Introduction

Impulsiveness

Impulse buying behavior is an enigma in the marketing world, for here is a behavior which the

literature and consumers both state is normatively wrong, yet which accounts for a substantial

volume of the goods sold every year across a broad range of product categories (Bellenger et al.,

1978; Cobb and Hoyer, 1986; Han et al., 1991; Kollat and Willet, 1967; Rook and Fisher, 1995;

Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982). Possibly, these negative evaluations of impulse buying behavior

emanate from psychological studies of impulsiveness that characterize impulse behavior as a sign

of immaturity and lacking behavioral control (Levy, 1976; Solnick et al., 1980) or as irrational, risky,

and wasteful (Ainslie, 1975; Levy, 1976; Rook and Fisher, 1995; Solnick et al., 1980).

Rook and Fisher (1995) were among the first marketing researchers to suggest that these

normative evaluations act to moderate individual impulsive traits and, thus, reduce consumer

impulse buying behavior. In other words, consumers attempt to control their innate impulsive

tendencies because they do not want to be perceived as immature or irrational. However, this

moderating effect does not conform with the high reported incidence of impulse buying behavior in

studies conducted over the last four decades. These studies show that most people - almost 90

per cent - make purchases on impulse occasionally (Welles, 1986) and between 30 per cent and

50 per cent of all purchases can be classified by the buyers themselves as impulse purchases

(Bellenger et al., 1978; Cobb and Hoyer, 1986; Han et al., 1991; Kollat and Willett, 1967).

Normative evaluations

This discrepancy raises interesting questions regarding why negative normative evaluations have

so little observed impact on aggregate impulse buying behavior. For instance, do some consumers

consider impulse buying behavior appropriate, especially under certain circumstances, as

proposed by Rook and Fisher (1995)? And, if so, what conditions allow consumers to justify their

impulse buying behavior and override societal pressures to make purchase decisions rationally?

This paper proposes that impulse buying behavior is much more complex than previously

conceptualized; that this behavior stems from the desire to satisfy multiple needs that underlie

many types of buying behavior. Specifically, this paper will explore needs for novelty, social

interaction, and "fun", commonly termed hedonic motives, as contributors to impulse buying

behavior. Further, this paper will explore and test several possible conditions that may allow

consumers to view impulse buying behavior as a rational response to the complexities in their

environment. For instance, information processing overload or other decision-making difficulties

may encourage consumers to use less demanding decision-making strategies, such as using

schemata or heuristics to simplify decision making.

Consumers' motivations

In an attempt to address the complex issues raised in this study, a combination of qualitative and

quantitative methods is used to gain a better understanding of why consumers appear to utilize

impulse buying behavior with such frequency. These methods are used to develop and test a set

of hypotheses related to consumers' motivations behind impulse buying behavior. The study ends

with suggestions for retailers and consumers to aid in channeling this type of behavior more

constructively.

Review of the current literature

Most early efforts to study impulse buying behavior - those before 1987 - were concerned with

definitional issues and attempted to classify impulse into one of several sub-categories, rather than

to understand why so many consumers appear to act on their buying impulses so frequently. This

concern with developing classificational schemata has generated a body of research that ignores

the behavioral motivations leading to impulse buying behavior for a large variety of products and

instead focuses on a small number of relatively inexpensive products. More recent studies have

reported impulse purchases across a broad range of product offerings in a variety of price ranges

(Cobb and Hoyer, 1986; Rook, 1987; Rook and Fisher, 1995). The pervasiveness of impulse

buying, even for relatively expensive products, is counter-intuitive and has led to a few preliminary

studies looking at impulse buying as an inherent individual trait, rather than a response to

inexpensive product offerings.

What is impulse buying?

Definitions

Definitions of impulse buying prior to 1982 focused on the product rather than the consumer as the

motivator of impulse purchases. For instance, Stern (1962) provides the foundation for defining

impulse buying behavior, which classifies the act as planned, unplanned, or impulse. According to

this scheme, planned buying behavior involves a time-consuming information search followed by

rational decision making (Piron, 1991; Stern, 1962). Unplanned buying refers to all purchases

made without such advance planning and includes impulse buying, which is distinguished by the

relative speed with which buying "decisions" occur.

Subsequent to 1982, when researchers began to re-focus attention on impulse buying behavior,

researchers began to investigate the behavioral dimensions of impulse buying. Most recently,

researchers appear to agree that impulse buying involves a hedonic or affective component (Cobb

and Hoyer, 1986; Piron, 1991; Rook, 1987; Rook and Fisher, 1995; Weinberg and Gottwald,

1982). For instance, Rook (1987) reports accounts by consumers who felt the product "calling"

them, almost demanding they purchase it. This emphasis on the behavioral elements of impulse

buying led to the definition of impulse as follows:"Impulse buying occurs when a consumer

experiences a sudden, often powerful and persistent urge to buy something immediately. The

impulse to buy is hedonically complex and may stimulate emotional conflict. Also, impulse buying

is prone to occur with diminished regard for its consequences (Rook, 1987, p. 191)."

