The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm
APJML
32,1
188
The effects of personality, culture
and store stimuli on
impulsive buying behavior
Evidence from emerging market of Pakistan
Miao Miao
Received 19 September 2018
Revised 3 January 2019
15 April 2019
15 May 2019
Accepted 20 May 2019
School of Economics and Management,
Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China
Tariq Jalees and Sahar Qabool
College of Management Sciences, Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan, and
Syed Imran Zaman
School of Economics and Management,
Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China and
Department of Business Administration,
Jinnah University for Women, Karachi, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between personality factors (i.e. neuroticism,
agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness and openness), cultural factors (individualism and collectivism)
and store stimuli (window display and sales promotion) on impulsive buying behavior.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample size for the study was 350 with a response rate of 96 percent.
The questionnaire was adapted from the established scale and measures. SmartPLS was used for statistical
analysis. After reliability and validity analysis, the structural model was tested, and it fitted very well.
Findings – Of the nine hypotheses, five were accepted, and the other four were rejected. The results suggest
that neuroticism, openness, individualism, collectivism and sales promotion significantly affect impulsive
buying behavior. Marketers can use these results in developing appropriate marketing strategies.
Research limitations/implications – Implications for managers were drawn from the results. In this
study, only two cultural factors were considered. Future studies could use all the cultural factors in their
model. Additionally, the developed model can be extended for comparative studies.
Originality/value – Impulsive buying behavior, on the one hand, is problematic for consumers, but, on the
other hand, is used as a tool by retailers for increasing sales. Comparatively, this study examined the effects of
personality factors, cultural factors and store stimuli on impulsive buying behavior. These three factors have
rarely been used together in one study.
Keywords Collectivism, Agreeableness, Extroversion, Sales promotion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness,
Individualism, Impulsive buying behaviour, Store stimuli, Window displays
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Impulsive buying is seen as problematic from the consumers’ perspective, but from a
retailer’s perspective, it is an imperative strategy for increasing sales volume (Xiao and
Nicholson, 2011; Akram et al., 2018). In view of its significance, researchers have been
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics
Vol. 32 No. 1, 2020
pp. 188-204
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1355-5855
DOI 10.1108/APJML-09-2018-0377
This study was supported by grants of National Natural Science Foundation (71572156), Sichuan Wine
Development Research Center (CJZB18-02), Sichuan Circular Economy Research Center
(XHJJ-1815), and the Humanity and Social Science Youth foundation of Ministry of Education of China
(19YJC630060, 19YJC860033), Southwest Jiao Tong University “One Belt and One Road” research task
project (268YDYLZ01).
examining impulsive buying behavior for decades from different perspectives (Xiao and
Nicholson, 2011). Past studies show that 39 percent of the total sales at department stores
depend on impulsive buying. Additionally, they have found that 80 percent of consumers
buy on impulse at least occasionally (Lin and Chuang, 2005). Grocery shopping has become
a recreational activity for families all over the world. Families also spend more time in the
pleasant environment of department stores, where they are exposed to different stimuli that
encourage impulsive buying behavior (Lee and Kacen, 2008).
Impulsive buying is a complicated process, and it is consistent with rational-choice models
of traditional economics due to which researchers interest in impulsive buying behavior has not
decreased (Amos et al., 2014; Xiao and Nicholson, 2011). Moreover, it has been documented that
consumers’ recreational spending has declined while impulsive buying is still growing, even
though their disposable income is not (Gültekin and Özer, 2012; Pradhan et al., 2018). It has also
been argued that consumers’ buying behavior is inconsistent, varying from one product
category to another (Xiao and Nicholson, 2011). For example, studies have found that many
consumers, while searching for an inexpensive product such as a pen, look for the cheapest
options. At the same time, consumers buying a product of higher value, such as apparel, do not
make an extra effort to search for cheaper options (Amos et al., 2014).
Researchers have examined impulsive buying from different perspectives for decades, and
inconsistencies remain in understanding this concept. Retail outlets the world over are
anxious to attract customers by using external and internal stimuli to create differentiation
and value proposition. About 70 percent of sales in retail outlets depend on impulsive buying,
so retailers make their internal and external ambiance attractive to motivate consumers to
stay on their premises for an extended period, thus stimulating impulsive behavior (Amos
et al., 2014). Based on a historical review of the literature (discussed in a subsequent section), it
appears that most of the recent studies have not examined the effect of personality on
impulsive buying behavior (Hendrawan and Nugroho, 2018; Sofi, 2018). A few researchers
have examined the association between culture and impulsive buying behavior. Moreover,
some researchers have examined the effect of store stimuli on impulsive buying behavior
(Thomas et al., 2018; Boonchoo and Thoumrungroje, 2017; Merugu and Vaddadi, 2017). But it
appears that none of the earlier studies have used all three factors – personality, culture and
store stimuli – in one impulsive buying behavior study.
In view of its significance, this study aims to examine the relationship of personality
factors (neuroticism, agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness and openness), cultural
factors (individualism and collectivism) and store stimuli (window display and sales
promotion) on impulsive buying behavior.
Literature review
Impulsive buying is not a new phenomenon. It has been extensively researched for decades.
However, there are many inconsistencies in its conceptualization. The literature in the early
1950s shows that the association between impulsive buying varies from one product
category to another. Therefore, the bulk of the research in that era focused on examining the
relationship between different product categories and impulsive buying behavior
(Clover, 1950; Singh and Nayak, 2016). This trend continued for a decade. Then, in the
early 1960s, the concept of differentiating planned impulsive buying and unplanned,
impulsive buying was introduced. It was also documented in this era that some product
categories stimulate planned impulsive behavior, while others stimulate unplanned
impulsive behavior (Stern, 1962). In that era, most of the studies examined the association
between demographic characteristics and impulsive buying behavior (Kollat and Willett,
1967), a research trend that continued for another ten years.
In the early 1980s, many studies examined the five critical elements of impulsive buying:
“desire to act, a state of psychological disequilibrium, the onset of psychological conflict and
Impulsive
buying
behavior
189
APJML
32,1
190
struggle, a reduction in cognitive evaluation, and a lack of regard for the consequences of
impulsive buying” (Rook, 1987, p. 190). Rook and Hoch (1985) suggested that a pleasant
environment in a retail outlet stimulates positive moods, which entice consumers to buy on
impulse. Thus, the academicians in this era extended the concept by adding “consumer
compulsion,” which was synonymous with lifestyle traits that include “materialism,”
“sensational seeking” and “variety” seeking (Rook, 1987). Additionally, the researchers in
this period examined four aspects of impulsive buying which are “unplanned, decided on the
spot, result from a reaction to stimulus, and cognitive reaction or emotional reaction” (Piron
et al., 1991; Ozen and Engizek, 2014).
