IMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOR:
The effect of time pressure, and stress coping capabilities of
consumers
by Liselot Berger June 15th
IMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOR:
The effect of time pressure, and stress coping capabilities of consumers
Master thesis, Msc Marketing Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
What is it that causes consumers to do impulsive purchases? Is it triggered by external stimuli, or is impulsive behavior rooted in our personality? Nowadays, a large number of the total purchases in (online) stores are bought on impulse. For marketing purposes it is essential to know how impulse buying can be triggered. This study reveals a new factor that has not been investigated before with respect to impulse buying, namely ‘time stress’. In the world we currently live in today, people increasingly experience time pressure. This research
investigated whether time stress has a positive influence on the impulsive purchases being made everyday, and whether this effect was enhanced or reduced by the Life History Strategy of consumers. The life history of a consumer is related to how (s)he copes with stressors. By means of an experiment the assumed positive effect of time stress, moderated by the LHS on impulse buying behavior was tested. The dependent variable, impulse buying behavior, used for this research was calculated based on three dimensions; total amount of money spent in the supermarket, proportion spent on hedonic products and degree of impulse buying in an online shopping scenario. Results indicate that consumers experiencing time pressure did not felt a stronger urge to buy impulsively than consumers who were not under time pressure. Participants with a fast LHS, meaning they have difficulties in coping with stress, did seem to purchase more online and in the supermarket. Although the main effect of time stress on impulse buying behavior was absent, time stress seemed to increase impulse purchases in participants with a fast LHS, where the same time stress reduced such purchases in participants with a slow LHS.
Keywords: Time Stress, Life History Strategy, Impulse Buying Behavior, Impulse Buying
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ... 5
Research Question II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
Impulse buying behavior ... 7
Time Stress ... 7
Life History Strategy ... 8
Demographic factors ... 9
Age, gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) Internal factors and Personal Traits ... 9
Mood and Impulsive Buying Tendency (IBT) Conceptual Framework ……… 10
III. METHOD ... 11
Participants and design ... 11
Procedure ... 11
Independent variables ... 12
Time Stress ... 12
Life History Strategy ... 12
Dependent variables ... 13
Spending behavior ... 13
Percentage hedonic products ... 13
Impulsive online purchases ... 13
IV. RESULTS ... 15
Impulsive spending behavior ... 15
Main effect time stress, main effect LHS, interaction effect Percentage spent on hedonic products ... 17
Main effect time stress, main effect LHS, interaction effect Impulsive online purchases ... 18
Main effect time stress, main effect LHS interaction effect Control variables ... 18
Age, gender, SES, IBT V. DISCUSSION ... 21
Limitations and further research ... 23
REFERENCES ... 24
I. INTRODUCTION
Impulsivity is something we often run into on a daily basis. Each individual is facing impulsive purchases, however one more than the other. But the question is, what is it that makes us buy products of which we have not thought well about, and did not carefully evaluate before purchasing. The propensity to perform impulsive purchases, is it anchored in our demographic and personality characteristics? Or is impulsivity triggered by external stimuli, such as the environment, price and advertising tactics?
In the last few decades, several aspects of the concept of impulsive buying have been investigated. A review of previous literature shows that there is a general upward trend in impulsive buying over time. Nowadays, impulse buying is responsible for a significant amount of product sales, which means almost 40% of department stores purchases are bought on impulse (Hausman, 2000).
Impulse buying behavior has thus become a topic of growing interest in the field of marketing research, as it is related to the consumer’s behavior. Initial research on this topic mainly concerned the ‘what’ and ‘where’ of impulsive buying (Stern, 1962). Followed by the focus on who engages in this behavior, in order to find out whether consumers could be classified into impulse buyers vs. non-impulse buyers (Piron, 1991). Next, researchers began to ask
when and why impulse buying occurs, to explore whether spending behavior is dictated by
internal factors such as mood and personal traits (Moran et al, 2015). Although individual characteristics of shoppers are believed to be important and individual behavior may be consistent in particular situations, the influence of external or situational factors on buying behavior receives increasing attention. Investigators advocate that behavior alters depending on situation, supported by studies that reveal that consumer behavior is conditioned by situation but also that individual consumers may react differently on external factors (Dawson, 2009; Youn 2000).
Laran, 2016). Experienced stress is believed to enhance self-regulatory resource depletion, which in its turn is known to affect impulse buying behavior (Baumeister 2002; Vohs and Faber, 2007). However, the impact of stress on individual impulsive behavior, and the effect of how people cope with stress, has not been studied previously. As experiencing time pressure occurs more and more often, and the impulse buying behavior of the consumer increases nowadays, it seems important to investigate whether a relationship can be found. Since every person has different stress experiences and copes differently with stress, it is important to take such personal history and coping characteristics (captured in the Life History Strategy (LHS) scale reported by Figueredo, et al. 2014) into account when studying the effect of stress on impulse buying.
The current study aims to answer the main research question:
‘Does time stress cause people to do more impulse purchases, and is this effect enhanced by a fast Life-History Strategy?’
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Impulsive buying behavior.