Buying behavior

Recent research on impulse buying behavior indicates that individual consumers do not view their

specific purchases as wrong and indeed retrospectively report a favorable evaluation of their

behavior. Specifically, in the Rook (1987) study, a relatively small number of informants (only 20

percent) report feeling "bad" about their impulse buying, but an astonishingly large number of

informants (41 percent) report that they actually feel good about their impulse purchases. These

results are surprising after reviewing prior literature and definitions of impulse buying, possibly

because they looked at individual consumers' evaluations of and motivation for a particular

impulse purchase, rather than their attitudes toward impulse buying in general. The results reflect

that, at least in this context, a large number of consumers failed to view impulse buying as

normatively wrong. Following this unexpected result, Rook and Fisher (1995) developed a scale to

measure impulsive buying tendencies, proposed as a surrogate for impulse buying behavior. They

propose that this individual behavioral trait moderates the negative norms prevalent in society

against impulse buying, thus reducing or eliminating negative feelings or conflict over impulse

purchases. In other words, consumers still view impulse buying as "bad", but feel unable to control

their impulsive tendencies, an inherent behavioral trait.

Several alternative explanations, however, are possible and two of them are explored in this paper.

The first alternative proposed in this study is that consumers use shopping to satisfy a number of

needs, not just their need for the products they acquire during the shopping excursion. In other

words, the shopping act itself satisfies certain needs and the products purchased during these

trips, since their purchase was unanticipated, fall into the realm of impulse buying behavior. In

addition, consumers may purchase products during these shopping trips that were not anticipated

but, once consumers see the product during the shopping exploration, they recognize its suitability

for satisfying a particular need. Thus, consumers may use the shopping experience and resulting

impulse buying behavior to satisfy a number of needs which do not fit into theories of economic

utility (Boone and Kurtz, 1995).

Theory development

Empirical study

Our efforts to study empirically the impulse buying process and how theories of information

processing might account for the relative frequency of reported impulse buying behavior led to the

use of both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. First, due to the exploratory

nature of our initial propositions, this paper used semi-structured interviews to explore consumers'

emotions regarding shopping, how they make buying decisions, and why these decisions often

result in impulse buying. Using this exploratory study, as well as the literature as a guide, this

paper next developed a set of hypotheses related to impulse buying (testing these hypotheses

required development of a scale to measure hedonic buying) and administered this scale, in

combination with appropriate existing scales, to a convenient sample of consumers.

Qualitative study

In order to gain a better understanding of the way consumers viewed their buying and decision-

making behavior, 60 semi-structured interviews were conducted by trained interviewers.

Informants consisted of a convenience sample of consumers representing both sexes and various

income and age brackets. On average, interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes and were

recorded and later transcribed by the interviewers. To avoid contamination of the data by attempts

to portray actions in a socially desirable light, informants were not asked directly about impulse

buying and interviewers were not told the exact nature of the project. Rather, both informants and

interviewers were told that the project was designed to explore shopping behaviors, and the

incidence of impulse buying was allowed to emerge naturally.

Interviews

Analysis of the interviews progressed using the techniques for theory development suggested by

Glaser and Strauss (1967). This method of theory generation involves a rigorous process of

evaluation whereby the data are analyzed iteratively to identify categories, code incidents, and

organize the data through theoretical memos. As the categories begin to emerge, constant

comparison is employed until theoretical saturation is achieved. This methodology yields

hypotheses empirically grounded in the data. These hypotheses may later be tested quantitatively

or through further qualitative data collection. A grounded theory approach was selected because it

helps discover, develop, and verify theory, which is the primary goal in this study (McDonald, 1996;

Glaser and Strauss, 1967). This makes grounded theory a valuable tool because it concentrates

on concepts and relationships or linkages between concepts; thus it is a suitable method for

creating a framework directly from data (McDonald, 1996; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Further, the

grounded theory approach, because it uses the constant comparison method, allows theory behind

actions to emerge (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

Using this theoretical approach, this paper was able to detect a variety of hedonic needs that

appeared to motivate consumers' impulse buying behavior. In addition, interviews detected the use

of hedonic need satisfaction as a retrospective rationale for purchases made during a shopping

excursion. Because the interviews were conducted to generate an understanding of the impulse

buying process, it is impossible to determine reliably the temporal precedence for the hedonic

need. Among the hedonic needs identified were fun, novelty, and variety.

Hedonic motivation for impulse buying

Hedonic desires

Among the higher-order needs elucidated through consumer reports in the literature are needs for

novelty, variety, and surprise (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Hirschman, 1980). Similarly,

consumers report that impulse buying satisfies a number of hedonic desires (Piron, 1991; Rook,

1987; Thompson et al., 1990). In addition, emotional support needs may also be satisfied by the

social interaction inherent in the shopping experience. For instance, consumers report feeling

uplifted or energized after a shopping experience in several qualitative studies (Cobb and Hoyer,

1986; Rook, 1987). These sources appear to offer conceptual support for a link between hedonic

shopping motives and impulse buying behavior.

Our first effort was to identify some of the hedonic needs consumers seek to satisfy during their

shopping experience in order to develop the hedonic needs scale. Based on our informants'

reports, needs for fun, novelty, and surprise were identified.

Shopping experience

The following reports emphasize the fun or psychological lift consumers feel during and after a

hedonic shopping experience. Especially evident is the contrast between the emotions evoked by

the shopping experience and aspects of routine existence:"I usually only shop for clothes when I

need something specific or for a pick-me-up. Just the atmosphere of new or different things makes

me feel better ... I mean work is stressful enough. I don't want to go home to face a whole bunch

more work.""So yeah, basically it does make me feel better. I shop to pass the time and to visit

friends and, on occasion, to check out new items in the store, but mostly to pass the time.

Because, after a busy work day, sometimes I like to relax and walk up and down aisles of stores.""I

like to go to the mall or some of the little shops. For me, it's therapy. Just getting into the

department stores, into the mall is therapy. And I'll probably spend the same amount as going to a

therapist, so it doesn't matter. Shopping is therapy.""I feel good when I buy myself something and

treat myself to stuff and going home and looking through my bags and seeing what I bought."

Similarly, the following is characteristic of reports emphasizing the novelty aspects of hedonic

shopping. This shows that shopping has, for some people, become a surrogate for more primal

types of hunting and that the search and acquisition of goods are the reward, not any utility

resulting from the purchase:"My favorite store would be Merlin's BookStore on Fowler and I love

going in there and finding the Japanese animation stuff that I like and I love it when I walk in there

and I see something that I did not see before ... that [finding a new Japanese animation item] is

really neat and cool. And I buy it."

This theme is re-emphasized in the following passage: "[It's] like I'm on a mission. Seriously, I'm on

a mission to find something different. Something that nobody else has."

Satisfaction

These reports suggest that consumers shop to satisfy a variety of hedonic needs and the specific

products acquired during these excursions is secondary to the action of shopping. Since the goal

of the shopping experience is to provide satisfaction of hedonic needs, the products purchased

during these excursions appear to be chosen without prior planning and represent an impulse

buying event. This suggests the following hypothesis:

H1. Individual consumers' impulse buying is correlated with their desires to fulfil hedonic needs,

such as for fun, novelty, and surprise.

In addition to these hedonic motivations for impulse buying that were predictable from extant

literature, additional motivating needs were identified in the interview data. Thematic analysis of

the interview transcripts indicated that these additional motivating needs could be loosely grouped

according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1968) and that efforts to satisfy the higher-

order needs in this hierarchy led to different types of impulse buying behavior. Attempts by

consumers to satisfy physiological and safety needs conform with economic theories and do not,

per se, represent attempts to satisfy additional needs that might lead to impulse buying. However,

efforts to satisfy esteem and self-actualization needs appeared to impel consumers to make

specific purchases that provided satisfaction for those particular needs. In addition, attempts to

satisfy social needs, while less likely to prompt a specific purchase, as reflected in these reports,

relied on the shopping experience itself to provide the desired satisfaction and the purchases

made were of little consequence in fulfilling specific needs.

Social needs

Prevalent feelings that the shopping experience satisfied social needs was probably the most

commonly expressed reason given for impulse buying behavior in the data. Typical of statements

made by informants was the following:"One of my enjoyable shopping experiences was last month,

after Christmas. My friends and I went shopping ... I thought we would just shop for some shoes

and some casual clothes. But when we got to the mall ... there were sales ... sales ... sales.

Everything looked good on me, but I can't buy them all.""I know my girlfriend likes to shop, so it's

something we can do together when we can't come up with anything else to do.""I went into K-Mart

today and my daughter helped me pick out something for my son's birthday and we had a lot of fun

looking at purses. We weren't in any big hurry and we found things we like and some we need. We

just had fun."

In these reports, the expression of social needs appeared unintentionally to lead to impulse buying

behavior, in that the purchases were incidental to the more important need to interact and garner

approval from a significant other or a group. Thus, this motivation differs from desires to fulfil safety

and physiological needs that directed consumers toward specific purchases.

H2. Individual consumer impulse buying behavior is correlated with desires to satisfy social needs.