In the late 1990s, many researchers suggested that certain personality traits and
impulsiveness have a positive association. It was also documented that impulsive buying is a
complex process in which consumers make an immediate purchase decision without
considering the consequences (Rook and Fisher, 1995; Imran et al, 2018). Additionally, Beatty
and Ferrell (1998) added that impulsive consumers make purchases quickly even though they
originally had no intention of buying them. In early 2000, many researchers examined the
association between culture and feelings on impulsive buying behavior (Youn and Faber, 2000),
and many also examined the effect of personality traits on impulsive buying behavior (Farid
and Ali, 2018; Cakanlar and Nguyen, 2019). In early and late 2000, researchers also examined
the relationship between store internal/external stimuli and impulsive buying behavior
(Crawford and Melewar, 2003). Based on a historical review of the literature, it appears that
most of the recent studies have not examined the effect of personality on impulsive buying
behavior (Farid and Ali, 2018; Hendrawan and Nugroho, 2018; Sofi, 2018); examined the
association between culture and impulsive buying behavior (Cakanlar and Nguyen, 2019; Ali
and Sudan, 2018); and examined the effect of store stimuli on impulsive buying behavior
(Thomas et al., 2018; Boonchoo and Thoumrungroje, 2017; Merugu and Vaddadi, 2017).
Because personality factors, cultural factors and store stimuli are highly interrelated,
examining their association separately and independently with buying behavior will not
help in understanding this complex concept. Consequently, this study examined the
relationship between personality factors (i.e. neuroticism, agreeableness, extroversion,
conscientiousness and openness), cultural factors (i.e. individualism and collectivism) and
store stimuli (i.e. window display and sales promotion) on impulsive buying behavior.
Conceptual framework
A conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1. The discussions on the literature support
for the developed hypotheses are presented in the following sections.
Personality traits
In this study, five personality traits and their association with impulsive buying behavior
are examined and discussed in the following sections.
Neuroticism and impulsive buying behavior. Neuroticism, also known as emotional
instability, refers to the adverse effects of sadness, depression, and anxiety (Schiffman and
Kanuk, 2008). The literature suggests that highly unstable people are emotionally stressed
and vulnerable to insecurity (Shahjehan et al., 2012). All healthy individuals possess some
neurotic traits, as they help in absorbing the damaging effects of embarrassment,
humiliation, stress and anxiety. However, individuals with a high neuroticism score possess
negative emotions and are short-tempered and overstressed ( John et al., 2008). They come
up with unreasonable ideas that might have negative consequences, while, on the contrary,
individuals who score low on neuroticism are emotionally stable and have a built-in
capability to face and absorb damaging effects of anxiety and stress (Hough et al., 1990).
Emotionally stable persons are more relaxed, so they are less vulnerable to distress and
Extraversion
Contentiousness
Individualism
Neuroticism
Impulsive
buying
behavior
191
Collectivism
Impulsive_buying_behavior
Window_display
Agreeableness
Sales_promotion
Openness
impulsive behavior (McCrae and Costa, 2008). Impulsive buying behavior and emotional
instability are positively correlated (Shahjehan et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2019). Individuals
with a high level of emotional instability suffer from anxiety and irritability, which makes
them more vulnerable to impulsive buying behavior (Silvera et al., 2008).
It has been argued that highly neurotic persons have a depressive nature; they are more
self-conscious and impulsive (McCrae and Costa, 2008). Past studies have concluded that
neuroticism and impulsive buying behavior have a positive relationship – that neurotic
individuals relive their emotional distress by indulging in impulsive buying (Shahjehan
et al., 2012; Silvera et al., 2008):
H1. Neuroticism has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior.
Agreeableness and impulsive buying behavior. Individuals with a high level of agreeableness
are socially active, maintaining positive relationships with friends and coworkers. They are
more cooperative and sympathetic than neurotic persons and less antagonistic and suspicious
of others (McCrae and Costa, 2008). The relationship between agreeableness and impulsive
buying behavior has not been examined amply. Verplanken and Herabadi (2001) suggested
that impulsive buying behavior and a high level of agreeableness are negatively associated.
Based on this assumption, Badgaiyan and Verma (2014) hypothesized that agreeableness and
impulsive buying behavior have a negative association. However, when they empirically
tested this relationship, they found the relationship was insignificant.
Agreeableness as a personality trait helps individuals to develop and maintain long-term
relationships with others. Moreover, highly agreeable persons are concerned about the well-being
of others, so they help others wholeheartedly and expect the same from them. These individuals
are not reactive; they think before they react. In view of this trait, they are less vulnerable
to impulsive buying behavior (McCrae and Costa, 2008; Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001):
H2. Agreeableness has a negative association with impulsive buying behavior.
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework
APJML
32,1
192
Extroversion and impulsive buying behavior. Extroverts are energetic and socially interactive.
They are materialistic and possess positive emotions ( John and Srivastava, 1999; McCrae and
Costa, 2008). Because they like to socialize, they are talkative and energized while interacting
with others (Mooradian and Swan, 2006; John et al., 2008). They like their independence and
are not very tolerant of interference from others ( John et al., 2008). Besides socializing with
family, friends and peers, extroverts love to talk with strangers, including salespersons at
retail outlets. However, individuals with a low score in this trait are not very social and are less
impulsive (Eysenck et al., 1993). Extroverts are highly confident and self-dependent
(Watson and Clark, 1991; John and Srivastava, 1999). The individuals scoring high on this
trait love to explore new ideas and consequently have less self-control and more vulnerability
to impulsive buying (Eysenck et al., 1993; Judge et al., 2014).
Their sociability leads extroverts to interact and spend more time with salespersons, and,
as a consequence, they are vulnerable to impulsive buying (Chen, 2011; Eysenck et al., 1993).
In a contrary finding, Simons et al. (2014) found a negative association between extroverts
and impulsive buying behavior:
H3. Extroversion has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior.
Conscientiousness and impulsive buying behavior. Conscientiousness is a built-in mechanism
that is goal directed and controls impulsive behavior. The level of conscientiousness varies
from one individual to another in terms of self-control, sense of responsibility and hard work
(McCrae and Costa, 2008; Roberts et al., 2014).
Individuals who are highly conscientiousness are well organized, goal oriented and
highly responsible in carrying out their personal and official tasks (Barrick et al., 2013).
These traits make them less vulnerable to impulsive buying behavior. Individuals with low
level of conscientiousness are less thoughtful about their lives, are not goal oriented and get
distracted easily, so are more vulnerable to impulsive buying (Roberts et al., 2014):
H4. Conscientiousness has a negative association with impulsive buying behavior.
Openness and impulsive buying behavior. Individuals with a high level of openness are very
imaginative and have diversified interests. They do not have high expectations of others
and are open to listening and adopting the viewpoints of others (McCrae and Costa, 2008).
It is also reported that highly open individuals frequently explore and adopt new
ideas and experiences. Consequently, they are more vulnerable to impulsive behavior
(Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001). On the contrary, individuals with low levels of openness
are conservative and traditionalist and less vulnerable to impulsive behavior (Verplanken
and Herabadi, 2001):
H5. Openness has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior.
Culture
Culture plays an essential role in consumer buying behavior. Since the 1960s, many studies
have examined the impact of culture on impulsive buying behavior (Kacen and Lee, 2002).
This study examined the effect of individualism and collectivism on impulsive buying
behavior, discussed in the following sections.
Individualism and impulsive buying behavior. Individualism is a social pattern in which
individuals in a society are not socially and emotionally linked to family members and
groups. They are more focused on emotional and physical freedom. Individualists are more
concerned about networking and are goal oriented. They are not concerned about the norms
and values of the society and are reluctant to sacrifice their personal social needs and goals
to cultural and societal demands (Hagger et al., 2014).
Individuals in an individualist culture are concerned about their social needs
and preferences; therefore, they often ignore the negative consequences of impulsive
buying and are more inclined to engage in impulsive buying (Kacen and Lee, 2002).
Marm and Kongsompong (2007) concluded that because their peers and friends do not
influence individualists, they generally have a positive attitude toward impulsive buying
behavior. Mai (2003) also reported that impulsive buying and individualism are positively
related. Additionally, in a comparative study, it was found that individuals in the USA
(an individualist society) have a more negative attitude toward impulsive buying than
Indian (collective society) individuals toward impulsive buying (Verma and Triandis, 1999):
H6. Individualism has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior.
Collectivism and impulsive buying Behavior. Collectivism is a social pattern in which most
members of a society see themselves as a member of a close-knit family, group, or nation
(Toffoli and Laroche, 2015; Jiang et al., 2018). Past studies have shown that a collectivist is
more emotionally mature and therefore is less vulnerable to impulsive buying however
(Thompson and Prendergast, 2015) found no significant association between collectivism
and impulsive buying behavior.
A study by Marm and Kongsompong (2007) found that because individuals in a collective
society are influenced by their family members and peers, they are more vulnerable to buying
behavior in comparison with individuals in an individualist society. Verma and Triandis
(1999) concluded in a comparative study that Indians (collective society) are more vulnerable
to impulsive buying behavior than are individuals in an individualist society such as the USA:
H7. Collectivism has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior.
Store external and internal stimuli
Store external and internal stimuli visually communicate brand messages to customers.
This study examined the effects of window display and sales promotion on impulsive
buying behavior, discussed in the following section.
Window display and impulsive buying behavior. Window display visually communicates the
value proposition to the target audience and stimulates buying behavior (Chang et al., 2011). The
window display is not restricted to external décor but also includes the point of sale, ambiance,
merchandising and sales staff (Zhou and Wong, 2004). A pleasant window display not only
attracts the customers to retail outlets but also makes them stay longer. As a consequence, they
are exposed to different stimuli and resort to impulsive buying (Tendai and Crispen, 2009).
Past studies have documented a positive association between window displays and
consumer impulsive buying behavior (Merugu and Vaddadi, 2017; Tendai and Crispen, 2009).
The association between window displays and impulsive buying behavior varies from
customer to customer and from one product category to another (Badgaiyan and Verma,
2015). Prashar et al. (2015) suggest that retailers change window displays continually to
stimulate impulsive buying. Gandhi et al. (2015) argue that exciting and innovative display
strategies help to change the moods of the customers, making them more vulnerable to
impulsive buying behavior. Past studies have documented that a display of product-related
advertisement near the point of sale and that broadcasting videos about the products
stimulates impulsive buying (Gandhi et al., 2015; Sun and Yazdanifard, 2015). Consumers pay
more attention to an attractive, pleasant display, and, as a consequence, they become
vulnerable to buying (Muruganantham and Bhakat, 2013):
H8. Window displays are positively associated with impulsive buying behavior.
Sales promotion and impulsive buying behavior. Sales promotion is used extensively by
retailers to increase their sales and reduce inventory (Xu and Huang, 2014). A sales promotion
Impulsive
buying
behavior
193
APJML
32,1
194
targets consumers who want to pay less than the original price. Some of the techniques
commonly used in sales promotion, besides lowering prices, are a sample, a premium, a contest
or a rebate (Liao et al., 2009).
Sales promotion and impulsive buying behavior have a positive association (Xu and
Huang, 2014). Consumers are price conscious; therefore, they prefer to purchase goods sold
through sales promotions (Liao et al., 2009). Impulsive buyers, compared to others, are more
vulnerable to sales promotion (Xu and Huang, 2014). Sales promotion does not have a linear
effect on impulsive buying; it varies according to customers’ personality traits and the product
categories (Badgaiyan and Verma, 2015). Although sales promotion helps to increase buying
at retail outlets, if they are continued over an extended period, they will lose their effectiveness
and may dilute the brand image (Liao et al., 2009). Many studies found a positive association
between sales promotion and impulsive buying behavior (Xu and Huang, 2014). However, it
has also been found that sales promotion has a direct link to desire and not to actual buying
behavior (Xu and Huang, 2014):
H9. Sales promotion is positively related to impulsive buying behavior.
Methodology
Participants and procedure
The study aimed to measure the effect of five personality factors, two cultural factors and
three internal store stimuli on impulsive buying behavior. The questionnaire was adapted
from the earlier developed scales and measures. Five enumerators of a private business
school were recruited to conduct the survey of the target audience. Initially, a pretest of the
questionnaire was carried out to check the wording and flow of the questions and the social
desirability, which is an important aspect in the Asian context and, if not pretested, could
affect the study results. Based on the inputs received, the required corrections were made.
The survey was conducted at the leading malls in Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi, Faisalabad
and Quetta. The respondents were informed that the survey was for academic purposes only
and that their participation was voluntary. They were allowed to discontinue responding at any
time if they felt uncomfortable or had any apprehension. They were also told that the research
was for academic purposes and would not be used for commercial purposes. Additionally, their
real identity was not recorded. The statistical analysis is based on SmartPLS.
The respondents visited the target shopping malls during the day, evenings, and
weekends. The sample size was 350, with a response rate of 96 percent. The respondents
were representative of people who regularly visit shopping malls. Of the 350 respondents,
55 percent were males, and 45 percent were females; 43 percent of the respondents were
married, and the rest, 57 percent, were single. Their ages were between 18 and 55; 30 percent
of the respondents were between 18 and 30, 35 percent from 30 to 40, and another 35 percent
from 45 to 55. Most of the respondents (55 percent) had at least an intermediate
(Higher Secondary) education, 45 percent had Bachelor’s degrees, and the rest, 10 percent,
had Master’s degrees.
Constructs
Ten constructs were used in the study. Five were related to personality, two were related to
culture, two were related to store stimuli and one was the dependent variable. The constructs
used in the study are discussed in the following sections.
Neuroticism scale
Neuroticism is a state of emotional instability that leads to depression and anxiety. Highly
unstable individuals are emotionally stressed and insecure (Shahjehan et al., 2012). In this
study, the neuroticism scale has four items, all adapted from the scales and measures
developed by Rook and Fisher (1995).
Agreeableness scale. Agreeableness is a social trait allowing individuals to develop a
sustainable relationship with peers, family, and others. They are more cooperative and
sympathetic, rather than antagonistic toward and suspicious of others (McCrae and Costa,
2008). The agreeableness scale was adapted from the Rook and Fisher (1995) scale, and the
measure has four items, all based on the five-point Likert scale.
Extroversion scale. Highly extroverted individuals are incredibly energetic, socially
interactive, and materialistic and possess positive emotions ( John and Srivastava, 1999;
McCrae and Costa, 2008). This scale has four items, all based on the scales and measures of
Rook and Fisher (1995).
Conscientiousness scale. Individuals with a high level of conscientiousness are generally
more responsible, are hard-working and have more self-control than others. In view of these
traits, highly conscientious individuals are goal oriented (McCrae and Costa, 2008). The
conscientiousness scale also has four items adapted from the scales and measures developed
by Rook and Fisher (1995).
Openness scale. Highly imaginative persons with an interest in diverse fields are the
social traits of openness McCrae and Costa (2008). Individuals who have a high level of
openness listen to other points of view and do not reject them outright even if they are
contrary to their own perceptions. The scale openness in the study is based on the scale of
Rook and Fisher (1995). There were four items in this part of the questionnaire, all based on
a five-point Likert scale.
Collectivism scale. Collectivists in a society consider themselves closely associated with
their family, group and nation (Toffoli and Laroche, 2015). The collectivism scale in the
study has four items adapted from Singelis et al. (1995).
Individualism scale. Individualists in a society do not have a sustained emotional and
social link with their family members. They enjoy their emotional and physical freedom
(Hagger et al., 2014). The individualism scale in the study has four items and has been
adapted from the scale and measures of Singelis et al. (1995).
Sales promotion. Sales promotion is an important strategy used by retailers for
increasing sales volume and depleting inventory (Xu and Huang, 2014). Customers
are generally more attracted to sales promotion as they feel as if they are paying less than
the actual price. Some of the techniques commonly used in sales promotion are a sample,
premium and contest rebate (Liao et al., 2009). The scale sales promotion was adapted from
the scales and measures of Karbasivar and Yarahmadi (2011), and it has four items.
Window display. The window display is a tool used by retailers for communicating value
proposition and stimulating impulsive buying behavior (Chang et al., 2011). The window
display is not restricted to external décor but includes the point of sale, ambience and
merchandising, and sales staff (Zhou and Wong, 2004). The window display scale in the
study has four items, all adapted from Karbasivar and Yarahmadi (2011).
Results
Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis was carried out to measure the internal consistency and univariate
normality. The results are presented in Table I.
The results show that the adapted constructs’ Cronbach’s alpha values are higher than
0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency (Leech et al., 2014). Additionally, all
skewness and kurtosis values were between ±1.5, indicating that adopted constructs fulfill
the requirements of univariate normality (Looney, 1995). Moreover, the VIF values are also
less than 5.0, indicating there is no issue of multicollinearity.
Impulsive
buying
behavior
195
APJML
32,1
Convergent validity
Convergent validity was ascertained through composite reliability and average variance
extracted. The results are presented in Table II.
The results show that all the composite reliability values are higher than 0.70, and the
values of average variance extracted are higher than 0.40, confirming that the constructs
fulfill the requirements of convergent validity.
196
Discriminant validity
Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) was used to examine uniqueness of the
variables. The results are presented in Table III.
Table I.
Descriptive results
Table II.
Convergent validity
Table III.
Discriminant validity
Reliability Cronbach’s α
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
VIF
0.60
0.71
0.69
0.64
0.62
0.75
0.82
0.60
0.81
0.80
4.63
4.15
5.00
4.65
4.43
4.18
4.74
3.85
3.92
4.15
1.22
1.15
0.97
1.03
1.06
0.97
1.03
1.05
1.15
1.12
−0.89
−0.87
−0.46
−0.17
−0.50
−0.89
−0.19
−0.49
−0.57
1.05
−0.78
−0.50
−0.82
−1.05
0.87
−0.89
−0.91
0.69
−0.83
−0.98
1.32
1.62
1.17
1.31
1.53
1.36
1.49
1.50
–
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Openness
Individualism
Collectivism
Window displays
Sales promotion
Impulsive buying
Composite reliability
Average variance extracted
0.61
0.81
0.81
0.77
0.79
0.83
0.88
0.74
0.76
0.83
0.44
0.52
0.52
0.57
0.51
0.49
0.65
0.44
3.92
0.55
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Extroversion
Conscientiousness
Openness
Individualism
Collectivism
Window displays
Sales promotion
Impulsive buying
Openness_
Agreeableness_
Collectivism_
Conscientiousness_
Extroversion_
Impulsive buying
Individualism_
Neuroticism_
Window displays_
Sales promotion_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.71
0.34
0.19
0.10
0.33
0.31
0.37
0.20
0.29
0.29
0.72
0.35
0.18
0.35
0.26
0.33
0.20
0.21
0.31
0.81
0.16
0.38
0.13
0.41
0.24
0.21
0.33
0.68
0.21
0.15
0.24
0.28
0.29
0.19
0.72
0.30
0.47
0.30
0.39
0.44
0.75
0.31
0.32
0.35
0.33
0.70
0.23
0.29
0.31
0.67
0.34
0.18
0.65
0.46
0.66
The results show that the square root of average variance extracted values depicted
diagonally are more significant than the rest of the values, which are the square of each pair of
correlation. This confirms that all the constructs used in the study are unique and distinctive
(Fornell and Larker, 1981).
