Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 271–282

Math anxiety and its effects on consumers’ preference for price promotion formats

Original Empirical Research

Abstract

This research examines whether preference for certain price presentations observed in past research could be explained by either consumers’ math anxiety or their math abilities. Previous research suggests that math anxiety not only increases tendencies to make computational errors but also influences cognitive abilities to make numerical judgments. In four studies we document an effect of math anxiety whereby price promotions, whose net prices are simply derived, like those in a dollars-off format, were preferred over a competing percentage-off format. We explain this effect in terms of consumers’ inability to expend cognitive resources due to their math anxiety rather than their math ability. We also identify a boundary condition with such effects of math anxiety occurring when price information is presented in a computationally complex manner and when consumers are making important product judgments.

Keywords

Behavioral price research Numerical information processing Math anxiety 

References

  1. Alexander, L., & Martray, C. (1989). The development of an abbreviated version of the mathematics anxiety rating scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 143–150.Google Scholar
  2. Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, mathematics anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, M. H., & Moore, A. M. (2009). Mathematics anxiety and the affective drop in performance. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 27, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: An application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and 'choking under pressure' in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, H., & Rao, A. R. (2007). When two plus two is not equal to four: Errors in processing multiple percentage changes. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, S., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74, 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compeau, L. D., & Grewal, D. (1998). Comparative price advertising: An integrative review. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17, 257–273.Google Scholar
  11. Compeau, L. D., Grewal, D., & Chandrashekaran, R. (2002). Comparative price advertising: Believe it or not. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36, 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehaene, S., Spelke, F., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tviskin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking, behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delazer, M., Domahs, F., Bartha, L., Brenneis, C., Lochy, A., Trieb, T., & Benke, T. (2003). Learning complex arithmetic—an fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, S. H., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or percent? The effects of promotion framing on price expectations and choice. Journal of Marketing, 71, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S., & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness: Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Editorial: Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furst, A., & Hitch, G. J. (2000). Separate roles for executive and phonological components of working memory in mental arithmetic. Memory & Cognition, 28, 774–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grewal, D., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: The moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 148–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hecht, S. A. (2002). Counting on working memory in simple arithmetic when counting is used for problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 30, 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hembree, R. (1990). The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hendel, D. D. (1980). Experimental and affective correlates of math anxiety in adult women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopko, D. R., McNeil, D. W., Lejuez, C. W., Ashcraft, M. H., Eifert, G. H., & Riel, J. (2003). The effects of anxious responding on mental arithmetic and lexical decision task performance. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17, 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Inman, J. J., McAlister, L., & Hoyer, W. D. (1990). Promotion signal: Proxy for a price cut? Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. LeFevre, J., DeStefano, D. D., Coleman, B., & Shanahan, T. (2005). Mathematical cognition and working memory. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 361–378). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Monroe, K. B. (2011). Some personal reflections on pricing research. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research: Special issue – marketing legends (Vol. 8, pp. 209–241). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morwitz, V. G., Greenleaf, E. A., & Johnson, E. J. (1998). Divide and prosper: Consumers' reaction to partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pauwels, K., Hanssens, D. M., & Siddarth, S. (2002). The long-term effects of price promotions on category incidence, brand choice, and purchase quantity. Journal of Marketing Research, November, 39, 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Perry, A. B. (2004). Decreasing math anxiety in students. CollegeStudent Journal, 38, 321–324.Google Scholar
  32. Peters, E. (2008). Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Annual NewYork Academy of Sciences, 1128, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richardson, F. C., & Suinn, R. M. (1972). The mathematics anxiety rating scale: Psychometric data. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 551–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson, F. C., & Woolfolk, R. L. (1980). Mathematics anxiety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and application (pp. 271–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 23(7), 1352–1372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tobias, S. (1987). Math anxiety. Science, 237, 1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide range achievement test 3. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of IllinoisUrbana-ChampaignUSA
  3. 3.University of RichmondRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations