Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 57–64 | Cite as

Increased theft as a side effect of sales promotion activities: An exploratory study

  • Ned Carter
Full Articles

Abstract

A combination of commonly used promotional activities, i.e., advertising, price reductions and increased exposure, was associated with increased thefts of six candy products. Thefts increased for each of the six products during the period the combination of promotional activities was used. Large increases in sales were observed for only two of the products. Sales of the other four products increased marginally or decreased in conjunction with promotional activities. When compared to normal sales conditions, the period of promotional activities produced less net profit per week for five of the six products. The results are of interest to retailers since they indicate that promotional activities for some products may produce a negative side effect, namely, increased theft. Further, promotional activities may not always produce increased sales.

Keywords

Social Psychology Promotional Activity Social Issue Exploratory Study Candy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Black, J.L. (1978).Shoplifting control through feedback to sales personnel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.Google Scholar
  2. Carter, N., Hansson, L., Holmberg, B., & Melin, L. (1979). Shoplifting reduction through the use of specific signs.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 73–84.Google Scholar
  3. Carter, N. & Holmberg, B. (1982). (En undersökning av snatteri vid Ell-Be Livs, Södertälje). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
  4. Carter, N. & Holmberg, B. (1992). Theft reduction in a grocery store through product identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13, 129–136.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, N., Holmström, A., Simpanen, M., & Melin, L. (1988). Theft reduction in a grocery store through product identification and graphing of losses for employees.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 385–389.Google Scholar
  6. Carter, N., Melin, L., Johles, L., & Ylikangas, J. (1990, May).Theft reduction in a department store through the use of dummy police and information to personnel. Poster presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis 16th Annual Convention, Nashville.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, D., Cox, A.D., & Moschis, G.P. (1990) When consumer behavior goes bad: An investigation of adolescent shoplifting.Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 149–159.Google Scholar
  8. Glascock, S.G., Rapoff, M.A., & Christopherson, E.R. (1988). Behavioral methods to reduce shoplifting.Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 272–278.Google Scholar
  9. Guffey, Jr., H.J., Harris, J.R., & Laumer, Jr., J.F. (1979). Shopper attitudes toward shoplifting and shoplifting prevention devices.Journal of Retailing, 55, 84–89.Google Scholar
  10. Henderson, J.Q. (1983). A behavioral approach to stealing: a proposal for treatment based on ten cases,Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 331–337.Google Scholar
  11. Hjördisdotter, K. (1991). Svinn för miljarder. [Theft of billions]. In Sjunde budet—en tidning om butiksstölder. Aktionsgruppen mot butiksstölder, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy, D.B. & Homant, R.J. (1986). Security managers' attitudes toward locus of responsibility for crime.Psychological Reports, 52, 199–205.Google Scholar
  13. McConaghy, N., & Blaszczynski, A. (1988). Imaginal desensitization: A cost-effective treatment in two shoplifters and a binge eater resistant to previous therapy.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 22, 78–82.Google Scholar
  14. McNees, M.P., Egli, D.S., Marshall, R.S., Schnelle, J.F., & Risley, T.R. (1976). Shoplifting prevention: Providing information through signs.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 399–405.Google Scholar
  15. McNees, M.P., Gilliam, S.W., Schnelle, J.F., & Risley, T.R. (1979). Controlling employee theft through time and product identification.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 113–119.Google Scholar
  16. McNees, M.P., Kennon, M., Schnelle, J.F., Kirchner, R.E., & Thomas, M.M. (1980). An experimental analysis of a program to reduce retail theft.American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 379–385.Google Scholar
  17. Marr, J.N., & Mullen, T. (1993). Signs in drug stores to reduce theft. In:Proceedings: Association for Behavior Analysis: International, 19th Annual Convention—May 27–30. Chicago, Illinois (p. 98).Google Scholar
  18. Persson, P-G. (1990).Factors influencing consumer sensitivity to promotion. Unpublished manuscript. Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
  19. Prestwich, L.W. (1978). Consumer attitudes towards shoplifting.The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 12, 292–299.Google Scholar
  20. Robin, G.D. (1963). Patterns of department store shoplifting.Crime and Delinquency, 9, 163–172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ned Carter
    • 1
  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations