How sales promotions influence impulse buying: The critical role of affect and cognition

Thèse

Mahshid Omid

Doctorat en Sciences de l’administration Philosophiæ Doctor (Ph.D.)

Québec, Canada

© Mahshid Omid, 2016

Mieux comprendre le rôle des promotions de vente dans l'achat impulsif: Influence des mécanismes affectifs et

cognitifs

Thèse

Mahshid Omid

Sous la direction de :

Frank Pons, directeur de recherche

III

Résumé

Bien que la plupart des recherches antérieures montrent qu'un pourcentage important des achats impulsifs est

influencé par des promotions de vente, aucune étude à ce jour n’a examiné les mécanismes psychologiques

qui soutiennent cette influence. Cette thèse vise à combler cette lacune importante. Elle étudie les processus

affectifs-cognitifs-comportementaux qui sous-tendent l'influence des promotions sur les achats impulsifs. Elle

examine également l’influence de catégories de promotions et certains traits de personnalité des

consommateurs sur ces processus.

Nous adoptons une approche cognitive-affective de l'achat impulsif qui tend à montrer le rôle de l’affect et la

délibération cognitive lors d’influence des stimuli externes sur les comportements impulsifs. Les émotions

envers une promotion sont définies en termes d’états affectifs éprouvés par le consommateur à un moment

donné envers une promotion particulière. Les groupes d'émotions avec la même polarité sont classés comme

l’affect positif ou l’affect négatif. La cognition envers une promotion est définie en termes d’évaluations des

bénéfices qui peuvent être obtenus d’une promotion particulière avec l'achat du produit promu. Nous étudions

le rôle médiateur de l’affect et de la cognition envers une promotion lors d’un processus d'achat impulsif. Nous

examinons également la pertinence de la variable affect envers une promotion en étudiant si l’affect et la

cognition jouent des rôles complémentaires ou redondants dans la prédiction du comportement du

consommateur. Nos résultats révèlent que deux mécanismes distincts coexistants, soit le transfert de l’affect

et de la cognition, sous-tendent l’achat impulsif des produits en promotion. En accord avec la théorie de

l'Appraisal, les évaluations cognitives de bénéfices d’une promotion génèrent une réaction affective chez les

consommateurs. Cette dernière à son tour influence leur comportement d’achat impulsif.

Des recherches antérieures constatent que les réponses impulsives des consommateurs aux promotions

diffèrent d'une catégorie de promotion à l'autre. Cependant, la cause de cette différence est peu étudiée dans

la littérature. Cette thèse vise à combler cette lacune. Nous attribuons cette différence au fait que les

antécédents psychologiques varient entre les achats de produits promus avec différents types de promotions.

Par conséquent, nous examinons le rôle modérateur de la catégorie de promotion dans le processus d'achat

impulsif. Nos résultats confirment notre hypothèse. Ils démontrent que l'achat impulsif d'un produit promu par

une promotion nonmonétaire est un acte de plaisir. La cognition hédonique et l’affect positif que les

consommateurs éprouvent ont une influence significative sur leur achat impulsif. D'autre part, dans le cas des

promotions monétaires les consommateurs font une évaluation coût-bénéfice dans laquelle ils considèrent

également leur cognition utilitaire et l’affect négatif qu'ils éprouvent vers la promotion de ventes.

IV

Le dernier volet de cette recherche étudie comment le processus d'achat impulsif de produits en promotion

diffère parmi les consommateurs ayant des traits de personnalité distincts. Nous choisissons deux traits de

personnalité qui sont liés à l'attention et la réaction des consommateurs aux promotions et à leur tendance à

faire des achats impulsifs, soit la tendance à l'impulsivité dans l'achat et la sensibilité aux promotions de vente.