Informants expressed their esteem needs through the credence given to their desires to remain

fashion-conscious. Statements indicate that informants readily recognized that others judged them

by their appearance, especially their clothing. Thus, purchasing the right clothing was of primary

importance. Despite the weight placed on acquiring acceptable clothing, it was surprising that

many of these purchases were not planned in advance. Sometimes, the informant would find a

particularly suitable article of clothing while shopping for other needed items and purchase the item

on impulse. In other cases, the informant was searching for a special occasion outfit, without pre-

determining the criteria for its purchase, as is portrayed in the following statement:"A beautiful

dress. I didn't believe it ... it was cheap. It was a long black dress ... it was like a prom dress, but

better. This dress really caught my eye. When I went in and tried it on, it really fit. It was like the

dress was really made for me. I wore it to my friend's wedding. Everybody at the wedding looked

at me ... boy, that made me feel good."

H3. Individual consumer impulse buying behavior is correlated with desires to satisfy esteem, as

measured by style consciousness.

Self-actualization

Examples of needs for self-actualization which were satisfied by the shopping experience and

resulted in impulse buying behavior were also detected. In the following reports the consumers

used the shopping experience as a means of establishing identity:"I like to go shopping because if

allows me to have some control over an aspect of my life. I am not Ernest's wife or Nicholas and

Zachary's mom, I am Julie.""One time I got this watch. I got it at the Disney store. It is just perfect

for me. It was not an impulse, but I knew I wanted it, but I wasn't shopping for it. I had it in mind for

a couple of months. Not like exactly this, but like kinda what I wanted. And when I saw it, I knew

that was it. It's the one for me. It was like sparks went off and we knew we were meant to be

together."

Similarly, there is evidence in the reports of consumers using impulse buying behavior as a means

of self-reward based on having made sacrifices to achieve desired long-term goals. Much like the

dieter who rewards him- or herself for having lost weight, these consumers allow themselves to

buy things they did not need, in their efforts to reward themselves. For instance: "After an exam ...

that's when I like to shop because I've worked hard in preparation for that exam and I deserve

some new threads."

Insights from information processing

Psychology

Much of the psychological literature on impulse and impulsive decision making appears to make

the implicit assumption that acting on impulse results in poor decision quality, while the thoughtful

search and evaluation necessary for rational decisions result in better decisions. Supporting this

statement, Levy (1976) and Solnick et al. (1980) both include terms like "wasteful" and "risky" in

their conceptualizations of impulse. Empirical studies support contentions that rational decisions

made after an adequate search and evaluation of alternatives, such as the decisions made utilizing

planned buying behavior, result in accurate decisions, but impulsive decisions result in decision

errors (Halpern, 1989; Johnson-Laird, 1988). More specifically related to impulse buying, this

behavior is linked with increased probability of negative consequences (Cobb and Hoyer, 1986;

Rook and Fisher, 1995; Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982).

This negative evaluation of impulsive decision making may be true when discussing impulse in

general, but may not apply to impulse buying decisions, for several reasons. The first reason why

impulse buying decisions may be accurate deals with the definition of accuracy employed and the

second deals with increasing evidence that rational decision making is not inherently any more

accurate than other decision-making alternatives, such as heuristics. Therefore, determination of

what is meant by the term accuracy in connection with buying decisions is necessary.

Objective criteria

Since buying decisions are, almost by definition, complex, no single objective criterion suffices as

a measure of accuracy. For instance, lowest possible price or other criterion cannot be used as a

surrogate measure of accuracy and subjective criteria may be more useful in making these

evaluations. If consumers are allowed to judge the accuracy of their buying decisions, through

satisfaction with the purchase, then impulse purchases appear to be fundamentally accurate. For

instance, in Rook's (1987) study, 41 per cent of consumers reported that they were satisfied with

their impulse purchases.

Again, using the criterion of customer satisfaction as a measure of decision-making accuracy,

questions arise regarding the relative accuracy of rational vs impulse buying decisions. Baron

(1994) and Bettman et al. (1991) were among the first researchers to postulate that consumer

decision making is so complex that consumers may not feel certain of the accuracy of their

decisions despite the expenditure of a significant cognitive effort. In part, these uncertainties may

arise due to numerous equivocal product features that make direct comparisons across products

nearly impossible. One product, for example, may offer more style and a more reputable brand

name, while another offers an appealing color and costs substantially less. The decision between

these two products is difficult to reduce to a simple algorithm. Further, the average consumer is ill-

prepared to reduce this complicated decision to a manageable cognitive task using decision-

making aids familiar to many business executives. Thus, impulse buying occurs, which reduces

cognitive effort. Past experiences of the consumer have shown that this produces acceptable

purchases and may be particularly appealing to the average consumer. This leads to the following

hypothesis:

H4. Perceptions of decision-making accuracy moderate the impulse buying behavior.

Cognitive effort

The decision-making complexity outlined in the previous section may affect impulse buying

behavior in other ways. Not only may consumers begin to question the accuracy of their rational

decisions, especially in relation to the amount of cognitive effort expended to reach the decisions,

but they may also begin to feel overwhelmed and frustrated trying to deal with the volume of

complex information they experience (Bettman et al., 1991). This phenomenon is termed

information processing overload and may increase customer feelings of anxiety and

unpleasantness associated with the decision-making process (Baron, 1994; Herbig and Kramer,

1994). Importantly for this analysis, information processing overload is compounded by the variety

often available in many shopping venues.

