Marketing Letters

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 213–223 | Cite as

When deal depth doesn't matter: How handedness consistency influences consumer response to horizontal versus vertical price comparisons

  • Michael J. Barone
  • Keith B. Lyle
  • Karen Page Winterich


The current research introduces a new moderator to the price comparison literature by considering how the processing of regular and sale price information may be grounded in the degree to which consumers are consistent-handed (CHs) or inconsistent-handed (ICHs) in performing manual tasks. Because vertically presenting regular and sale price information facilitates calculation of savings, vertical price comparisons should be processed more fluently than horizontal comparisons. However, this fluency difference should asymmetrically affect ICHs and CHs. Prior research has indicated that ICHs are more cognitively flexible than CHs. Here, ICHs expressed more favorable purchase intentions with greater deal depth for both vertical and horizontal price comparisons, possibly because their greater cognitive flexibility enabled them to process price comparisons effectively regardless of presentation layout. Conversely, possibly due to lower cognitive flexibility, CHs exhibited purchase intentions that were sensitive to differences in deal depth when presented with more fluent vertical price comparisons, but not less fluent horizontal comparisons. These findings are replicated across two experiments relying on different participant populations.


Price promotions Handedness consistency Cognitive flexibility Price comparisons Deal depth Embodied cognition 


  1. Annett, M. (1970). A classification of hand preference by association analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arning, L., Ocklenburg, S., Schulz, S., Ness, V., Gerding, W. M., Hengstler, J. G., et al. (2013). PCSK6 VNTR polymorphism is associated with degree of handedness but not direction of handedness. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e67251. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 138(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is ‘right’: motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22(4), 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandrashekaran, R. (2004). The influence of redundant comparison prices and other price presentation formats on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 80, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, C. (2013). Price or quality? The influence of fluency on the dual role of price. Marketing Letters. doi: 10.1007/s11002-013-9223-8.Google Scholar
  7. Choi, P., & Coulter, K. S. (2012). It's not all relative: the effects of mental and physical positioning of comparative prices on absolute versus relative discount assessment. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 512–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christman, S. D. (2013). Individual differences in personality as a function of degree of handedness: Consistent-handers are less sensation seeking, more authoritarian, and more sensitive to disgust. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition, In press.Google Scholar
  9. Christman, S. D., Propper, R. E., & Dion, A. (2004). Increased interhemispheric interaction is associated with decreased false memories in a verbal converging semantic associates paradigm. Brain and Cognition, 56, 313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christman, S. D., Henning, B. R., Geers, A. L., Propper, R. E., & Niebauer, C. L. (2008). Mixed-handed persons are more easily persuaded and are more gullible: interhemispheric interaction and belief updating. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition, 13, 403–426.Google Scholar
  11. Christman, S. D., Sontam, V., & Jasper, J. D. (2009). Individual differences in ambiguous figure perception: degree of handedness and interhemispheric interaction. Perception, 38, 1183–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Coulter, K. S., & Norberg, P. A. (2009). The effects of physical distance between regular and sale prices on numerical difference perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dragovic, M. (2004). Categorization and validation of handedness using latent class analysis. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 16, 212–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edlin, J. M., & Lyle, K. B. (2013). The effect of repetitive saccade execution on the attention network test: enhancing executive function with a flick of the eyes. Brain and Cognition, 81, 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elder, R., & Krishna, A. (2012). The ‘visual depiction effect’ in advertising: facilitating embodied mental simulation through product orientation. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 988–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers' perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jasper, J. D., Barry, K., & Christman, S. D. (2008). Individual differences in counterfactual production. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 488–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, J., Allen, C. T., & Kardes, F. R. (1996). An investigation of the mediational mechanisms underlying attitudinal conditioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(August), 318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krishna, A. (2009). Behavioral pricing. In V. R. Rao (Ed.), Handbook of pricing research in marketing (pp. 76–90). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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(2), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyle, K. B., & Grillo, M. C. (2013). Consistent-handed individuals are more authoritarian. Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain, and Cognition. In press.Google Scholar
  24. Lyle, K. B., & Martin, J. M. (2010). Bilateral saccades increase intrahemispheric processing but not interhemispheric interaction: implications for saccade-induced retrieval enhancement. Brain and Cognition, 73, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyle, K. B., Logan, J. M., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008a). Eye movements enhance memory for individuals who are strongly right-handed and harm it for individuals who are not. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyle, K. B., McCabe, D. P., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2008b). Handedness is related to memory via hemispheric interaction: evidence from paired associate recall and source memory tests. Neuropsychology, 22, 523–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyle, K. B., Hanaver-Torrez, S. D., Hackländer, R. P., & Edlin, J. M. (2012). Consistency of handedness, regardless of direction, predicts baseline memory accuracy and potential for memory enhancement. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meier, B. P., Schnall, S., Schwarz, N., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). Embodiment in social psychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oppenheimer, D., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prichard, E., Propper, R. E., & Christman, S. D. (2013). Degree of handedness, but not direction, is a systematic predictor of cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(9).Google Scholar
  31. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8(3), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwarz, N. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 289–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shobe, E. R., Ross, N. M., & Fleck, J. I. (2009). Influence of handedness and bilateral eye movements on creativity. Brain and Cognition, 71, 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2009). Hueristics in numerical cognition: implications for pricing. In V. R. Rao (Ed.), Handbook of pricing research in marketing (pp. 132–149). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsai, C. I., & McGill, A. L. (2011). No pain, no gain? How fluency and construal level affect consumer confidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Barone
    • 1
  • Keith B. Lyle
    • 1
  • Karen Page Winterich
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations