilt-inducingconsumption. Consumers use a variety of methods to reduce or avoid feelings ofguilt and prevent the guilt they cannot eliminate from discouraging desiredpurchases. They compensate with virtuous consumption, such as donations tocharity (Strahilevitz and Myers 1998), work to justify their rewards (Kivetz andSimonson 2002a), and avoid the impact of second thoughts by making commitmentsand prepaying (Kivetz and Simonson 2002b; Thaler 1980). For example, a consumerreluctant to indulge in the purchase of an item of jewelry for herself might be moreinclined if she were offered a case designed to protect it when she travels as a gift.This practical jewelry case helps restore the balance upset by the self-indulgent,guilt-inducing jewelry purchase. The second force is interpersonal and stems fromthe desire to consume fairly or equitably. Comparison to others can make thesituation either better or worse. If others are consuming for pleasure as much as weare, we may feel less consumption guilt. If they are consuming less, making practicalpurchases, or spending money on other people rather than themselves, we may feelmore guilt in comparison (Baumeister et al. 1994). The prospective jewelrypurchaser above might also respond to a free article of jewelry meant for herhusband, which would help restore her sense of interpersonal balance.

Consumer sales promotions have been shown to induce trial, accelerate purchase,increase consumption, and encourage brand-switching by removing barriers. Whileprice promotions have a direct impact on the cost to a consumer of acquiring aproduct, the value of a nonmonetary promotion is less easily integrated with priceand consumers have been shown to process that information independently(Chandran and Morwitz 2006; Diamond and Sanyal 1990; Nunes and Park 2003).Nonmonetary promotions are worth understanding better because they are moreeffective than simple discounts (Cotton and Babb 1978), they have a less negativeeffect on the brand than price promotions (Hardesty and Bearden 2003), and they areless sensitive to negative quality information (Chandran and Morwitz 2006). Whilegifts-with-purchase or free gift promotions are common nonmonetary promotions(Raghubir 2004), little research has addressed them directly.

We focus on the effect a gift-with-purchase promotion can have on a consumer’sbehavior, beyond the influence of its monetary value, and the circumstances underwhich this kind of promotion has the greatest impact. We suggest that an importantreason why gifts-with-purchase are effective is their ability to overcome anonfinancial barrier—consumption guilt. This is consistent with the findings that

386 Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395

gift-with-purchase promotions are more effective than discounts of equivalent value(Cotton and Babb 1978; Hardesty and Bearden 2003) and increase purchasingwithout eroding brand equity (Jones 2008) and that promotions in general are moreeffective in increasing the sales of hedonic (versus utilitarian) items (Zheng andKivetz 2009). While the focus of the price promotion research has been primarily onpractical consumer goods (e.g., coffee, margarine, detergent, and paper towels),increased consumption has been noted in categories in which consumption guilt mayhave been a deterrent such as potato chips and soft drinks (Bell et al. 1999), frozennovelties and candy (Narasimhan et al. 1996), and chocolate (Lammers 1991). Wesuggest that one way in which these promotions increased sales may have been thealleviation of consumption guilt.

In this research, we show that carefully designed gift-with-purchase promotionscan alleviate consumption guilt by restoring either the intrapersonal or interpersonalbalance. We find that consumers are more likely to purchase a guilt-inducing productor service when it is accompanied by either (a) a guilt-neutral gift intended for useby the purchaser or (b) a guilt-inducing gift intended for use by someone other thanthe purchaser.

2 Theory and hypotheses

Consumers have several options for dealing with consumption guilt. They can:

(a) Make the purchase and bear the guilt;(b) Decide not to purchase (Greenleaf and Lehmann 1995; Luce 1998);(c) Earn it, based on effort (Kivetz and Simonson 2002a), endurance (Mill 1848;Belk 1988), or preparation (Fitzsimons et al. 2007; Wertenbroch 1998);(d) Redefine the purchase as a necessity or identify practical value in it (e.g.,buying this very expensive briefcase will make a better impression on myclients; a day at a spa will help me give more to my family); or(e) Deserve it, based on comparison to others (e.g., My Weight Watcher buddyis eating a Krispi Kreme donut, I should be able to have one too; my best friendbought a flat screen television, I should at least be able to get the new smartphone I want).

Marketers try to help consumers make the guilt-reducing arguments above byoffering justifications. For example, advertisers use “you deserve it” copy to showthat the consumption is appropriate, emphasize that consumers are entitled to areward if they work hard to earn it (Kivetz and Simonson 2002a), and highlight thevalue of expensive product features to show that, in fact, they are not extravagances(Nowlis and Simonson 1996).