The combined effects of decision-making complexity and information processing overload may

substantially diminish judgment quality or accuracy (Bettman et al., 1991; Herbig and Kramer,

1994; Kahneman, 1973). Thus, despite concerted efforts to make the "right" decision, consumers

may actually make worse decisions under these conditions (Kahneman, 1973). Therefore, as

consumers increase their cognitive efforts in attempts to reach accurate decisions, both their

dissatisfaction with the process increases and their decision accuracy declines. This leads to the

following hypotheses regarding impulse buying:

H5a. Perceived decision effort is negatively correlated with perceptions of decision accuracy made

by consumers.

H5b. Perceptions of decision effort moderate the impulse buying trait.

Methodology

Testing the hypotheses proposed in the previous section involved developing and administering a

questionnaire to a convenience sample of consumers, assessing the reliability and validity of the

scales employed, and conducting a series of ANOVAs after establishing three levels of impulse

buying among respondents.

Sample

Questionnaire

Based on extant literature and the hypotheses developed through the theory generation phase of

this project, a 75-item multi-indicator questionnaire was developed. The initial questionnaire was

assessed for clarity, face validity, and necessary completion time by a group of eight members

who had been involved in the qualitative data gathering phase of this project. After several rounds

of modification, an acceptable questionnaire was administered by these group members to a

convenience sample of 290 consumers using an intercept technique. Of the sample collected, 18

responses were removed due to incompleteness, leaving a final sample of 272 consumers. Table I

displays the demographic characteristics of this sample, showing a reasonable mix of

demographic groups represented in the data.

Measures

Hedonic consumption scale development. Using extant literature and the interviews as a guide, a

13-item scale to measure the hedonic tendencies of our consumer respondents was developed.

The hedonic consumption scale incorporated the fun scale developed by Farber and O'Guinn

(1988), the novelty scale originally developed by Unger (1981), and several items suggested by

the interview data. The initial pool of items was reviewed by the interviewers and modifications

made to several of the items. All items were measured using five-point Likert type scales. Data

generated by the questionnaire were used to purify this scale based on the recommendations of

Churchill (1979), resulting in a unidimensional, seven-item scale. The items comprising the

hedonic consumption scale are contained in Appendix 1.

Use of existing measures

Testing hypotheses

In addition, existing scales were used for hypotheses testing. The impulse buying scale, developed

by Rook and Fisher (1995), was modified by the addition of two items suggested by the semi-

structured interviews. One of these items, as well as one of the items originally appearing in the

Rook and Fisher impulse scale, was later removed from the analysis based on low item-total

correlations. This resulted in the seven-item Likert-type scale. Final items in this scale are

displayed in Appendix 2.

Other scales included credit usage, adopted from Darden and Ashton (1975) and Houston et al.'s

(1987) visual processing style scale.

Results

Psychometric properties of scales utilized

In addition to tests of face validity conducted earlier, the reliability of the scales was evaluated by

calculating:

(1) Cronbach's [alpha] (Table II);

(2) assessing factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (Table III); and

(3) inter-item correlations, and scale correlations (Table II) for each measured scale.

Results indicate acceptable reliability for all measured constructs and construct validity (based on

factor analysis). In addition, the pattern of correlations support nomological validity to the extent

that they correspond with theory. All factor analyses were conducted using Maximum Likelihood

extraction method, rotated using oblique rotation to a simple solution.

Hedonic scale

Assessment of the hedonic scale developed for this study indicated that three factors emerged,

rather than the preferred single factor, from the initial pool of items. Regarding the three factors,

the first (which accounted for 47.3 per cent of the variance) seemed to represent the fundamental

elements of hedonic shopping as presented earlier in this study, namely the novelty,

entertainment, and emotional lift achieved by consumers through their shopping behavior. The

second factor, which accounted for 8.4 per cent of the variance, only contained three items which

cross-loaded on the first factor. The third factor also contained items cross-loading on the first, and

a high factor inter-correlation. Thus, hypothesis testing involved the items loading only on the first

factor (see Appendix 1). In addition to good face validity, this unidimensional scale produced good

reliability, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity (see Table II).

Recall that the impulse trait scale was fundamentally the one employed in prior research, with

small changes as a result of the qualitative portion of this study. The reliability of this scale was

good (see Table II) and, after deletion of one of the reverse score items, unidimensional. Further,

the scale demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. The social scale developed for

this study did not provide adequate psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity. All

other scales used in this study provided acceptable reliabilities and validity without making any

modifications to the initial scales (see Table II).