Structural model output
Structural model outputs were obtained through bootstrapping of 5,000 subsamples at
95 percent and a one-tailed test. The results are presented in Table IV, and the structural
model in Figure 2.
H1 states that neuroticism has a positive association with impulsive buying behavior. The
results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.180, t ¼ 3.142, p ¼ 0.001o0.05). H2 states that
Path coefficient
t-statistics
p-values
0.180
0.067
0.044
0.000
0.159
0.053
0.168
‒0.094
0.152
3.142
1.050
0.605
0.006
2.911
0.941
2.479
1.627
2.478
0.001
0.147
0.273
0.498
0.002
0.174
0.007
0.052
0.007
Neuroticism_→impulsive buying (H1)
Agreeableness_→impulsive buying (H2)
Extroversion_→impulsive buying (H3)
Conscientiousness_→impulsive buying (H4)
Openness_→impulsive buying (H5)
Individualism_→impulsive buying (H6)
Collectivism_→impulsive buying (H7)
Window displays_→impulsive buying (H8)
Sales promotion_→impulsive buying (H9)
Notes: R2 ¼ 0.26, adjusted R2 ¼ 0.23
H1
B10
B7
B8
H2
H3
H4
C2
C1
J1
7.415
8.088
10.684
13.639
16.733
Neuroticism
8.464
B9
Contentiousness
Extraversion
Table IV.
Path coefficient
C4
C3
8.393
7.460
197
Results
Accepted
Rejected
Rejected
Rejected
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
Rejected
Accepted
5.376 3.734 2.141 3.924
11.372 16.670 16.381 9.225
Impulsive
buying
behavior
J2
J3
Individualism
J5
3.142
G1
0.006
0.605
0.941
AT1
8.476
G2
G3
6.535
25.133
9.771
2.479
7.552
23.286
Collectivism
17.428
G4
L4
AT4
Impulsive buying
behavior
2.911
1.627
L3
AT3
25.874
L1
L2
AT2
5.741
I1
18.488
2.478
22.862
6.885
1.050
7.397
21.531
5.087
Openness
I2
I3
1.949
I4
Window display
K1
K2
K3
13.287
Sales promotion
14.810 5.286 6.031 8.360
10.743
5.217
4.768
Agreeableness
K4
F1
F2
F3
F4
Figure 2.
Structured model
APJML
32,1
198
agreeableness and impulsive buying behavior have a negative relationship. The results do not
support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.067, t ¼ 1.050, p ¼ 0.147W0.05). H3 states that extroversion
and impulsive buying behavior have a positive relationship. The results do not support this
hypothesis (β ¼ 0.044, t ¼ 0.605, p ¼ 0.273W0.05). H4 states that conscientiousness and
impulsive buying behavior have a negative relationship. The results do not support this
hypothesis (β ¼ 0.000, t ¼ 0.006, p ¼ 0.498W0.05). H5 states that openness and impulsive
buying behavior have a positive relationship. The results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.159,
t ¼ 2.911, p ¼ 0.002o0.05). H6 states that individualism has a postive association with
impulsive buying behavior. The results do not support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.053, t ¼ 0.941,
p ¼ 0.174W0.05). H7 states that collectivism and impulsive buying behavior have a negative
association. The results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.168, t ¼ 2.479, p ¼ 0.007o0.05). H8
states that window displays and impulsive buying behavior are positively related. The results
do not support this hypothesis (β ¼ −0.094, t ¼ 1.627, p ¼ 0.052W0.05). H9 states that sales
promotion and impulsive buying behavior are positively related. The results support this
hypothesis (β ¼ 0.152, t ¼ 2.578, p ¼ 0.007W0.05).
Discussion and conclusion
The results and their relevance to earlier studies are discussed in the following section.
Discussion
Neuroticism and impulsive buying behavior. H1 states that neuroticism has a positive
association with impulsive buying behavior. The results support this hypothesis
(β ¼ 0.180, t ¼ 3.142, p ¼ 0.001 o 0.05). McCrae and Costa (2008) suggest that individuals
who are high in a neuroticism tendency are depressive, self-confused, and impulsive,
making them more vulnerable to impulsive buying. Other studies, while validating the
positive association between neuroticism and impulsive buying, conclude that impulsive
buying helps neurotic individuals to relieve their emotional stress (Shahjehan et al., 2012;
Silvera et al., 2008). Furthermore, neuroticism traits up to a certain point are necessary, as
they help in coping with stress and anxiety. However, when they surpass a certain limit,
they stimulate negative emotions and stress, which leads to negative consequences,
including impulsive buying ( John et al., 2008).
Agreeableness and impulsive buying behavior. H2 states that agreeableness and impulsive
buying behavior have a negative relationship. The results do not support this hypothesis
(β ¼ 0.067, t ¼ 1.050, p ¼ 0.147 W0.05). McCrae and Costa (2008) find that individuals with a
high score on agreeableness have a compassionate nature and generally trust others.
Moreover, they are socially active and tend to maintain a positive and sustainable
relationship with their peers. Only a few studies have examined the association between
agreeableness and impulsive buying. For example, Verplanken Herabadi (2001) suggest that
agreeableness and impulsive buying behavior are negatively associated. On the contrary,
Badgaiyan and Verma (2014) find an insignificant association between impulsive buying
and agreeableness. Individuals with a high level of agreeableness have an understanding
attitude toward others. Moreover, they go out of their way to help their friends and peers
and expect that peers and friends will reciprocate. Furthermore, McCrae and Costa (2008)
find that agreeable people are less vulnerable to impulsive buying, as they are not reactive
and think rationally.