We focus on ability of gift-with-purchase promotions to help consumers justifythe purchase of guilt-inducing items. This justification takes three forms—the greatervalue provided by the addition of a gift to the package because there is no additionalcost, the increased practicality of the package with the addition of the gift(addressing the intrapersonal balance), and the increased deservingness of thepurchaser when the gift will be given to someone else (addressing the interpersonalbalance).

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395 387387

The first justification, greater value, is common to all gift-with-purchase contexts.As long as the gift is perceived as providing some kind of utility, the consumer isgetting more for the same expenditure (Simonson et al. 1994).

H1 The presence of a gift-with-purchase that is viewed as having utility (a) reducesfeelings of guilt associated with the purchase and (b) increases the likelihood ofpurchase.

The second kind of justification, increased practicality, uses the “redefine”approach described above in (d). This attempts to balance the intrapersonalconsumption scale whose balance is threatened when we contemplate violatingnorms about frugality, saving money, spending on necessities and for other peoplerather than on our own pleasure, and spending no more than necessary when we dobuy things for ourselves (Heilbroner 1985; Berry 1994; Weber 2002). A practicalgift-with-purchase (e.g., an umbrella offered with a cologne purchase) offsets theself-indulgence, rendering the entire purchase more of a necessity and thus,diminishing guilt. However, if the gift is also guilt-inducing (e.g., bath salts with apurchase of perfume), the value of the purchase rises, but the guilt remains. Thus,

H2 The presence of a guilt-neutral gift-with-purchase intended for use by thepurchaser (a) reduces feelings of guilt associated with the purchase and (b) increasesthe likelihood of purchase more than either a guilt-inducing gift or no gift at all.

Increased deservingness is the third approach to guilt reduction via gifts-with-purchase. As suggested by alternative (e), a common source of guilt is the feelingthat one is overrewarded when compared to others (e.g., Walster et al. 1973; Homans1961, Messé and Watts 1983). This guilt can be relieved by adjusting one’s owninput (e.g., working harder than others to deserve the greater reward), psycholog-ically distorting the situation (e.g., assessing one’s work as more valuable than thatof others), or bringing someone else into the perceptual equation to balance theinterpersonal consumption scale. Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) found that consum-ers relieve guilt using a variation of this approach, which involves generosity—offsetting their own hedonic consumption by giving to others—and others havefound that individuals experiencing guilt are more likely to engage in charitablebehaviors (e.g., Baumann et al. 1981). We propose that the presence of a giftexplicitly intended for someone else reduces consumption guilt.

There is even more potential to reduce guilt by giving when the nature of the giftis taken into account. A utilitarian gift for someone else that accompanies a luxurypurchase for oneself, such as a practical item presented to a spouse, may distort theinterpersonal balance of guilt even further. The self-other balance is adjusted onlyslightly because the guilt originates from the fact that the purchaser will beconsuming something self-indulgent. More effective in reducing guilt is a gift forsomeone else of something equally guilt-inducing. If my gift will allow someoneelse an unnecessary pleasure, it may not be as bad for me to do the same.

We propose that gifts explicitly intended for someone else reduce the guiltassociated with purchases intended for the purchaser’s own consumption byrestoring interpersonal balance, especially when the gift is also typically guilt-

388 Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395

inducing. The greater the indulgence being given to someone else, the more effectivethe guilt reduction will be.

H3 The presence of a guilt-inducing gift intended for use by someone else (a)reduces feelings of guilt associated with the purchase and (b) increases the likelihoodof purchase more than a guilt-neutral gift or no gift at all.

3 Method

We tested our hypotheses in two experiments. In the first, we showed that guilt isalleviated by the presence of a gift-with-purchase promotion (Hypothesis 1a),especially when the gift is guilt-neutral and intended for the purchaser (Hypothesis2a) or guilt-inducing and intended for someone else (Hypothesis 3a). In the secondexperiment, we test the robustness of these effects in a choice setting and show thatguilt reduction positively influences variables related to purchase likelihood(Hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 3b)—satisfaction, deal evaluation, and purchase intentions.

3.1 Experiment 1

3.1.1 Scale development

To measure consumption guilt, most consumer research has used scales adapted totheir specific contexts, mainly employing mild synonyms of “guilty” (e.g., Ghingold1981; Kivetz and Simonson 2002b; Lascu 1991), instead of more extremeadjectives, such as “repentant” (Izard 1977). Through a series of prestudies, wedeveloped a scale of consumption guilt using the following adjectives—guilty, sorry,regretful, uneasy, hesitant, and reluctant—which appeared in this question in randomorder: “How [adjective] would [focal consumer] feel about spending money on[item]?” Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1=not at all; 7=extremely).Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was greater than .90 in all studies. The mean of thesix items was used for analysis.