Hypothesis testing

Analysis

Hypothesis testing involved correlational and ANOVA analysis. These tests resulted in several

interesting and unexpected results. Perhaps the most interesting came from the correlational

analysis, which indicated that the impulse buying trait did not correlate at the 0.01 level with any of

the demographic variables assessed (see Table II). This is surprising since both academic and

anecdotal sources imply strong gender and income effects; therefore the lack of any demographic

effects represents a contribution.

H1 hypothesizes that consumers engage in impulse buying to satisfy hedonic desires for fun,

novelty, and variety. Again, correlational analysis supports this hypothesis (p = 0.001). ANOVA

also demonstrates that consumers who are more impulsive are more likely to shop for hedonic

reasons than those who possess a small or moderate score on impulsiveness (see Table III).

H2 could not be tested quantitatively due to the poor performance of the social scale. Qualitative

data do support this hypothesis and suggest the need for further testing.

H3 proposes that impulsiveness is correlated with consumers' desires to fulfil higher order needs

such as esteem and self-actualization. These needs were operationalized as style consciousness,

based on qualitative data analysis. This hypothesis is supported since the data show a significant

correlation between style consciousness and impulsiveness (p = 0.001) and ANOVA results

demonstrate a significant increase in impulsiveness among increasingly style conscious

consumers (see Table III).

H4 is also supported by the data gathered in this study. This hypothesis proposes a relationship

between impulse buying and perceived accuracy. While results suggest that both less impulsive

and more impulsive consumers view their decision accuracy equally, moderately impulsive

consumers view their decisions as less accurate than the other two groups.

Although the data do not support H5a, relating to decision-making effort and accuracy, they do

support H5b, indicating that more impulsive consumers appear to view their buying decisions as

more laborious. Results show a significant negative correlation between perceptions of decision-

making effort expended and impulsiveness (p = 0.001), which is supported by ANOVA results.

Discussion

Consequences

Much of the work on impulse buying behavior inherently attributes negative consequences to the

behavior. Prior research also assumes that society imposes negative normative evaluations on

impulse behavior, including impulse buying. Drawing on the research of Rook and Fisher (1995),

this paper proposes that impulse buying is not always viewed negatively by consumers, but

represents a rational alternative to more time-consuming search behaviors. The paper attempts to

explain why consumers employ this purchasing strategy so frequently and do not feel that impulse

buying is overwhelmingly wrong.

One explanation for this phenomenon is that consumers buy products for a variety of non-

economic reasons, such as fun, fantasy, and social or emotional gratification. As some previous

respondents suggest, buying impulsively feels a little freer and a little like doing something

naughty, but relatively innocent (Rook, 1987). Since these benefits are normally not included in

calculations of consumer utility, previous researchers conclude that impulse buying violates

assumptions of profit maximization and is irrational. Once hedonic components are added to the

equation, impulse buying can be viewed as a valued pastime rather than just a means of acquiring

goods.

Accuracy effects

Another possible explanation revolves around accuracy effects. This paper proposes that accuracy

effects may moderate impulse buying behavior by affecting the perceived trade-off between

cognitive effort and decision-making accuracy. Information overload may further enhance this

moderating effect by further decreasing perceived accuracy or reducing actual accuracy

(Kahneman, 1973).

This discussion does not imply that these are the only factors that moderate impulse buying

decisions, but they do introduce perspectives not currently addressed in extant literature. This

literature currently identifies several contexts effects which also affect impulse buying. For

example, low risk, familiarity with options, the number of decisions required, and temporal

considerations influence impulse buying decisions (Bettman et al., 1991; Cialdini, 1993; Sujan,

1985).

This analysis it is not complete by far. Besides accuracy effects and non-economic benefits, there

are undoubtedly other situations and personality factors that motivate this behavior. Moreover, this

analysis does not attempt to explain all impulse buying behavior. For instance, children probably

have an entirely different set of variables that motivate their buying impulses. Similarly, impulses

experienced while shopping with a purchase pal probably involve additional social variables.

Finally, the hypotheses presented here require further empirical testing. Testing is complicated

because consumers generally have little or no retrospective access to spontaneous decisions, like

impulse decisions (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977). Options such as in-depth interviews or participant

observation may be able to tease out the relationship of impulse to the constructs raised here,

however.

Management and consumer implications

Promoting impulse buying

The managerial implications of this analysis should be fairly obvious. If retailers wish to promote

impulse buying, they should create an environment where consumers can be relieved of their

negative perceptions of impulse. Retailers may stress the relative rationality of impulse buying in

their advertising efforts. Similarly, they may stress the non-economic rewards of impulse buying.

Additionally, retailers can make the environment more complex, further straining consumers'

abilities to process information accurately. Such techniques as stocking more merchandise,

creating stimulating atmospherics, and increasing information may be useful to stimulate impulse

buying. Retailers can make impulse purchasing more risk-free, through convenient return policies,

or increase enablers such as credit and store hours (Rook and Fisher, 1995).

