Impulsive Buying Behaviour :
The Role of Impulse Buying Tendencies and Convenience Orientation
Kåre Hansen and Svein Ottar Olsen, University of Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
This study proposes and empirically verifies a value-attitude-behaviour hierarchy inspired
model of the antecedents (i.e., the consumer’s more general impulse buying tendency and
convenience orientation) and consequences (i.e., product-specific impulse buying behaviour
and store patronage) of the product-specific impulsive buying tendency. Analysis of a
national sample of 1450 Norwegian consumers’ attitudes and behaviours towards meals ready
to eat (MRE) revealed that both the general trait of impulse buying and convenience
orientation have a significant effect on the product-specific impulsive buying tendency.
Convenience orientation also affected the impulse behaviour directly and was the strongest
predictor of impulsive buying behaviour. Implications for future research and managerial
implications with regards to marketing and retailing strategies are drawn from the findings.
Introduction
Studies on consumer buying behaviour and store patronage have been an important area of
research in retailing for many years. The extant literature on the attractiveness of retail stores
has focused predominantly on the critical influence of store image, the importance of location
and size (Carter and Vandell, 2005; Eppli and Benjamin, 1994), the effects of agglomeration,
and the physical aspects of the retail outlets (Eppli and Shilling, 1996). Only a few studies
have tried to explain shopping patterns in terms of individual differences amongst the
consumers (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001).
Due to a ubiquitous trend towards increased impulse buying behaviour in the retail market,
the phenomenon of impulse buying has received increased attention in academic research.
Impulsive buying tendency (IBT) has been treated as a generalised trait consistent across
product categories (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Puri, 1996; Weun, Jones and Beatty, 1998).
However, Jones, Reynolds, Weun and Beatty (2003b) have shown that product-specific
conceptualisation of IBT may be a better predictor of actual impulse buying behaviour than
general IBT. Extending the notion of IBT from a general trait to a product-specific trait, this
study investigates the effect on actual impulse buying behaviour (i.e., frequency and store
loyalty). Furthermore, this study proposes that the concept of convenience orientation (CO)
may play an important role in the impulse buying process. In particular, the current study
empirically considers the relationships amongst general impulse buying behaviour, productspecific impulse buying tendency, convenience orientation, impulse buying behaviour and
store patronage behaviour for the MRE category.
Theory and Conceptual Framework
Impulse buying is loosely defined in the literature and covers many forms of non-rational
purchase behaviour. “It is mostly associated with an unplanned and sudden purchase, which is
2199
initiated on the spot” (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001, p. 271). According to Jones et al.
(2003a), impulse buying does not involve reflection and the purchase is made without
engaging in a great deal of evaluation. The individual’s attention is focused on the
instantaneous satisfaction of responding to the urge to buy. Consistent with general
impulsiveness, impulsive buying is immediate (Rook and Fisher, 1995). The decision to buy
is made at a fast pace, and the time from seeing the product to buying is very short. Therefore,
the person is not likely to delay the purchase in order to get more information, seek advice or
for comparison shopping.
However, the above discussion implies that consumers with a high-impulse buying tendency
purchase goods of all categories on impulse. This simple trait-behaviour model is questioned
in the literature (e.g., Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Peterson, 1968). Following Jones et al.
(2003a), a context-specific notion of IBT may be a better predictor of impulse-buying
consumers. The general IBT refers to the consumer’s impulse buying in general. The productspecific IBT can be seen as a materialisation of the more general IBT trait. We therefore
hypothesise a positive relationship between general IBT and product-specific IBT.
Product-specific IBT in turn affects the consumer’s product-specific impulse purchasing
behaviour and store loyalty. We conceptualise loyalty as the relationship between impulsive
buying and patronage behaviour. We therefore hypothesise that product-specific IBT will
manifest a greater tendency towards a loose relationship between a specific store and the
customer. Also, a higher degree of product-specific IBT will be manifested in a higher degree
of product-specific impulse buying behaviour (PS-IBB). Which factors impact on productspecific impulse shopping? Variables in the retail environment such as the appearance of
products and the presence of features have been proposed (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). IBT is
also influenced by person-related variables. In the present study, we investigate the
assumption that product-specific IBT is affected by the consumer’s convenience orientation.