It is generally agreed that a purchase which is not intended, not reflected, and
immediate can be called an impulsive purchase (Rook, 1987; Fisher & Rook, 1995) Impulse buying can be seen as unreflective behavior when consumers do not carefully evaluate their action before purchasing an item (Rook, 1987).
Research on impulse buying can be summarized by early studies on the what and
where of impulse buying (Stern, 1962), followed by studies on who is likely to engage in this
behavior, distinguishing impulsive consumers from non-impulsive consumers (Piron, 1991) and finally studies that focused on when and why impulse buying occurs, showing that impulsive behavior is affected by both “internal factors”, including demographics and personal traits, but also by “external” or environmental factors (Dawson and Kim, 2009; Moran, 2015). For marketing purposes it is extremely relevant to be able to identify the factors that promote impulsive purchases, so sales can be stimulated. The number of
impulsive purchases is increasing every year, and marketing strategies may be improved by identifying factors that significantly enhance impulse buying behavior and can be influenced (Van Ossel, 2017).
Stress is a common experience in everyone’s daily life, and from previous research it is likely to assume that the presence of stress experience will affect the buying behavior of the consumer (Durante and Laran, 2016). However, the factor stress has been insufficiently studied in this respect. In order to adequately investigate the effect of stress, it is important to realize that various other factors are known to affect impulse buying behavior and may confound or moderate the relation between stress and buying behavior. These factors, which will be accounted for in the current study, will be shortly discussed at the end of this chapter.
Time Stress
might engage in spending behavior related to non-necessities, perceived necessary by the consumer as a consequence of the stressor. The authors conclude that there is indeed an effect of stress on consumer behavior and that it is likely that stress affects impulse buying behavior.
In the current era, time pressure is a widely experienced phenomenon leading to stress experience. According to the Economist in 2016, nowadays the feeling of time pressure has increased compared to the past. Most people have the feeling that there are never enough hours in a workday (Perlow, 1999). Constant being in a rush and under time pressure, consumers think less frequently about certain purchases and decisions. The effect of time stress on impulse buying behavior is insufficiently known and therefore the current study, will investigate this relation
H1: Time stress will have a positive effect on impulse buying behavior.
Life History Strategy (LHS)
The way how to cope with stress-situations differs between people. The Life History Strategy (LHS)reported by Figueredo (2014), is a scale that measures the extent to which an individual has had a hard childhood which influences the way s(he) responds to stress. Chen and Chang (2016) describe the fast vs. slow LHS by means of time orientation and related behavioral and personality characteristics named procrastination, which means prioritizing immediate benefits without taking into account the long-term consequences. The authors argue procrastination to be a characteristic of a fast LHS. According to Del Giudice (2014), a fast LHS means a higher probability of impulsive behavior, as this will make people act unplanned, taking high risks. In contrast, individuals with a slow LHS are diligent and shaped by a greater environmental controllability (Chen and Chang, 2016). Consumers with a fast LHS appear to have lower self-control than consumers with a slow LHS, and therefore we hypothesize that they are more likely buy on impulse (Dunkel, et al. 2013).
H2: A fast LHS will enhance impulse buying behavior
LHS as moderator
In the previous chapters it was argued that the external factor time-stress is likely to affect impulse buying, but also that the consumer’s internal characteristic LHS is also
experienced stress may have relatively little impact on this consumer’s behavior, since (s)he is assumed to be effective in coping with this stress and does not perceive a lack in self-control (Dunkel, et al. 2013; Griskevicius 2013). Also the other way around, a consumer with a fast LHS may be more susceptible to time stress with regards to impulse buying behavior, since these fast strategists have a lower sense of self control. Therefore we hypothesize that LHS of the consumer influences the effect of time pressure on impulse buying behavior. So, the LH-score serves as an IV, but can be mainly seen as a moderator as it predicts the way people cope with experiencing time pressure, and thus may affect its effect on impulse buying behavior.
H3: A slow LHS will reduce, while a fast LHS will increase, the effect of time pressure on impulse buying behavior
Demographic Factors
Gender. Previous studies (Prybutok 2007; Parboteeah, 2005; Coley and Burgess, 2003) have provided conflicting results on the role of gender in impulse buying behavior. Some studies have demonstrated females to be more inclined to impulse buying (Parboteaah 2005), whereas others have found males are more engaged impulse buyers than females (Prybutok 2007). Therefore, in this study we will include participants from both sexes, which allows analyzing potential effects of gender.
Age. Impulse buying has been suggested to be most prevalent in the young generation aged 18-40 years (Mai et al., 2003). In the current study we aim to include participants in a wide age range.
Socioeconomic status. Education and income of consumers have been shown to be strongly associated with impulse buying behavior (Rana, 2012). Consumers with a high monthly income show more impulse buying behavior. However, in contrast, Niu and Wang (2009) argue that consumers with low education are more prone to impulsivity. In the current study we will use the socio-economic status scale (SES; Griskevicius, 2011) to account for these issues. The SES scale measures the combined social and economic status of the participant.
Internal factors and Personal Traits
contrast, also depressions have been suggested to enhance impulse buying behavior (Eastin and LeRose, 2002).