Extroversion and impulsive buying behavior. H3 states that extroversion and impulsive
buying behavior have a positive relationship. The results do not support this hypothesis
(β ¼ 0.044, t ¼ 0.605, p ¼ 0.273W0.05). Extroverted individuals are highly energetic and
materialistic and have positive emotions ( John and Srivastava, 1999; McCrae and Costa,
2008). Extroverts love to socialize and interact with friends as well as with strangers,
including salespersons at a retail outlet (Eysenck et al., 1993). Due to these traits, they are
vulnerable to impulsive buying ( John et al., 2008). On the other hand, introverts are not very
social and are less impulsive (McCrae and Costa, 2008). Furthermore, extroverts are
self-confident and love to explore and experience new ideas, so they tend to be more
vulnerable to impulsive buying (Eysenck et al., 1993; Judge et al., 2014).
Conscientiousness and impulsive buying behavior. H4 states that conscientiousness and
impulsive buying behavior have a negative relationship. The results do not support this
hypothesis (β ¼ 0.000, t ¼ 0.006, p ¼ 0.498W0.05). Conscientiousness is a built-in mechanism
that helps individuals to monitor their level of responsiveness to surrounding stimuli. It is goal
directed and varies from one individual to another – individuals do not all have the same
self-control and sense of responsibility (Roberts et al., 2014). A high level of conscientiousness
makes individual’s goal directed and more responsible in personal and official tasks.
Consequently, their inclination toward impulsive buying is low (Barrick et al., 2013). On the
contrary, low conscientiousness makes individuals less serious about life, and they get
distracted, so are more vulnerable to impulsive buying (Roberts et al., 2014).
Openness and impulsive buying behavior. H5 states that openness and impulsive buying
behavior have a positive relationship. The results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.159,
t ¼ 2.911, p ¼ 0.002 o0.05). Individuals with a high level of openness have diversified
interests, are open to new ideas, and are willing to adopt new and innovative products. They
fall into the category of early adopters and are more vulnerable to impulsive buying
behavior (McCrae and Costa, 2008). On the other hand, individuals who have a low level of
openness are traditionalist, conservative, not open to new ideas, not willing to take a risk
and have a low vulnerability to impulsive buying behavior (Verplanken and Herabadi,
2001). Thus retailers tend to target individuals who have a high level of openness.
Individualism and impulsive buying behavior. H6 states that individualism has a positive
association with impulsive buying behavior. The results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.053,
t ¼ 0.941, p ¼ 0.174 W0.05). Individuals in an individualist society are not socially and
emotionally attached to their families and groups. They are more concerned about their
physical and emotional freedom and do not follow social norms and values. Moreover, in
comparison to collectivists, individualists have a low tendency to sacrifice emotional,
personal, and social needs (Hagger et al., 2014). Kacen and Lee (2002) found that because
individualists are more concerned about their social needs, they often ignore the negative
consequences of impulsive buying and so adopt impulsive buying behavior.
Similarly, Marm and Kongsompong (2007) conclude that individualists are not concerned
about impressing their peers and friends with their behavior. Therefore they have no
problem about adopting impulsive buying behavior. Furthermore, Mai (2003) also document
that impulsive buying behavior and individualism are positively related. Moreover, Verma
and Triandis (1999), in a comparative study, found that individuals in an individualist
society (e.g. the USA) have a lower inclination to impulsive buying behavior than
individuals in a collectivist society such as India.
Collectivism and impulsive buying behavior. H7 states that collectivism and impulsive
buying behavior have a positive association. The results support this hypothesis (β ¼ 0.168,
t ¼ 2.479, p ¼ 0.007o0.05). In a collectivist society, individuals consider themselves close-knit
members of a family, group or nation (Toffoli and Laroche, 2015). Past studies have
documented that individuals in a collective society since childhood learn to sacrifice their
personal and social needs to remain connected to their family. Therefore they are more mature
than individuals in an individualist society. Consequently, they have a negative attitude toward
impulsive buying behavior (Badgaiyan and Verma, 2015; Thompson and Prendergast, 2015).
Other studies find that collectivism and impulsive buying behavior have an insignificant
association (Badgaiyan and Verma, 2015; Thompson and Prendergast, 2015). On the contrary,
Impulsive
buying
behavior
199
APJML
32,1
200
Marm and Kongsompong (2007) document that a collectivist society and impulsive buying
behavior have a positive association.
Window display and impulsive buying behavior. H8 states that window display and
impulsive buying behavior are positively related. The results do not support this hypothesis
(β ¼ −0.094, t ¼ 1.627, p ¼ 0.052W0.05). Retailers use window displays to attract customers to
their premises and to create differentiation between their store and others. Moreover, window
displays are also considered a strategy for communicating value proposition and stimulating
impulsive buying behavior (Chang et al., 2011). Past studies have documented that window
displays are not only restricted to external décor, but also include the point of sale, ambiance,
merchandising, and sales staff (Zhou and Wong, 2004). Tendai and Crispen (2009) conclude
that consumers prefer retail outlets with an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Consequently, customers remain longer in such outlets and buy impulsively (Tendai and
Crispen, 2009). Merugu and Vaddadi (2017) and Tendai and Crispen (2009) also conclude
that window displays and impulsive buying behavior are positively associated. But it has
also been argued that the relationship between impulsive buying and window displays is
not universal, and that it varies from customer to customer and from one product category
to another (Badgaiyan and Verma, 2015). Given these varying relationships, retailers
frequently change the window display to stimulate impulsive buying behavior (Prashar
et al., 2015). Moreover, it has also been found that exciting and innovative window display
strategies stimulate customers’ positive mood and impulsive buying behavior (Gandhi et al.,
2015). Sun and Yazdanifard (2015) find that many retailers display product-related materials
and advertisements near the point of sale to stimulate impulsive behavior (Gandhi et al.,
2015; Sun and Yazdanifard, 2015). Similarly, Muruganantham and Bhakat (2013) also find
that pleasant and attractive window displays stimulate impulsive buying behavior.
Sales promotion. H9 states that sales promotion and impulsive buying behavior are
positively related. The results support this hypothesis ( β ¼ 0.152, t ¼ 2.578,
p ¼ 0.007 W0.05). Many retailers use a sales promotion strategy to attract consumers and
deplete inventory (Xu and Huang, 2014). Sales promotion strategies are attractive to
customers as they perceive that they are paying less than the original price of goods and
services. Some of the techniques commonly used in sales promotion are sample, premiums
and contest rebates (Liao et al., 2009).