We can observe an increasing importance of convenience orientation in the consumer’s
buying behaviour and store patronage (Fitch, 2004; Jones et al., 2003a). Numerous attempts
have been made to define convenience (Yale and Venkatesh, 1986). Consumers’ attitudes or
perceptions towards saving time and effort related to planning, buying or using products or
services are considered the main elements in convenience orientation (Berry, Seiders and
Grewal, 2002; Scholderer and Grunert, 2005). Several convenience scales have been
developed in different contexts (Candel, 2001; Luqmani, Yavas and Quareshi, 1994; Steptoe,
Pollard and Wardle, 1995). CO is expected to impact convenience-related behaviours (i.e.,
purchase of convenience products, use of convenient shopping outlets, home meal
replacements). We are therefore hypothesising a positive relationship between CO and
product-specific IBT.
CO and general IBT will act as exogenous variables in our hypothesised structure amongst the
constructs. Product-specific IBT will act as a mediator in the process that determines the
consumer’s product-specific impulse buying behaviour (PS-IBB) and store loyalty. This
structural relationship is in accordance with theories suggesting that more general or domainspecific values and lifestyles influence more specific product or store attitudes and behaviour
(Homer and Kahle, 1988; Shim and Eastlick, 1998). Hypothesised relationships between the
constructs are summarised in Figure 1. The proposed structure will be tested by means of
structural equation modelling.
2200
Research Method
In order to provide a rigorous test of the proposed model, the MRE category was chosen as a
relevant category. The demand for MRE is increasing, and it is also of interest for the retailers
to better understand the driving forces behind and consequences of the specific demand for
prepared meals. The data set, which encompasses 1450 consumers, was obtained from a
random sample of 2500 Norwegian consumers in 2005 (response rate: 58 %). A questionnaire
was sent to the person mainly responsible for shopping in the household. The mean age of the
participants was 43 years (SD 12.3); 77.2 % of the respondents were female. The fieldwork
was commissioned to a local market research agency.
All attitude questions were measured on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by “Strongly
disagree” (1) and “Strongly agree” (7). The different items were collected from relevant
literature within marketing science, assessing attitude and behaviour. Convenience orientation
(i.e. "I think of myself as a convenience-oriented person", "I think of myself as a person who
chooses quick and handy solutions") general IBT (i.e. "All of my purchases are planned in
advance" (r), "I often buy things on the spot") and product-specific IBT (i.e. "I plan today to a
very little degree what to have for dinner tomorrow", "I often buy MRE without thinking
about it", "I don’t plan what to buy for dinner") were treated as latent constructs and were thus
measured by multiple indicators. The product-specific impulse buying behaviour (i.e. "I often
buy MRE for dinner") and store loyalty (i.e. "I don’t patronise one specific store, but choose
the stores that are convenient at any time" (r)) variables were measured by a single indicator
on a 7-point scale.
Findings
We used the ML simultaneous estimation procedures (LISREL-VII; Jöreskog and Sörbom,
1996) to test the hypothesised structure amongst the constructs. First, the unidimensionality of
the different constructs was evaluated. The ML simultaneous estimation procedures were used
to run a structural-equation model with the use of the variables of the measurement model.
Standardised estimates for the hypothesised paths are presented in Figure 1. Based on an
assessment of the various goodness-of-fit indices, the initial fit of the model was not
particularly good (χ2 = 652.58 with d.f. = 46, RMSEA = .097, NNFI = .92 and CFI = .94).
The model was therefore re-specified and a more parsimonious model was sought.
Modification indices and standardised residuals were employed for purposes of item deletion
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Items with multiple loadings and correlated measurement
errors (both within and across constructs) were deleted. In all, three items were deleted. One
item was deleted from PS-IBT and two items from IBT. The fit of the re-specified model
improved considerably to χ2 = 91.98, with degrees of freedom = 29 (p = .00), RMSEA =
.045, NNFI = .99 and CFI = .99.