Impulse Buying Tendency. According to Dawson and Kim (2009) consumers can be classified in either impulse buyers vs. non-impulse buyers based on personal traits. Some individuals are more likely to make unintended and immediate purchases than others. This personal characteristic can be described using an impulsive buying tendency scale (IBT; Jones, 2003). Consumers who score high on impulse buying tendency are more prone to buy on impulse than consumers with a low score (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001). Moreover, Moran et al. (2015) argued that consumers under stress have a higher IBT than those under no stress, indicating a moderating effect of IBT on the stress-impulse buying behavior relation. We therefore hypothesize:
H4; IBT affects the influence of time pressure on impulse buying behavior.
Conceptual framework
III. METHOD
Participants and Design
In total 110 participants (73 Dutch and 37 international; 75 female, 35 Male) were approached by email and social media and invited to an online survey. The total number of invitations sent via email was 100, corresponding to students enrolled in various study
programs of the Faculty of Economic and Business at the University of Groningen, as well as to friends and family. Participant’s ages ranged from 19 to 70, with a median age of 24. Of the respondents 77% was between the ages of 20 and 30. The majority of the respondents (64,5%) were students. All participated voluntarily in this study. The aim was to acquire a majority of females, since this sex has a higher tendency towards impulsive behavior (Parboteeah, 2005). To test the hypotheses, a 2 (time stress: high vs. low) x 2 (LHS score: high vs. low) between-subjects factorial design was employed.
Procedure
All participants received an email invitation or a request via social media to be a part of the study. The study was composed in the English language and both Dutch and
The experiment ended with a composed questionnaire, including the Life-History Strategy scale (LHS), Impulse Buying Tendency scale (IBT), the Socioeconomic scale (SES) and demographical questions (Exhibit 8 t/m 11, Appendix) Based on the median LH-score, the participants were divided into two groups: a low LH score group vs. a high LH score group. In the end, around twenty-five observations were collected for each of the four conditions. The study concluded with a debriefing section (Exhibit 12, Appendix).
Independent variables
Time pressure. The level of perceived stress was manipulated using a modification of the procedure of Dedovic et al. (2005). All participants were exposed to a mathematic test consisting of seventeen questions, including two sample calculations. A full list of the calculations can be found in the appendix (Exhibit 2ab, Appendix). In the experimental condition, the participants had only ten seconds for each calculation, while the participants in the control condition did not have a time limit and could use as much time as they wanted to complete the test. The participants were being told that completing the math test gives an indication of their intelligence (IQ), and that it investigated the ability of quantitative reasoning. They were informed that the math equations serve as an indicator of a person’s future success (Moran et al., 2015). In this way, participants feel the pressure to perform well. Especially the participants in the time pressure condition, since they only had ten seconds per question, which resulted into higher levels of stress. To check whether the task induced the feeling of time pressure among the participants, all participants were being asked how they experienced the mental game. This question served as a manipulation check and measured the mood of the participants. The state of the mood measure is described under control variables at the end of this chapter. After the manipulation check, the participants were exposed to the mini-K short form, which corresponds the Life-History Strategy.
Life History Strategy. After completing both tasks, all participants had to fill in the Mini-K short form of the Life History Theory by Figueredo et al. (2014). The scale is a component of the Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB) and measures the LHS of
median split. In other words, participants who scored above the median on the mini-k short scale were regarded as having a slow LHS, whereas those with a LH-score below the median as having a fast LHS. This way, a sufficient amount of participants in each of the four
conditions could be realized (Exhibit 8, Appendix).
Dependent variable
Impulse buying behavior. Following the math test, the participants were directed to the second study. Consistent with previous empirical research on impulse buying, a single-item measure was used for the impulse buying behavior (Rook and Fisher 1995). Adapted by the procedure of Vohs and Faber (2007),the participants were provided an imaginary
shopping situation, and were being asked how they would perform in this given scenario. After the participants read the scenario, they first had to decide how much of a given amount (€25,-) s(he) would spend in their visit to the supermarket. Participants were given the option to keep the €25, -, spend only a part of it, or spend the whole amount (Exhibit 4, Appendix). Next, they were asked on what products they would spend the amount. The participants were presented with a list of 17 typical grocery items, of which 6 hedonic products and 11
Control variables
The control variables included demographical factors such as age gender and socio-economic status, and also internal factors such as mood and impulse buying tendency. These variables were measured to determine whether there were any differences between the conditions in these variables that might affect impulse buying behavior. (See appendix)
Age and Gender. The age and gender of the participants were self-reported at the end of the questionnaire. (Exhibit 11, Appendix)
Socioeconomic Status. To determine the influence of socioeconomic status on impulse buying behavior, the SES scale adapted from Griskevicius et al. (2011) was used. The participants were asked to complete the SES questionnaire, and indicate their agreement with 7 statements (α=0,823) on a 9-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 9= strongly agree). One statement served as an attention check and verified whether participants were focused while completing the questionnaire. The mean scores of the SES scale were calculated as indicators of the socio-economic status of the participants. According to
Griskevicius et al. (2011), participants who had a low score on the scale, meaning they have a low SES, shift towards a faster life history strategy. (Exhibit 10, Appendix)
Mood. To check whether the manipulation of time pressure caused any effect on the participants’ mood states, they were asked to complete a 6-item score question on how they experienced the math task. The items described positive emotions as well as negative
emotions (α=0,793). The participants had to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale to what extent they were experiencing the emotions (from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree). The mean scores of the manipulation check were calculated as measures of the participants’ mood states. (Exhibit 7, Appendix)
IV. RESULTS
Manipulation check. An ANOVA on experienced time stress revealed that
participants in low stress condition indicated less stress (M=2.97, SD=1.60) than did those in the high stress condition (M=4.56, SD=1.91). The experimental group reported their task as significantly more stressful and more difficult, compared to the control group. The difference between both conditions, the high stress condition and the low stress condition was found to be significant (F(1,101)=22.065, p=0,00). This indicates that the manipulation of stress has been successful in increasing the level of experienced time stress. The stress manipulation did not alter participants’ mood. Since stress was the main independent variable in the current study, after checking for correlation between the six items, one decided to include solely the ‘stressful’ item as manipulation check. As such, the stressful rating is a clear indicator of the stress level.
Impulse buying behavior.
The dependent variable used for this research is calculated based on three dimensions. Namely, the amount of money the participants intended to spend when shopping in the supermarket, followed by the type of products the participants would spend the amount on Here, a distinction was made between hedonic products and utilitarian products. Utilitarian shopping is all about actual need and function, while hedonic shopping stirs emotional arousal within consumers and buying hedonic products serves as an expression of impulsiveness. The third dimension indicates on a scale of 1 (=not impulsive) to 5 (= strongly impulsive) whether impulsive purchases are made when given an online shopping scenario.
To test the hypothesis that consumers under time pressure are more likely to make an impulse purchase, particularly when having a fast LHS (H3), a 2 (time stress; high vs. low) x 2 (LHS score: high vs. low) factorial ANOVA was performed on the measures of impulsive buying behavior.
Spending behavior. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of time pressure on the amount of money the participants intended to spend in high stress and no stress conditions. Results showed that, in contrast to the hypothesis, there was no significant difference in spending behavior between the stress group (M= 16.19, SD= 9.67) and the control group (M= 16.73, SD= 8.56; F(1,106)= .150, p= .699). Participants who experienced time pressure did not intend to spend a higher amount of money than participants who did not feel time pressure.
impulsive spending behavior, first, the LH scores were divided into two groups; a high score vs. a low score group determined by the median split. The group that scored low on the mini-k short scale had a value equal to or less than the median 5.235, the group that scored high on the scale had a value higher than 5.235. The group with a low LH score (≤ Med 5.235) are regarded participants with a fast LHS, while a high LH score (>Med 5.235) means
participants have a slow LHS.
The effect of the LH score on the spending behavior was determined using a two-way ANOVA. Consumers with a low LH score spend a higher amount (M=17.83, SD= 8.27) than consumers with a high LH score (M=15.22, SD=9.56). These results point towards the hypothesized direction, which argues that people with a fast LHS inclined to be uncontrolled and therefore more easily spend their money without thinking about future consequences. However, the difference between the low vs. high LH score on spending behavior did not reach statistical significance (F(1,106)= 1.851, p=.177).
Table 1. Spending behavior in €
Overall, it was notable that consumers with a slow life history strategy spent more money when they were under time stress (M=15.93, SD=10.49) compared to when they did not feel time pressure (M=14.77, SD=8.97). In contrast, participants with a fast LHS spent more money in the no stress condition (M=18.98, SD=7.60) than when they felt time pressure (M=16.45, SD=8.98). ). The effect of time stress seemed most prominent in participants with a fast LHS, however in the opposite direction as hypothesized. This result is in line with earlier research from Chen and Chang (2016). However, the results of the performed two-way ANOVA showed that the influence of the LHS score on the relationship between time
pressure and impulsive spending behavior was not statistically significant (F(1,106)=1.123,
p=.292). Therefore the original hypothesis (H3) could not be confirmed.
Furthermore, the ANCOVA test was performed to control for SES and IBT. However both covariates did not have a significant effect on impulsive spending behavior (F(1,
Hedonic products. Similar to the previously described methodology for spending behavior, a two-way ANOVA was performed to test the main and interaction effects of both time
pressure and LHS on the proportion (in %) of money spent on hedonic products; the second dimension of the DV impulsive buying behavior. The results showed that the effect of time pressure on the proportion spend on hedonic products was not significant; high stress (M=.29, SD= .07) vs. low stress (M=.28, SD=.06), (F(1,91)=.001, p=.973). Further, consumers with a fast LHS spend a slightly higher percentage of their money on hedonic products (M=.29,
SD=.25) than consumers with a slow LHS (M=.28, SD=.60), which would be in line with H2 .
However this difference did not reach statistical significance (F(1,91)=.078), p=.780). Moreover, in line with the hypothesis (H3), time stress tended to increase the spending on hedonic products in consumers with a fast LHS (M=.34, SD=.25, compared to M=.25,
SD=.24). Whereas in consumers with a slow LHS time stress seemed to decrease the
spending on hedonic products (M=.23, SD =.21 vs. M=.31, SD=.76). Inducing time pressure combined with a fast LHS resulted in the highest proportion spent on hedonic products (H3). However, these differences did not reach statistical significance (F(1,91)=.784, p=.389)., meaning no interaction effect could be demonstrated between time pressure and LHS on the proportion of money spent on hedonic products.
Table 2. Hedonic products in %
After conducting an ANCOVA to control for SES and IBT, the results did not differ as both SES and IBT did not influence the percentage spent on hedonic products (F(1,89)=.826,
p= .366; F(1,89)=.026, p=.872)
Impulsive online purchases. Finally, again a factorial between subjects ANOVA was conducted to test both main effects and interaction effect of time pressure and LHS on the indicator of impulsive online purchases. On a scale of 1 to 5, representing an increasing degree of impulsivity, participants had to indicate whether they would do an impulsive purchase on a retailer’s website. The degree of impulsivity under time pressure (M=2.17, SD=.16) was almost similar to those without time pressure (M=2.18, SD=.15), and did not differ significantly (F(1,106)=.006, p=.939).
The results showed further that, in contrast to the hypothesis, consumers with a slow LHS were more likely to show impulsive online buying behavior compared to consumers
p=.914). Time pressure reduced online impulsive purchases in consumers with a slow life
history. In contrast, time stress increased impulsive purchases in consumers with a fast LHS. Again, this interaction effect did not reach statistical significance (F(1,106)=1.495, p=.224). After controlling for the covariates SES and IBT, we could demonstrate a significant effect of IBT on online impulsive purchases (F(1,104)=16.286, p=.00). I.e. consumers with a high impulsive buying tendency are more likely to do impulsive online purchases.
Table 3. Online impulse purchases
Control variables.
Age. The means suggested that young people are more likely to be impulsive buyers. Spending behavior (young, M=17.16, SD=8.49 vs. old, M=16.05, SD=9.45), the percentage of their money spent on hedonic products (young, M=.30, SD=.071 vs. old, M=.28, SD=.064), as well as online shopping behavior (young, M=2.29, SD=.153 vs. old, M=2.07,SD=.168) all showed a higher degree of impulsivity in younger participants compared to older participants.
However, the effect of age on impulse buying behavior was not statistical significant (F(1,107)=.873, p=.520); (F(1, 107)=.873, p=.352); (F(1, 93)= .038, p=.847).
Gender. In this study women appear to show more impulsive buying behavior than men. This result is demonstrated by the means of spending behavior and online shopping behavior; female (M=16.6, SD=1.04) vs. male (M=16.4, SD=1.61); female (M=2.26, SD=.135) vs. male (M=2.02, SD=.210). When looking at the percentage of money spent on hedonic products, it appears that men spent a higher percentage on hedonic products than women; female (M=.24, SD=.20) vs. male (M=.40, SD=.75).). However, these findings are not significant (F(2, 107)=1.719, p=.184); (F(2, 107)=.852, p=.429), (F(1,93)=2.340, p=.129);
SES. In this study no main effect of SES on impulsive buying behavior could be
demonstrated. However, the mean scores did suggest that participants with a low SES score were more impulsive in their spending behavior (M=17.1, SD=8.88) than participants with a high SES (M=16.1, SD=9.19). Also in the online scenario; low SES participants were acting more impulsively (M=2.22, SD=1.12) than high SES participants (M=2.13, SD=1.20). However, once again, the opposite was true for the amount (in %) spent on hedonic products; low SES participants were spending less on hedonic products (M=.23, SD=.22) compared to participants with a high SES (M=.33, SD=.59). (F(1,108)=.313, p=.577; F(1, 108)=.162,
p=.688); F(1,93)=1.115, p=.294)
IV. DISCUSSION
Impulse buying behavior has been the subject of a lot of research, preceding this study. Various factors that might affect impulse buying behavior have been identified previously. Remarkably, however, the factor time stress, a factor that in the current era is prominently present in most peoples daily life, and its effect on consumer’s behavior had received very little attention. This study adds value to the current literature by addressing this gap in
research on impulse buying behavior. The main goal of this study was to investigate the effect of time stress on impulse buying behavior. The main hypothesis was that inducing time pressure causes more impulsiveness in consumers, especially in those consumers who are highly reactive to stress impulses. According to Durante and Laran (2016) stress has an effect on consumer behavior. Baumeister (2002) argues that stress reduces self-control, which, according to Vohs and Faber (2007), leads to impulsive behavior. However, in this study the proposed positive influence of time stress on impulse buying behavior could not be
demonstrated, meaning that participants under time pressure did not engage in more impulse buying than participants with no time pressure. Therefore, the hypothesis (H1) that time stress has a positive effect on impulse buying behavior could not be confirmed.