Importantly, this model also offers options for consumers to control their buying impulses, if they

choose to, or feel better about their impulse buying, by relieving their negative evaluations of

impulse. Consumers should recognize that heuristics and impulse are not bad, but implicitly

involve a trade-off between rapid, hedonically satisfying purchases and less affective, but more

thoughtful planned purchases. Once consumers recognize that products are more than

commodities and that they are buying to please their hedonistic desires as well as their physical

desires, they will feel more comfortable with the impulse buying decision.

Consumers

Impulse buying processes are alternatives to planned decision making and consumers must use

these techniques with that in mind. If impulse is a response to information overload, consumers

may reduce the information processing demands by restricting their search either to a few

products or to several features of a larger number of products. They may also develop decision

aids, such as lists, comparison tables or graphs, reducing reliance on heuristics. Similarly, they

can allow enough time for gathering information and evaluating options before purchase. These

options will help make purposeful analysis less frustrating and more productive. Other options

include limiting unnecessary emotional distractions like shopping buddies, especially children.

Consumers can also choose other methods to moderate their moods, rather than resorting to

impulse buying for that purpose. Consumers should be more aware of retailers' efforts to

manipulate their moods to influence their buying decisions. Moreover, they can reduce enablers by

only shopping when they need specific purchases and only carrying enough cash or credit for

necessary purchases.

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives

Shopping should be fun - it is your job to make it so

We are "taught" to see impulse buying as a slightly irresponsible act - wasteful, frivolous and just a

little wicked. Why? We all make many purchase decisions on the spur of the moment. But this

does not mean that such actions are wasteful or unthinking.

Reading Hausman's research reveals that, far from impulse purchases being unthinking, they are

very often the culmination of a longer purchase decision process. The decision to buy a new dress,

for example, might be made in principle ("I need a new outfit for Steve and Claire's wedding") but

that specific decision might be made "on impulse" ("I saw the dress in a shop window, it looked

right and it fitted, so I bought it").

In essence the impulse purchase is satisfying a set of human wants that are "uneconomic". From

the rationalist point of view, impulse buying seems wrong. The individual has not researched and

assessed the needs to be fulfilled so is making an "irrational" decision. However, as Hausman

makes clear, the real situation is that an impulse purchase is satisfying real needs, albeit needs

that are of a higher order than those that concern the rationalist.

Marketers have long recognised the significance of impulse. The result is advertising that features

spontaneity, elaborate window dressing and, at another level, the use of dump bins and counter

displays to stimulate impulse purchase. But these activities to exploit impulse purchase reflect only

a simple understanding of this particular type of consumer behaviour. Hausman shows us that the

phenomenon of impulse buying is more complicated and multi-faceted than we have assumed.

Reasons for buying on impulse

We have already referred to one reason for the impulse buy - the "decision in principle". We want a

dress but have not made a specific choice nor have we undertaken a systematic search. We are

not shopping for any particular purpose; indeed we may be simply passing by the store on some

other errand.

There are, however, other factors that influence the impulse purchase. The most significant of

these is the view of shopping as a social pleasure. Hausman's focus groups reveal that consumers

see shopping as "retail therapy", as a way of getting over the stresses of a working day or simply a

fun day out.

We can, by looking at this view of shopping, begin to return to a rational explanation for shopping

behaviour. If the rationalist sees shopping purely in terms of obtaining goods, then impulse buying

does not make sense. But if we rationalise shopping as pleasure seeking, then the impulse

purchase becomes more understandable.

The impulse purchase is not the result of a specific search to satisfy a particular requirement since

the satisfaction comes from the act of shopping itself. Purchases are incidental to this process

although they do provide proof of the enjoyment. Chances are that, if we "go to look round the

shops", we will return having made some form of purchase. And that purchase will have been

made on impulse.

So what does this mean for the retailer and the marketer?

The first lesson for the retailer is that the impact of the store is crucial to success. In many cases

the store visitor has not set out with the specific purpose of visiting your store - they are simply "out

shopping". In these circumstances, it is worthwhile understanding what merchandise triggers

impulsive reactions.

Second, we need to appreciate that many shoppers do not have a specific objective or purpose.

They may make a purchase, but this is as likely to be because they have seen something that

cries out "buy me" as to satisfy some existing requirement or desire.

The lesson from these behaviour revelations is that marketers need to focus as much on

entertainment, interest and excitement as they do on getting the mix of merchandise right and the

pricing spot on. If the balance is wrong then the shopper may see your store as "stuffy" or

"unfriendly".

If you have the space, put on events that encourage visitors. Have special demonstrations. Use

special offers to stimulate sales. Shopping may be great fun to many people but it will be even

more fun if the retailers set about providing some additional entertainment.

Get the right employees and train them well

Traditional retail training (where it is given) has focused on giving employees observational and

service skills. We need to extend this understanding to add the idea of giving pleasure and

satisfaction to buyers and non-buyers alike. If your employees realise that one aspect of a

successful store is that shopping there is fun, then they will be able to develop ways - with your

encouragement - to improve the shoppers' in-store experience.

The recruitment and training of employees are often overlooked as an aspect of good retail

marketing. Yet the way in which shop workers engage with the customer is perhaps the most

important element of marketing a retail business. At the same time you need to provide the

opportunities for staff to make that difference.

One obvious example can be seen in toy stores like Hamley's in London or FAO Schwartz, New

York, where young employees demonstrate simple, cheap toys - yo-yos, bubble guns,

boomerangs, etc. These activities make the store livelier and provide an opportunity to capture the

impulse buyer. Another approach is the use of humour in labelling - UK wine merchant chain,

Oddbins, has made a feature of this approach. And the comments all come from the employees

themselves following regular wine tasting sessions. Not only do the staff know about the wine but

they are encouraged to be just a little irreverent in the way they describe it and the way they sell it.

Remember then that shopping is fun. If you do, and you encourage your employees, then the

impulse shoppers will come to your store because it is a pleasure. And they will buy.

(A precis of the article "A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying

behavior". Supplied by Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

References

1. Ainslie, G. (1975), "Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control",

Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 463-96.

2. Baron, J. (1994), Thinking and Deciding, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

3. Bellenger, D.N., Robertson, D.H. and Hirschman, E.C. (1978), "Impulse buying varies by

product", Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 18, pp. 15-18.

4. Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J. and Payne, J.W. (1991), "Consumer decision making", Handbook

of Consumer Behavior, pp. 50-84.

5. Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1995), Contemporary Marketing, 8th ed., Dryden Press, Orlando,

FL.

6. Churchill, G.A. (1979), "A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs",

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.

7. Cialdini, R.B. (1993), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, 2nd ed., Quill, New York, NY.

8. Cobb, C.J. and Hoyer, W.D. (1986), "Planned versus impulse purchase behavior", Journal of

Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 384-409.

9. Darden, W.R. and Ashton, D. (1975), "Psychographic profiles of patronage preference groups",

Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, Winter, pp. 99-112.

10. Farber, R.J. and O'Guinn, T.C. (1988), "Compulsive consumption and credit abuse", Journal of

Consumer Policy, March, pp. 97-109.

11. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, New York, NY.

12. Halpern, D.F. (1989), Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking, 2nd ed.,

Erlbaum Publishing, Hillsdale, NJ.

13. Han, Y.K., Morgan, G.A., Kotsiopulos, A. and Kang-Park, J. (1991), "Impulse buying behavior

of apparel purchasers", Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 15-21.

14. Herbig, P. and Kramer, H. (1994), "The effect of information overload on the innovation

choice", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45-55.

15. Hirschman, E.C. (1980), "Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity", Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 7 December, pp. 283-95.

16. Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), "The experiential aspects of consumption:

consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun", Journal of Consumer Research, No. 9, September, pp.

132-40.

17. Houston, M.J., Childers, T.L. and Heckler, S.E. (1987), "Picture-work consistency and

elaborative processing of advertisements", Journal of Marketing Research, No. 24, November, pp.

359-74.

18. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1988), "A taxonomy of thinking", in Sternberg, R.J. and Smith, E.E. (Eds),

The Psychology of Human Thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 429-57.

19. Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and Effort, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

20. Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1967), "Consumer impulse purchasing behavior", Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 4, February, pp. 21-31.

21. Levy, M. (1976), "Deferred gratification and social class", The Journal of Social Psychology,

Vol. 100, pp. 123-35.

22. McDonald, W.J. (1996), "Influences on the adoption of global marketing decision support

systems: a management perspective", International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 33-45.

23. Maslow, A.H. (1968), Toward a Psychology of Being, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

24. Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977), "Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on

mental processes", Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 231-59.

25. Piron, F. (1991), "Defining impulse purchasing", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp.

509-13.

26. Rook, D.W. (1987), "The buying impulse", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 189-99.

27. Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), "Trait and normative aspects of impulsive buying

behavior", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 305-13.

28. Rook, D.W. and Hoch, S.J. (1985), "Consuming impulses", Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 12, pp. 23-7.

29. Solnick, J.V., Kannenberg, C.H., Eckerman, D.A. and Waller, M.B. (1980), "An experimental

analysis of impulsivity and impulse control in humans", Learning and Motivation, Vol. 11, pp. 61-

77.

30. Stern, H. (1962), "The significance of impulse buying today", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26,

April, pp. 59-63.

31. Sujan, M. (1985), "Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer

judgments", Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 31-46.

32. Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R. (1990), "The lived meaning of free choice: an

existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary

married women", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 346-61.

33. Unger, L. (1981), "Consumer marketing trends in the 1980s: when growth slows", Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 69-73.

34. Weinberg, P. and Gottwald, W. (1982), "Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions",

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10, pp. 43-57.

35. Welles, G. (1986), "We're in the habit of impulsive buying", USA Today, May 21, p. 1.

Appendix 1

See Table AI

Appendix 2