Next, the within-method convergent validity was assessed, which measures the degree to
which two different measures of the same construct agree. All loadings were statistically
significant (smallest t = 13.56, p > .00) and sufficiently large. Then the composite reliability
of the items and the error variance explained was assessed. Three different measures of
internal consistency or reliability were computed. First, item reliability or squared multiple
correlations of the indicators ranged from .21 for the CO1 indicator to .83 for the CO2
indicator. Second, all composite reliabilities are .75 or higher, which indicates internal
consistency amongst the measures far above the recommended level of .60 (Bagozzi and Yi,
2201
1988). Third, average variance extracted ranged from .61 to .72. Bagozzi and Yi (1988)
suggested a target level > .50. Last, the discriminant validity of the different latent variables
was verified. We used a procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and
Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Using the 95 % confidence interval around the correlation estimates
for each of the constructs, we assessed discriminant validity of the latent constructs. If none of
the confidence intervals includes 1.0, no pairs of the constructs are perfectly correlated within
the range of random sampling error. None of the correlations plus/minus two standard errors
included 1; thus, discriminant validity of the constructs is claimed to be satisfactory.
An SEM methodology was employed to test the hypotheses. For the sake of parsimony,
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed latent variable model without indicator variables. The χ2 for
the proposed model was 206.44 (df = 24, p = .00); the RMSEA was .073, which is considered
a reasonably good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1992), and GFI and CFI are .97 and .96,
respectively, and exceed the recommended level of .90 (Bollen, 1989). Even though the
model shows a reasonably good fit, standardised residual statistics and the modification
indices (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996) revealed that the fit of the model would improve by
adding a direct link between convenience orientation (CO) and PS-IBB, and also a link
between store loyalty and PS-BB. The chi-square (df = 22) of the modified model decreased
to 75.11 (p = .00) and RMSEA to .041. GFI and CFI increased to .99 and .99, respectively, by
opening up for those two new relationships. We can conclude that the theoretical model fit the
data reasonably well and improved by adding a new direct path from the exogenous variable
CO to PS-IBB and a path from store loyalty to PS-IBB.
CO
(+)
(+)
IBT
.40 (14.09)
.16 (4.66)
PS-IBT
R2 = .49
.62 (15.99)
PS-BB
R2 = .08
(+)
(-)
.20 (7.00)
Store loyalty
R2 = .02
.13 (3.70)
PS-BB
R2 = .25
a) The proposed model
.31 (9.00)
CO
.13 (3.70)
PS-IBT
R2 = .47
IBT
-.16 (-6.51)
.29 (8.89)
.62 (15.65)
Store loyalty
R2 = .05
b) The modified model
Figure 1: Tested models with standardised parameters (t-values in parenthesis).
Hypothesised relationships indicated in the proposed model.
As expected, CO was positively and directly related to PS-IBT. CO had a path coefficient of
.13. Also, IBT was both positively and significantly related to PS-IBT (path coefficient of
.62). Those two exogenous variables explained a substantial percentage of the variation in PSIBT (47 %). The relationship between PS-IBT and store loyalty was negative and significant
(path coefficient of -.29). Five percent of the variation store loyalty was explained by PS-IBT
in the modified model.
2202
PS-IBT and PS-BB were positive and significantly related to PS-IBB with a path coefficient
of .40 in the proposed model and .13 in the modified model. The direct link from CO to PSIBB is .31 in the modified model and therefore the strongest predictor of PS-IBB, followed by
store loyalty (-.16) and PS-IBT (.13).The explained variance of PS-IBB increased from .08 to
.25 from the proposed to the modified model.
Conclusions and Implications
Consumers differ in their general tendency to purchase goods on impulse (Puri, 1996; Weun
et al., 1998). We have in this paper conceptualised impulse buying tendency as a productspecific construct and examined a model of its antecedents and impact on actual impulse
buying behaviour and store patronage. The findings, although preliminary, indicate that the
effect of convenience orientation and impulse buying tendency on both store loyalty and
buying behaviour are mediated by the product-specific impulse buying tendency construct.
Also, convenience orientation appears to have a direct impact on product-specific buying
behaviour, in addition to the indirect impact through the product-specific impulse buying
tendency. The study also indicates a negative relationship between store loyalty and productspecific buying behaviour.
Our study shows that the general impulse buying measure was not associated with actual
impulse buying behaviour in a direct way, as is the case with the product-specific impulse
buying tendency. This suggests that the product-specific measure may be more useful as a
predictor of product-specific behaviour. Further research should investigate the relationship
between the two constructs in different product-specific situations.
The study also empirically assesses the role of convenience orientation in impulse buying.