Many studies have found a positive association between sales promotion and impulsive
buying behavior (Xu and Huang, 2014; Liao et al., 2009). Moreover, it has also been found
that impulsive buyer justifies their behavior as having resulted in considerable savings
(Liao et al., 2009). Xu and Huang (2014) also find a positive association between sales
promotion and impulsive buying behavior. However, they conclude that the relationship
between sales promotion and impulsive buying is not linear; it diminishes over a period of
time. On the other hand, they found that sales promotion stimulates impulsive buying desire
but not actual buying behavior.
Conclusion
Impulsive buying is a complex behavior. On the one hand, it is considered problematic for
consumers, and, on the other hand, it is an essential tool for retailers to increase their sales. In
view of impulsive behavior’s importance, it is important to examine the factors that influence
it. Thus this study has examined the relationship between personality factors (i.e. neuroticism,
agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness and openness), cultural factors (individualism
and collectivism), and store stimuli (window displays and sales promotion) with impulsive
buying behavior. The results suggest that neuroticism, openness, collectivism, and sales
promotion have a positive effect on impulsive buying behavior. On the other hand, the results
suggest that agreeableness, extroversion, conscientiousness, individualism and window
displays have an insignificant association with impulsive buying behavior. Retailers could use
the results of the study in developing strategies for increasing sales. Moreover, it could also be
used by policy makers to reduce the incidence of impulsive buying, as, in the long run, it leads
to compulsive buying, which is harmful to individuals and society.
Future research
This study has measured the association between personality factors, cultural factors and store
stimuli with impulsive buying behavior. In cultural factors, only two variables, i.e. individualism
and collectivism, were examined. Future studies may add other cultural variables, such as
power distance, masculinity, femininity, uncertainty avoidance and demographic factors. The
model in this study could be extended for comparative studies.
References
Akram, U., Hui, P., Kaleem Khan, M., Tanveer, Y., Mehmood, K. and Ahmad, W. (2018), “How website
quality affects online impulse buying: moderating effects of sales promotion and credit card
use”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 235-256.
Ali, S.W. and Sudan, S. (2018), “Influence of cultural factors on impulse buying tendency: a study of
Indian consumers”, Vision, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 68-77.
Amos, C., Holmes, G.R. and Keneson, W.C. (2014), “A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 86-97.
Badgaiyan, A.J. and Verma, A. (2014), “Intrinsic factors affecting impulsive buying behaviour –
evidence from India”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 537-549.
Badgaiyan, A.J. and Verma, A. (2015), “Does urge to buy impulsively differ from impulsive buying
behaviour? Assessing the impact of situational factors”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 145-157.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Li, N. (2013), “The theory of purposeful work behavior: the role of
personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 132-153.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, M.E. (1998), “Impulse buying: modeling its precursors”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 169-191.
Boonchoo, P. and Thoumrungroje, A. (2017), “A cross-cultural examination of the impact of
transformation expectations on impulse buying and conspicuous consumption”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 194-205.
Cakanlar, A. and Nguyen, T. (2019), “The influence of culture on impulse buying”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 12-23.
Chang, H.-J., Eckman, M. and Yan, R.-N. (2011), “Application of the stimulus-organism-response model
to the retail environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior”, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 233-249.
Chen, T. (2011), “Personality traits hierarchy of online shoppers”, International Journal of Marketing
Studies, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 23-33.
Clover, V.T. (1950), “Relative importance of impulse-buying in retail stores”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 66-70.
Crawford, G. and Melewar, T. (2003), “The importance of impulse purchasing behaviour in the
international airport environment”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Eysenck, S.B., Barrett, P.T. and Barnes, G.E. (1993), “A cross-cultural study of personality: Canada and
England”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Farid, D.S. and Ali, M. (2018), “Effects of personality on impulsive buying behavior: evidence from a
developing country”, Marketing and Branding Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Impulsive
buying
behavior
201
APJML
32,1
202
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gandhi, A., Vajpayee, A. and Gautam, D. (2015), “A study of impulse buying behavior and factors
influencing it with reference to beverage products in retail stores”, SAMVAD International
Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Gültekin, B. and Özer, L. (2012), “The influence of hedonic motives and browsing on impulse buying”,
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 180-189.
Hagger, M.S., Rentzelas, P. and Koch, S. (2014), “Evaluating group member behaviour under
individualist and collectivist norms: a cross-cultural comparison”, Small Group Research, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 217-228.
Hendrawan, D. and Nugroho, D.A. (2018), “Influence of personality on impulsive buying behaviour
among Indonesian young consumers”, International Journal of Trade and Global Markets,
Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 31-39.
Hough, L.M., Eaton, N.K., Dunnette, M.D., Kamp, J.D. and McCloy, R.A. (1990), “Criterion related
validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 581-595.
Imran, Z.S., Jalees, T., Jiang, Y. and Alam, K.S.H. (2018), “Testing and incorporating additional
determinants of ethics in counterfeiting luxury research according to the theory of planned
behavior”, Psihologija, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 163-196.
Jiang, Y., Miao, M., Jalees, T. and Zaman, S.I. (2019), “Analysis of the moral mechanism to purchase
counterfeit luxury goods: evidence from China”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 647-669.
Jiang, Y., Xiao, L., Jalees, T., Naqvi, M.H. and Zaman, S.I. (2018), “Moral and ethical antecedents of
attitude toward counterfeit luxury products: evidence from Pakistan”, Emerging Markets
Finance and Trade, Vol. 54 No. 15, pp. 3519-3538.
John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999), “The big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives”, in Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory
and Research, Vol. 2, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 102-138.
John, O.P., Naumann, L.P. and Soto, C.J. (2008), “Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait
taxonomy”, in John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (Eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory
and Research, Vol. 3, Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 114-158.
Judge, T.A., Simon, L.S., Hurst, C. and Kelley, K. (2014), “What I experienced yesterday is who I am
today: relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation in the fivefactor model of personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99 No. 2, pp. 199-221.
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “ ‘The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Karbasivar, A. and Yarahmadi, H. (2011), “Evaluating effective factors on consumer impulse buying
behavior”, Asian Journal of Business Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 174-181.
Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1967), “Customer purchasing behavior”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Lee, J.A. and Kacen, J.J. (2008), “Cultural influences on consumer satisfaction with impulse and planned
purchase decisions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 265-272.
