When sales promotions make consumers experiencing financial restrictions purchase more or less: the role of decisional conflict

Aulona Ulqinaku & Gülen Sarial‐Abi

Italian Journal of Marketing2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-025-00112-2article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract Sales promotions are common tools in marketing, used to attract more customers and increase sales. Yet, there is no systematic academic research that investigates what type of customers prefer which types of sales promotions. Addressing this research gap, we examined how consumers with financial restrictions, who would be more vulnerable to attractive offers in the marketplace, respond to different sales promotions. The findings from four experimental studies showed that consumers with financial restrictions were less likely to use the sales promotion when the sales promotion was based on high-low pricing (vs. everyday low-pricing), and when the sales promotion was for a limited (vs. not limited) period of time. However, consumers with financial restrictions were more likely to use the sales promotion when it was buy-one-get-one-free (vs. buy-one-get-one-X% off) sales promotion. We showed that decisional conflict explained the responses of financially restricted consumers to different types of sales promotions.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-025-00112-2

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{aulona2025,
  title        = {{When sales promotions make consumers experiencing financial restrictions purchase more or less: the role of decisional conflict}},
  author       = {Aulona Ulqinaku & Gülen Sarial‐Abi},
  journal      = {Italian Journal of Marketing},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s43039-025-00112-2},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

When sales promotions make consumers experiencing financial restrictions purchase more or less: the role of decisional conflict

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.