Four hundred twenty one (421) undergraduate students participated in the study. However, exclusion of respondents indicating the median scores for either scale from further analysis resulted in a final sample size of 337 respondents. The experiment was conducted in a classroom setting. Each student was given a folder with the ad secured on one side and the directions and questionnaire on the other. The advertisement was for a pair of Avia running shoes. Running shoes were used in the experiment because (a) of their relevance for the sample used in this study, (b) they are often discounted and (c) they are conducive to price search and comparisons. An earlier pretest assessed students from the sample population concerning their familiarity with several product categories. Running shoes ranked high on familiarity with this population.
Two test advertisements were professionally created to correspond to the conditions of interest. The headline of the ad announced a Fall Sale for Avia running shoes and price information was presented in the “Was!! $89.95, Now!! $79.95” format. Market prices for Avia running shoes were examined to assess the validity of the prices used in the study. For Avia running shoes with the attributes used in the study, prices average at about US$59–65. Runners World website listed two Avia running shoes for US$65 and US$70. In addition, a local shoe retailer had Avia running shoes for around the US$59 price point. It seems that the students' price estimates were quite realistic.
In addition to the headline and the price discount, the ad also included information on four product attributes taken from Avia literature (cantilever solid rubber outsoles, breathable synthetic leather upper, padded ankle collar and dual durometer compression molded EVA midsoles), the Avia logo and a picture of the shoes. The attribute information was identical to the features used in the pretest. Everything except the discount information was held constant across the two manipulated conditions.
The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two manipulated conditions and were informed about a “mock” print ad stapled to the inside front cover of the folder. In addition, the subjects were told that the store name and address had been intentionally blocked out. They were asked to respond to the questions in a manner that most accurately reflected their opinions while viewing the attached advertisement.