3.1.2 Design and procedure

For partial course credit, 109 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to oneof the five conditions in a 2 (nature of gift: guilt-inducing versus guilt-neutral)×2(intended user of gift: self vs. other) plus a control (no gift included) between-subjects factorial design. On a computer, they read a scenario and indicated howguilty they would feel if they were the consumer in the scenario. In the scenario, aconsumer of the same gender as the participant considered the purchase of anelectronic back massager for his or her own use. To promote empathy, we used agender-neutral name and matched the gender of the focal consumer to theparticipant. In the no-gift control condition (n=23), the participants saw only aphotograph of the massager and the scenario description. In the four experimentalconditions, participants read that this massager came with a gift—either a smallbottle of fragrance (guilt-inducing) or a toiletry kit (guilt-neutral), crossed with the

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395 389389

intended user manipulations (gift-for-self versus gift-for-other).1 Those in the gift-for-self condition saw photographs of a bottle of fragrance or a toiletry kit designedfor consumers of his or her gender, while those in the gift-for-other condition sawthe photographs of the same items designed for the opposite gender. For example, amale participant in the gift-for-self condition saw either a gift of men’s cologne(guilt-inducing condition, n=23) or a men’s toiletry kit (guilt-neutral condition, n=20). He read a statement indicating that the focal consumer would either enjoyhaving the gift (in the case of the cologne) or find it useful (in the case of the toiletrykit). In the gift-for-other condition, a male participant saw a photograph of either awomen’s perfume (guilt-inducing condition, n=21) or a women’s toiletry kit (guilt-neutral condition, n=22) and read a statement indicating that the focal consumer’sgirlfriend would either enjoy having the gift or find it useful. All participantsprovided ratings of how guilty the focal consumer would feel about the purchase onour consumption guilt scale. Finally, as a check on our manipulations, those in theexperimental conditions indicated whether they found the information about theintended user of the gifts credible (either the purchaser himself or someone else) on a7-point scale (1=Not at all credible, 7=Completely credible) and indicated whetherconsumption of the gifts that they saw would produce guilt on a 7-point scale (1=Absolutely no guilt, 7=A lot of guilt). They were then thanked for their participationin the experiment, debriefed, and dismissed.

3.1.3 Results

The manipulation checks showed that the statements about the intended user of the giftswere credible in all experimental conditions (all means were above 6; F(1, 104)<1, NS)and that those who saw fragrances perceived their gift as more guilt-inducing (M=5.59)than those who saw a toiletry kit as a gift (M=1.95, t(1, 83)=329.42, p<.0001). The sixitems of the guilt scale loaded on the same factor in an exploratory factor analysis(eigenvalue=4.198, 70% variance explained, loadings ranging from .78 to.88,Cronbach’s α=.93). We used the mean of the guilt scale in a one-way analysis ofvariance with the five conditions (F (4, 104)=2.93, p=.0244). All three plannedcontrasts were significant. Consistent with H1a, we found higher guilt in the no-giftcondition (M=5.57) than in the gift-with-purchase conditions (M=4.72, F (1, 104)=3.99, p=.0483). As predicted by Hypotheses 2a and 3a, only two of the four giftconditions produced significant guilt reduction—the guilt-neutral gift for the purchaser’sown consumption (M=4.40; contrast with control (F (1, 104)=4.25, p=.0419) and theguilt-inducing gift for someone else’s consumption (M=3.95; contrast with control(F (1, 104)=8.35, p=.0047). As shown in Fig. 1, the interaction between the nature ofthe gift and the intended user was significant (F (1, 82)=5.10, p=.0266, η2=.06).

3.2 Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was designed to provide additional support for Hypotheses 2 and 3 ina choice context and demonstrate the effect of guilt reduction on variables related tolikelihood of purchase.

1 For more information on pretests to develop stimuli, please contact the first author.

390 Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395

3.2.1 Design and procedure

A total of 120 undergraduate students participated for partial course credit in acomputer-based experiment with a two-cell between-subjects design. The between-subjects factor was the intended user of the included gift (purchaser versus someoneelse). Participants read a scenario in which the focal consumer is tempted to make aguilt-inducing purchase of an electronic back massager (shown in photographs) forhis or her own use. Participants read that a gift came with the purchase and wereshown photographs of two gifts from which the focal character could select one: atoiletry kit (guilt-neutral) or a bottle of fragrance (guilt-inducing). Those in the gift-for-self condition viewed gifts designed for the same gender as the participant andthe focal consumer. Those in the gift-for-other condition viewed gifts designedfor the opposite gender. Participants were instructed to choose the gift that wouldmake the focal consumer (a) feel less guilty about the purchase, (b) experiencegreater satisfaction, (c) evaluate the deal more favorably, and (d) be more likely topurchase. The question order was randomized.