According to Lazarus (1984), people respond different to stress, one can handle stress more easily than the other. Therefore this study characterized the participants regarding their stress coping behavior based on the LH-score and assigned them to either a group of
consumers with a fast LHS or a slow LHS. Highly stress reactive people refer to consumers with a fast life-history strategy (Figueredo et al., 2014). The results of this study, investigating the influence of LHS on impulse buying behavior, indeed pointed in the direction of the second hypothesis, namely that consumers with a fast LHS were more likely to engage in impulse buying behavior than consumers with a low LHS. These findings contribute to those of Chen and Chang (2016), who claim that people with a fast LHS have a higher need of short-term gratification and therefore are more likely to buy impulsively. However, this effect did not apply to the online impulse behavior. This may also be explained by the theory of Chen and Chang (2016), since consumers with a fast LHS search for immediate gratification and online shopping is not a way to satisfy this urge. However, the differences in the current study did not reach statistical significance.
the participants, as hypothesized in H3. Time stress seemed to increase impulse purchases in participants with a fast LHS, where the same time stress reduced such purchases in
participants with a slow LHS. These findings are in accordance with findings reported by Youn and Faber (2000) and Griskevicius (2013). However, this moderating effect of LHS was in opposite direction, when assessing the effect of time stress on the total amount of money spent in the grocery store, a remarkable finding that is very hard to explain by means of previous research. Nevertheless, these moderating effects of LHS could not be demonstrated to be statistically significant.
In the current study actual impulsivity buying was measured in three dimensions and the influence of LHS on the effect of time stress on impulse buying differed in the three dimensions. This raises the question whether the used measurements accurately measure actual impulse buying. Current literature on measurement of actual impulsive behavior, other than empirical real life settings, is scarce. The measurement methods as used in the current study have not been validated sufficiently and therefore its accuracy may have affected the final results of this study.
With respect to the control variables, females tended to show more impulsivity in their spending and online shopping behavior (Coley and Burgess, 2003). However, this result did not apply to the second dimension, since men were more likely to spend their money on hedonic products, which contradicts the theory of Parboteeah (2005) who argues that men are more functional-item buyers than women.
This study also confirmed the findings of Mai, et al. (2003), and suggests that young people are more likely to show impulsive spending behavior. However this result is not
significant. Furthermore, in line with theory Niu (2009), consumers with a low SES seemed to spend more in the grocery store and also engaged in more impulsive purchases online. This corresponds to Griskevicius (2011) who demonstrated that consumers with a low SES are shifting towards a fast LHS. However, once again, the opposite seemed be the case for the second dimension, consumers with a high SES spent more on hedonic products. This might be explained by the invalidity of the measurement method.
Finally, the level of IBT of a consumer did not show its effect in the grocery store, but it did seem to affect the impulse behavior of online shopping. The higher the impulse buying tendency the more impulsive purchases are being done online. However the hypothesis that a high level of IBT enhances the effect of time stress on impulse buying could not be
Limitations and further research
In this study there are some limitations that may have influenced the validity of its results. First of all, due to time-constraints the experiment could not be performed in the lab and thus was conducted by means of an online survey. As argued above, this makes it difficult to accurately measure impulse buying behavior, since a valid procedure to measure this dependent variable using an online questionnaire, could hardly be found in previous research. It is unclear whether the methods measure impulse buying. In particular the second
dimension, in which spending money on hedonic products indicates impulsive behavior. There might be a possibility that the participants, who can hardly resist temptation, simply do not like the hedonic products listed, and impulsively spend money on utilitarian products. Then participants will be categorized as non-impulsive buyers, while they did buy
impulsively. Secondly, the obtained sample size (110 participants) is relatively small and may be the cause of the non-significant results. However, considering the p-values of the test results, it does not necessarily suggest that more participants do provide significant results. Finally, what might affect the results is the small variety by means of the LH scores. Most of the participants were students at the University of Groningen with a relatively high LH score. By means of the median split, some participants were categorized as fast strategists, while in a larger sample size; they shift more towards a slow strategy.
For future research it is highly recommended to first validate research on the DV measurement methods, to be sure that they indicate impulsivity. Also, a larger sample size needs to be realized, to create a greater external validity, which might lead to more significant results. Furthermore it might be interesting to induce another type of stress such as social stress or financial stress.
REFERENCES
Acar-Burkay, S., Fennis, B.M., and Warlop, L., (2014). “Trusting Others: The Polarizing Effect of Need for Closure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107, no.4: 719-735
Amabile, T.M., Hadley, C.N., and Kramer, S.J. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business
Review, August 2002, 52-61.
Awan, G.A., Nayyar Abbas. (2015). Impact of Demographic Factors on Impulse Buying Behaviour of Consumer in Multan Pakistan. European Journal of Business and Management. Vol.7, No.22,
2015
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to Temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670-676
Beatty, S.E. and Ferell, E.M., 1998. Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74 (2), 161-67.
Bellenger, D. N., Robertson, D. H., & Hirschman, E. C. (1978). Impulse buying Varies by Products. Journal of Advertising Research, 18(6), 15-18.
Burroughs, J.E. and Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and Well-Being; A Conflicting Values Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 29, No.3 pp.348-370
Caplan, G. (1961). The Psychology of Pregnancy and The Origins of the Mother-Child Relationship. An Approach to Community Mental Health. New York; Grune & Stratton.
Chen, B.B. and Chang, L. (2016). Procrastination as a fast Life History Strategy. Evolutionary
Psychology. 14, 1–5. doi: 10.1177/1474704916630314.
Chuang, AC, and Lin, HY (2005)An investigation of the effect of person-environment fit on work attitudes and behaviors. Taiwan Academy of Management Journal 5(1): 123-148.
Coley,A & Burgess, B(2003). Gender differences incognitive and affectiveimpulse buying. Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 Issue: 3, pp.282-295.
Dawson, S., & Kim, M. (2009). External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying online. Direct
Marketing: An International Journal, 3(1), 20-34.
Dedovic, K., Renwick, R., Mahani, N.K., & Engert, V. (2005). The Montreal Imaging Stress Task: using functional imaging to investigate the effects of perceiving and processing psychosocial stress in the human brain. Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN, 30(5), 319.
Del Giudice, M. (2014). Early stress and human behavioural development: Emerging evolutionary perspectives. Journal of Development Origins of Health and Disease, 5, 270-280
Dittmar, H., Beattie, J., & Friese, S. (1995). Gender identity and material symbols: Objects and decision considerations in impulse purchases. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(3), 491-
511
Dunkel, C.S., Mathes, E., and Beaver, K.M. (2013). Life History Theory and The General Theory of Crime; Life Expectancy Effects on Low Self-Control and Criminal Intent. Journal of Social,
of Marketing Research: October 2016, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp. 814-828.
Folkman, S., (2013). Stress Coping and Hope. Psychological Aspects of Cancer, Springer; New York, pp. 119-27
Foroughi, A., N.A. Buang, Z.C. Senik, R.S. Hajmisadeghi. (2013). Impulse buying behavior and the moderating role of gender among Iranian shoppers. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific
Research, 3 (4), pp. 760-769
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 241–254. doi:10.1037/ a0021082 Griskevicius, V. Ackerman, J.M., Cantú, S.M., Delton, A., Robertson, T., Simpson, A., Thompson, M., and Tybur, J.M. (2013). When the Economy Falter, Do People Spend or Save? Responses to Resource Scarcity Depend on Childhood Environments. Psychological Science. 2013 24:
197
Hausman, A. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivation in impulse buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 403-419
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. Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying Behavior.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(2), 163-176.
LaRose, R., & Eastin, M. S. (2002). Is online buying out of control? Electronic commerce and consumer self-regulation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46(4), 549-564. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress,appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Mai, K. Jung, G. Lantz and S. G. Loeb, “An exploratory investigation into impulse behavior in a transitional economy: a study of urban consumers in Vietnam”, Journal of International Marketing, vol. 11, no. 2, (2003), pp. 13-35.
Moran, B., & Kwak, L. E. ( 2015). Effect of stress, materialism and external stimuli on online impulse
buying.
Niu, H., Wang, Y. (2009). Work experience effect on idolatry and the impulsive buying tendencies of adolescents. Adolescence, 44(173)
Olderbak, S., Gladden, P., Wolf, P. S. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2014). Comparison of life history strategy measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 82-88
van Ossel, G. (2017). Trends bieden kansen voor wie er creatief op inspeelt. Park, C.L., Wright, B.R.E., Pais, J., and Matthew Ray (2016). Daily Stress and
Self-Control. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology: Vol. 35, No. 9, pp. 738-753.
Parboteeah, V. (2005). A model of online impulse buying: An empirical study. Doktorska disertacija, Washington State University
Perlow, L. (1999). The Time Famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science
Piron, F. (1991). Defining Impulse Purchasing. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 509-514.
Ramanathan, Suresh and Geeta Menon (2006), “Time-Varying Effects of Chronic Hedonic Goals on Impulsive Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (November), in press
Rana, S. and J. Tirthani, "Effect of education, income and gender on impulse buying among indian consumer: An empirical study on read made garments Customers", Journal of applied research, vol. 1, no. 12, (2012)
Rook, D. W. (1987). The Buying Impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-197.
Rook, D. W., & Gardner, M. P. (1993). In the mood: impulse buying’s affective antecedents. Research
in consumer behavior, 6(7), 1-28
Rook, D. W. and R. J. Fisher, 1995. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 305-13
Stern, H. (1962). The Significance of Impulse Buying Today. Journal of Marketing, April, 59-62. Tifferet, S, Ram Herstein, (2012) "Gender differences in brand commitment, impulse buying, and hedonic consumption", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 21 Iss: 3, pp.176 - 182 Verplanken, Bas and Astrid Herabadi, 2001. Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15, S71-1.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent Resources: Self‐Regulatory Resource Availability Affects
Impulse
Wells, J.D., Parboteeah, V., and Valacich, J.S. (2011). Online Impulse Buying: Understanding the Interplay between Consumer Impulsiveness and Website Quality
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.
Wood, M. (1998). Socio-economic Status, Delay of Gratification, and Impulse Buying. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 19, 295-320.
Youn, S., & Faber, R. J. (2000). Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues. Advances in
consumer research, 27, 179-185.
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V. R., & Strutton, D. (2007). Modeling influences on impulse purchasing behaviors during online marketing transactions. The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 15 (1), 79-89.
The Economist (Unknown author), (2016). Why is everyone so busy? The Economist, Retrieved from: http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21636612-time-poverty-problem-partly-\
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE
Exhibit 1. Introduction/ Cover story
Dear participant,
Welcome to a short survey (5-10 minutes) composed of two parts.
My name is Liselot Berger and I am a MSc Marketing student at the University of Groningen. In order to fulfill my Masters degree I am interested in two different studies; Human Cognition and Spending Behavior.
• The first study is about the consequences of quantitative reasoning, which includes a mathematical test.
• The second study is about purchase behavior, in which a specific scenario will be given.
Your participation in this study will remain confidential and there will be no attempt to link your responses and your identity. Also, your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you may withdraw at any time by closing the survey platform.
If you have questions about this research, you can send an email message to Liselot Berger, Email; l.s.m.berger@student.rug.nl.
Welcome to the first part of the study! This part is about quantitative reasoning and includes a short math test.
Exhibit 2a. High Stress Condition
The Mental Game
This intelligence test serves as an important indicator of the quantitative mind of a person. You will now be presented with a set of quantitative reasoning questions based on arithmetic tasks
such as addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (*), and division (/).
There is one correct answer for each question. The correct answer is a number between 0 and 9. You will have 10 seconds to answer each question.
We are interested in the response that you can arrive at through mental calculation alone. As such, please complete these without the use of a pencil and paper or a calculator.
For each question select the option that you think is the correct answer.
At the end of each question, you will be given feedback telling you whether your response was correct or incorrect.
Also at the end of the game, you will be given feedback about how you performed compared to other participants.
o CONTINUE
Exhibit 2b. Low Stress Condition
The Mental Game
This intelligence test serves as an important indicator of the quantitative mind of a person. You will now be presented with a set of quantitative reasoning questions based on arithmetic tasks
such as addition (+), subtraction (-), multiplication (*), and division (/).
There is one correct answer for each question. The correct answer is a number between 0 and 9. I am interested in the response that you can arrive at through mental calculation alone.
As such, please complete these without the use of a pencil and paper or a calculator. For each question, select the option that you think is the correct answer.
Q4. EXAMPLE: 4 - 1 + 2 = ? ! 0 ! 1 ! 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! 6 ! 7 ! 8 ! 9
Q5. Here is another EXAMPLE 7 + 2 * 1 = ?
! 0 ! 1 ! 2 ! 3 ! 4 ! 5 ! 6 ! 7 ! 8 9
This is the end of the Mental Game Thank you!
Your performance is similar to other participants' performance.
Exhibit 3. Second part study
Welcome to the second part of this study. This part is about spending behavior in a grocery store.
You will now be given a short scenario.
Exhibit 4. Impulsive (spending) buying scenario
"Imagine you are shopping in your local grocery store. When entering the store it appears to be your lucky day.. Out of nowhere you won a voucher of €25,-. The voucher is valid for one month and can be used for all products. You are wondering how much money you should save or spend today. Indicate below how much money out of €25,- you would want to spend today when shopping."
EUR
Exhibit 5. Proportion spent on Hedonic products
In your visit to the supermarket you encounter different product on the shelves.
Please indicate for each of the following products what you would be willing to spend on each of them.
Exhibit 6. Online shopping scenario
"Imagine you are the owner of an older tote bag that is a little worn and isn't exactly the latest style. You have recently bought a new cell-phone and need to purchase a cell-phone holster that can be used along with the bag. You plan to spend no more than €20,- for the purchase of this new accessory and would like to get it ordered ASAP. While ordering your cell-phone holster, you see a great looking bag, which is on sale for €50,-. Also, you would not mind finding a new matching headphone.
What would you do in this particular situation?
o
Buying the cell phone holster onlyo
Buying the holster only and wanting the new bago
Buying the new bag instead of the holstero
Buying both the holster and the new bagExhibit 7. Manipulation Check/ Mood measure (Acar-Burkay, et al. 2014)
Back to the Mental Game.. Please use the scale below to tell us how you experienced the game
Strongly
disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat
agree Agree Strongly agree
Exhibit 8. Mini-short K-form (Figueredo, 2004)
Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. Use the
Exhibit 9. Impulse Buying Tendency (Verplanken & Heradabi, 2005)
Exhibit 10. Socioeconomic status (Griskevicius et al. 2011)
Exhibit 11. Demographic questions.
You are at the end of the questionnaire. Please finalize answering some demographic questions.
What is your gender? Male Female Other
What is your age?
Currently I am….
! Studying ! Working
! Looking for a job ! Not applicable
What is your nationality?
! Dutch
Exhibit 12. Debriefing section
THANK YOU!
This is the end of the questionnaire.
Thank you for taking your time to complete all questions.
If you are interested in the results of the study, please fill in your e-mail address. Your information will be kept confidential and will only be used to keep you updated about
the final results of the research. E-mail Address:………