Leech, N.L., Karen, C.B. and Morgan, G.A. (2014), IBM SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, Routledge, New York, NY.
Liao, S.L., Shen, Y.C. and Chu, C.H. (2009), “The effects of sales promotion strategy, product appeal and
consumer traits on reminder impulse buying behaviour”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 274-284.
Lin, C.H. and Chuang, S.C. (2005), “The effect of individual differences on adolescence impulsive buying
behavior”, Adolescence, Vol. 40 No. 159, pp. 551-558.
Looney, S.W. (1995), “How to use tests for univariate normality to assess multivariate normality”, The
American Statistician, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 64-70.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (2008), “Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of
personality traits”, in Boyle, G.J., Matthews, G. and Saklofske, D.H. (Eds), Sage Handbook of
Personality Theory and Assessment, Vol. 1, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 273-294.
Mai, N.T.T. (2003), “Initial findings about impulsive behavior of Vietnamese consumers during the
process of the economic transition”, Economics & Development Review, January, pp. 30-33.
Marm, H.K. and Kongsompong, K. (2007), “The power of social influence: east-west comparison on
purchasing behavior”, paper presented at International Marketing Conference on Marketing
Society, Institute of Indian Management, Kozhikode, April 8–10.
Merugu, P. and Vaddadi, K.M. (2017), “Visual merchandising: a study on consumer impulsive buying
behavior in greater Visakhapatnam city”, International Journal of Engineering Technology
Science and Research, Vol. 4 No. 7, pp. 2394-3386.
Mooradian, T.A. and Swan, K.S. (2006), “Personality-and-culture: the case of national extraversion and
word-of-mouth”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 778-785.
Muruganantham, G. and Bhakat, R.S. (2013), “A review of impulse buying behavior”, International
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 149-160.
Ozen, H. and Engizek, N. (2014), “Shopping online without thinking: being emotional or rational?”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Piron, F (1991), “Defining impulse purchasing”, in Holman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), NA – Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 509-514.
Pradhan, D., Israel, D. and Jena, A.K. (2018), “Materialism and compulsive buying behaviour: the role of
consumer credit card use and impulse buying”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 1239-1258.
Prashar, S., Parsad, C., Tata, S.V. and Sahay, V. (2015), “Impulsive buying structure in retailing: an
interpretive Structural modeling approach”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 215-233.
Roberts, B.W., Lejuez, C., Krueger, R.F., Richards, J.M. and Hill, P.L. (2014), “What is conscientiousness
and how can it be assessed?”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1315-1331.
Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 305-313.
Rook, D.W. and Hoch, S.J. (1985), “Consuming impulses”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 23-27.
Schiffman, L. and Kanuk, L.L. (2008), Consumer Behaviour (Perilaku Konsumen), 7th ed., PT Indeks, Jakarta.
Shahjehan, A., Zeb, F. and Saifullah, K. (2012), “The effect of personality on impulsive and compulsive
buying behaviors”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 2187-2194.
Silvera, D.H., Lavack, A.M. and Kropp, F. (2008), “Impulse buying: the role of affect, social influence,
and subjective wellbeing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Simons, L.E., Elman, I. and Borsook, D. (2014), “Psychological processing in chronic pain: a neural
systems approach”, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 61-78.
Singh, R. and Nayak, J.K. (2016), “Effect of family environment on adolescent compulsive buying:
mediating role of self-esteem”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 396-419.
Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P. and Gelfand, M.J. (1995), “Horizontal and vertical
dimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement”,
Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 240-275.
Sofi, S.A. (2018), “Personality as an antecedent of impulsive buying behaviour: evidence from young
Indian consumers”, Global Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Impulsive
buying
behavior
203
APJML
32,1
204
Stern, H. (1962), “The significance of impulse buying today”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 59-62.
Sun, T.R. and Yazdanifard, R. (2015), “The review of physical store factors that influence impulsive
buying behavior”, Economics, Vol. 2 No. 9, pp. 1048-1054.
Tendai, M. and Crispen, C. (2009), “In-store shopping environment and impulsive buying”, Africa
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 102-108.
Thomas, A.K., Louise, R. and Vipinkumar, V.P. (2018), “Impact of visual merchandising, on impulse
buying behavior of retail customers”, International Journal for Research in Applied Science and
Engineering Technology, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 474-491.
Thompson, E.R. and Prendergast, G.P. (2015), “The influence of trait affect and the five-factor
personality model on impulse buying”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 76,
pp. 216-221.
Toffoli, R. and Laroche, M. (2015), “Cultural and language effects on the perception of source honesty
and forcefulness in advertising: a comparison of Hong Kong Chinese bilinguals and Anglo
Canadians”, Proceedings of the 1998 Multicultural Marketing Conference, Springer, Cham,
pp. 206-206.
Verma, J. and Triandis, H.C. (1999), “The measurement of collectivism in India”, in Walter, L.J., Dale, D.L.,
Deborah, F.K. and Sussana, H.A. (Eds), Merging Past, Present and Future in Cross-Cultural
Psychology: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Congress of the International
Association of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers, Lisse, pp. 256-265.
Verplanken, B. and Herabadi, A. (2001), “Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: feeling
and no thinking”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. 71-83.
Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1991), “Self- versus peer ratings of specific emotional traits: evidence of
convergent and discriminant validity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60
No. 6, pp. 927-940.
Xiao, S.H. and Nicholson, M. (2011), “Mapping impulse buying: a behaviour analysis framework for
services marketing and consumer research”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31 No. 15,
pp. 2515-2528.
Xu, Y. and Huang, J.S. (2014), “Effects of price discounts and bonus packs on online impulse buying”,
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1293-1302.
Youn, S. and Faber, R.J. (2000), “Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 179-185.
Zhou, L. and Wong, A. (2004), “Consumer impulse buying and in-store stimuli in Chinese
supermarkets”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 37-53.
Further reading
Liau, A.K., Neo, E.C., Gentile, D.A., Choo, H., Sim, T., Li, D. and Khoo, A. (2015), “Impulsivity, selfregulation, and pathological video gaming among youth testing a mediation model”, Asia-Pacific
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Verplanken, B., Herabadi, A.G., Perry, J.A. and Silvera, D.H. (2005), “Consumer style and health: the role
of impulsive buying in unhealthy eating”, Psychology & Health, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 429-441.
Corresponding author
Syed Imran Zaman can be contacted at: s.imranzaman@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.