3.2.2 Results

Consistent with our hypotheses, when the promotional gift was for someone else’suse, more participants (61%) chose the guilt-inducing gift as the one that wouldresult in less overall guilt. When the gift was intended for the purchaser, moreparticipants (79%) chose the guilt-neutral gift. Thus, intended user had a significanteffect on gift selection (χ2=20.72, p<.0001). Similarly, when asked to select the giftthat would maximize deal satisfaction, deal evaluation, and purchase intention,

5.39

3.95

4.40

5.05

5.57

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Self Other Control

Intended User of Gift

Gu

ilt

Guilt-inducing Gift Guilt-neutral Gift No gift

Fig. 1 Experiment 1—guilt as a function of nature and intended user of the gift

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395 391391

participants more often chose guilt-inducing gifts when the gift was intended forsomeone else (61%, 63%, and 63%, respectively) and guilt-neutral gifts when thegift was intended for themselves (75%, 65%, and 73%, respectively). All choiceswere statistically significant (χ2(1)=19.02, p<.0001; χ2(1)=9.55, p=.002; andχ2(1)=15.88, p<.0001, respectively).

4 General discussion

The primary goal of this research was to investigate whether considering thebalances of intrapersonal and interpersonal consumption would reduce consumptionguilt. We examined our hypotheses in the context of gift-with-purchase promotionswhich varied on the nature of the gift (guilt-inducing or guilt-neutral) and theintended user of the gift (the purchaser or someone to whom the purchaser wouldgive the gift) and found that these characteristics affect the degree to which a gift-with-purchase promotion was able to reduce guilt. Consistent with our hypotheses,two types of gifts (guilt-neutral gifts intended for the purchaser’s own consumptionand guilt-inducing gifts intended for someone else’s consumption) were moreeffective in reducing guilt and consequently, increasing expected deal satisfaction,deal evaluation, and purchase intentions than other gifts (guilt-neutral gifts for othersand guilt-inducing gifts for purchasers) or no gift at all.

Gift-with-purchase promotions are widely-used incentives, whose affectiveconsequences improve deal evaluations, purchase intentions, and sales (Chandonet al. 2000; Raghubir et al. 2004). It is surprising that the affective nature ofpromotions is not more often explicitly leveraged. Most gifts-with-purchase aredesigned to have practical appeal, appear to be intended for the use by the purchaser,and are closely related to the item being purchased. If the only underlyingmechanism were the appeal of additional value for the same price or the ease ofimplementation on the part of manufacturers or retailers, current practice wouldmake sense. Our research suggests that different gift design criteria would make itpossible to capitalize on the affective potential of gift-with-purchase promotions and

Fig. 2 Guilt-inducing purchasewith guilt-neutral gift forsomeone else

392 Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395

remove an important barrier to the purchase of guilt-inducing products and services.When planning to offer a gift with a guilt-inducing item, matching the nature of theincluded gift to the main purchase and designing the gift for use by the purchasermay not be the best strategy. Gifts-with-purchase intended for the purchaser shouldbe guilt-neutral and those intended to be enjoyed by someone else should be guilt-inducing. In the latter case, when it is not the purchaser, the intended gift user can besignaled by designing the gift for someone of the opposite gender (see Fig. 2 for anexample) or a different age (e.g., a child versus older adult). Additionally, packagingor point-of-purchase messages can suggest that the purchaser might give the giftaway.

5 Limitations and future research directions

Individual differences were not examined in this research and may play an importantrole in the influence of the promotions described on consumption guilt. Post hocanalyses of gender in Experiment 1 suggest that women may have experienced bothmore consumption guilt and greater guilt reduction in response to our experimentalpromotions than men. The degree to which one tends to experience feelings of guiltmay also influence the effectiveness of approaches to consumption guilt reduction.Self-indulgent purchases are only one source of consumption guilt and gifts-with-purchase are only one guilt reduction mechanism. It would be useful to explore othersources and methods and whether they interact with individual differences. Forexample, more guilt-prone individuals may be more susceptible to rewards (Kivetzand Simonson 2002b). Nonlaboratory studies with nonstudent samples would alsoimprove our ability to generalize results. Process measures should be examined toconfirm that the balancing of the two scales is the mechanism by which guilt isreduced.