Convenience orientation was found to have both a significant direct influence on impulse
buying behaviour and an indirect influence through the product-specific impulse buying
tendency construct. Convenience orientation, however, has no direct influence on store
loyalty, which is only influenced by product-specific impulse buying. Store loyalty in turn has
a negative influence on impulse buying behaviour. Future research should investigate the role
of situational variables with regard to convenience orientation and impulse buying. For
example, how do money and time availability influence the high convenience-oriented
customer’s impulse buying?
How can this study contribute towards retailers’ understanding of impulse buying and
encouraging it in their stores? Retailers should make efforts to attract convenience-oriented
customers. They would probably value simple displays of information and goods that ensure
that their acquisition of these is efficient and less time-consuming. Another in-store strategy
for consumers with high degrees of CO could be to further develop the use of point-ofpurchase (POP) advertising owing to the fact that these customers are positively inclined
towards this kind of advertising. Retailers trying to understand and study impulse buying in
product-specific contexts should also use product-specific measures.
The study must be tempered with several limitations. First, future studies should be broader in
terms of other product-specific settings. Next, the self-reporting of store loyalty and buying
behaviour to represent behavioural components that was used as a single indicator for
2203
structural equation modelling represents another limitation. Thus, future research should look
at supplementary ways to conceptualise impulse buying behaviour.
2204
References
Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice - a review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-23.
Bagozzi, B. and Yi, Y.,1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (Spring), 74-94.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, E.M., 1998. Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of
Retailing, 74 (2), 161-67.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D., 2002. Understanding service convenience. Journal of
Marketing, 66 (3), 1-18.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R., 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological
Methods and Research, 21 (2), 230-59.
Candel, M. J. J. M., 2001. Consumers’ convenience orientation towards meal preparation:
conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 36 (1), 15-28.
Carter, C.C. and Vandell, K.D., 2005. Store location in shopping centers: theory and
estimates. Journal of Real Estate Research, 27 (3), 237-66.
Eppli, M.J. and Benjamin, J.D., 1994. The evolution of shopping center research: a review
and analysis. Journal of Real Estate Research, 9 (1), 5-33.
Eppli, M.J. and Shilling, J.D., 1996. How critical is a good location to a regional shopping
center? Journal of Real Estate Research, 12 (3), 459-69.
Fitch, D., 2004. Measuring convenience: Scots’ perceptions of local food and retail provision.
International Journal of Retail, 32 (2), 100-08.
Gatignon, Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson, 1985. A propositional inventory for new
diffusion research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (4), 849-67.
Homer, Pamela M. and L. R. Kahle, 1988. A structural equation of the value-attitudebehavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5), 638-46.
Jones, Michael A, David L Mothersbaugh, and Sharon E Beatty, 2003a. The effects of
locational convenience on customer repurchase intentions across service types. Journal of
Services Marketing, 17 (7), 701-12.
Jones, Michael A., Kristy E. Reynolds, Seungoog Weun, and Sharon E. Beatty, 2003b. The
product-specific nature of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research, 56 (7),
505-11.
Jöreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sörbom, 1996. LISREL 8 User’s Reference Guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
2205
Luqmani, Mushtaq, Ugur Yavas, and Zahir A Quraeshi, 1994. A convenience-oriented
approach to country segmentation: implications for global marketing strategies. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 11 (4), 29-40.
Peterson, D.R., 1968. The Clinical Study of Social Behavior. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
Puri, Radhika, 1996. Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness: a cost-benefit
accessibility framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5 (2), 87-114.
Rook, D. W. and R. J. Fisher, 1995. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 305-13.
Scholderer, J. and K. G. Grunert, 2005. Consumers, food and convenience: The long way
from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of Economic Psychology,
26 (1), 105-28.
Shim, Soyeon and Mary Ann Eastlick, 1998. The hierarchical influence of personal values on
mall shopping attitute and behavior. Journal of Retailing, 74 (1), 139-60.
Steptoe, A., T. M. Pollard, and J. Wardle, 1995. Development of a measure of the motives
underlying the selection of food - the food choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25 (3), 267-84.
Verplanken, Bas and Astrid Herabadi, 2001. Individual differences in impulse buying
tendency: feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15, S71-1.
Weun, S., M. A. Jones, and S. E. Beatty, 1998. Development and validation of the impulse
buying tendency scale. Psychological Reports, 82 (3), 1123-33.
Yale, L. and A. Venkatesh, 1986. Toward the Construct of Convenience in Consumer
Research. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 403-08.
2206