It would also be useful to consider the role of contextual factors in guilt reductionand promotion effectiveness such as how the gift is presented and described. Does itmatter whether the gift is prepackaged with the item, given separately, sent by mailat a later time, etc.? Does labeling the gift as “free” or “complimentary” have adifferent effect from simply saying that a gift accompanies the purchase? Noting theprocessing differences of “free” offers (Chandran and Morwitz 2006) and thediscounting effect of brands that are used as “freebies” (Raghubir 2004), it may beinteresting to examine the word “free” as a potential moderator.

References

Baumann, D. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Kendrick, D. T. (1981). Altruism as hedonism: helping and self-gratifications as equivalent responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1039–1046.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach.Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.Bell, D. R., Chiang, J., & Padmanabhan, V. (1999). The decomposition of promotional response: an

empirical generalization. Marketing Science, 18(4), 504–526.Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395 393393

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotioneffectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(October), 65–81.

Chandran, S., & Morwitz, V. G. (2006). The price of “free”-dom: consumer sensitivity to promotions withnegative contextual influences. Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (December), 384–392.

Cotton, B. C., & Babb, E. M. (1978). Consumer Reponse to Promotional Deals. Journal of Marketing, 42(3 (July)), 109–113.

Diamond, W. D., & Sanyal, A. (1990). The effect of framing on the choice of supermarket coupons. In M.E. Goldberg, G. Gorn & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in consumer research vol 17 (pp. 488–493).Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Fitzsimons, G. J., Nunes, J. C., & Williams, P. (2007). License to sin: the liberating role of reportingexpectations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 22–45.

Ghingold, M. (1981). Guilt arousing communications: An unexplored variable. In K. Monroe (Ed.),Advances in consumer research vol 8 (pp. 442–449). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for ConsumerResearch.

Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making.Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 186–199.

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and pricepresentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79, 17–25.

Heilbroner, R. L. (1985). The making of economic society (7th ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Hartcourt, Brace, & World.Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.Jones, J. M. (2008). An exploratory study on attitude persistence using sales promotion. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 20(3), 401–416.Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002a). Self control for the righteous: toward a theory of pre-commitment to

indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 199–217.Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002b). Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant of customer

preferences toward frequency program rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 155–170.Krugler, K., & Jones, W. H. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 62(2), 318–327.Lammers, H. B. (1991). The effect of free samples on immediate consumer purchase. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 8(2), 31–37.Lascu, D. (1991). Consumer guilt: Examining the potential of a new marketing construct. In R. Holman &

M. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research vol 18 (pp. 290–293). Provo, UT: Association forConsumer Research.

Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions.Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409–433.

Messé, L. A., & Watts, B. L. (1983). Complex nature of the sense of fairness: internal standards and socialcomparison as bases for reward evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 84–93.

Mill, J. S. ([1848] 1900). Principles of political economy: with some of their applications to socialpsychology. London and New York: Longmans Green.

Narasimhan, C., Neslin, S. A., & Sen, S. K. (1996). Promotional elasticities and category characteristics.Journal of Marketing, 60(April), 17–30.

Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1996). The effect of new product features on brand choice. Journal ofMarketing Research, 33, 36–46.

Nunes, J. C., & Park, C. W. (2003). Incommensurate resources: not just more of the same. Journal ofMarketing Research, 40(February), 26–38.

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal ofMarketing Research, 42, 43–53.

Prelec, D., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1991). Preferences or principles: alternative guidelines for choice. In R. J.Zeckhauser (Ed.), Strategy and choice (pp. 319–340). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Raghubir, P. (2004). Free gift with purchase: promoting or discounting the brand? Journal of ConsumerPsychology, 14(1&2), 181–186.

Raghubir, P., Inman, J. J., & Grande, H. (2004). The three faces of consumer promotions. CalifornaiaManagement Review, 46(Summer), 23–42.

Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., & O’Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative effect of productfeatures and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science, 13, 23–39.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how well they workmay depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 434–445.

394 Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395

Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior andOrganization, 1, 39–60.

Thaler, R., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy,89, 392–406.

Walster, E. H., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

Weber, M. (2002). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Los Angeles: CA, Roxbury PublishingCompany.

Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice.Marketing Science, 17(4), 317–337.

Zheng, Y., & Kivetz, R. (2009). The differential promotion effectiveness on hedonic vs. utilitarianproducts. In A. McGill & S. Shavitt (Eds.), Advances in consumer research vol 36 (p. 565). Duluth,MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Mark Lett (2010) 21:385–395 395395