Nos résultats démontrent que ces traits influencent l’affect et la cognition que le consommateur éprouve

envers une promotion. Ils modèrent également les rôles des mécanismes affectifs et cognitifs dans le

processus d’achat impulsif. Les résultats de notre analyse de la relation entre ces traits de personnalité

démontrent que les deux traits augmentent des impulsions et des achats impulsifs. Cependant, ils diffèrent en

termes des réactions affectives et cognitives sous-jacentes. Les consommateurs impulsifs font des achats

impulsifs en raison de leur forte tendance à chercher des récompenses, alors que l'achat impulsif des

consommateurs sensibles aux promotions est un acte délibératif de l'auto-indulgence pour bénéficier des

avantages utilitaires des promotions.

Cette thèse apporte des contributions importantes à la littérature. Parmi tous, nos résultats montrent comment

les promotions de ventes encouragent les consommateurs à acheter sur impulsion. Il est confirmé que l’affect

envers une promotion est un prédicteur important de réponses promotionnelles qui a été négligé dans les

recherches précédentes. En outre, la catégorie de promotion et les traits de personnalité se trouvent à

modérer les processus affectifs-cognitifs-comportementaux d’achat impulsif. Enfin, les implications

managériales sont fournies pour manipuler des caractéristiques de promotion des ventes dans le but

d'encourager les achats impulsifs à travers les consommateurs avec différents traits de personnalité.

Mots clés : Comportement de l'acheteur, Achat impulsif, Promotion de vente, Réponse émotionnelle, Affect

envers une promotion de vente, Réponse cognitive, Cognition envers une promotion de vente, Tendance à

l'impulsivité dans l'achat, Sensibilité aux promotions de vente

V

Abstract

Although past research demonstrates that a significant percentage of impulsive purchases come from sales

promotions, no studies to date have examined the psychological mechanisms leading to this influence. To

better understand the role of sales promotions in impulse buying situations, this dissertation aims to address

this critical gap. To this end, first of all, we investigate cognitive-affective-behavioural processes underlying the

influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases. Further, we examine the moderating role of sales

promotions category on these processes. Finally, we study how these processes differ among consumers with

different personality traits.

This dissertation adopts a cognitive-affective approach to impulse buying. It claims that cognitive deliberation

also plays a mediating role between external stimuli and impulse buying behaviour, although affective

reactions would have more influence. Emotions towards promotions are defined in terms of subjective feeling

states experienced by consumers at a given point of time towards a promotion. Clusters of emotions with the

same polarity are referred to as either positive or negative promotion affect. Promotion cognition is defined as

the evaluative meaning of a sales promotion in terms of the benefits that can be derived out of it with the

purchase of the promoted product. We investigate the mediating role of promotion affect and promotion

cognitions in impulse buying process of promoted products. We also examine the relevance of the construct of

promotion affect by studying whether promotion affect and promotion cognition play complementary or

redundant roles in predicting consumer impulsive behaviour. Our results reveal that two separate coexisting

mechanisms, affect transfer and cognitions, are the underlying foundations of impulse buying decisions of

promoted products. Consistent with the Appraisal theory, cognitive evaluation of the benefits of a promotion

prompts consumer affective responses. This promotion affect in turn mediates the influence of promotion

cognitions on consumer impulse buying behaviour.

Past research finds that consumer impulsive responses to promotions differ from a sales promotion category

to other. However, the cause underlying this difference is still understudied in the literature. This dissertation

aims to address this gap. It attributes this difference to the fact that psychological antecedents vary between

purchases of products promoted with different types of promotions. Therefore, it examines the moderating role

of sales promotion category on the process of impulse buying. The results confirm this role. They demonstrate

that impulsive purchase of a product promoted by a non-monetary sales promotion is an all pleasure act;

hedonic promotion cognitions and positive promotion affect that consumers experience have a significant

influence on their impulsive purchase. On the other hand, in the case of monetary sales promotions,

consumers make a cost-benefit evaluation where they also consider their utilitarian cognitions and negative

affect that they may experience towards the sales promotion.

VI

The role of consumer personality traits is emphasized in both the impulse buying and behavioural pricing

literature. To contribute to this understanding, this dissertation investigates the role of consumer personality

traits in cognitive-affective triggers of impulsive promotional responses. Two consumer personality traits

related to consumers’ attention and reaction to sales promotions and their propensity to make impulsive

purchases are buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait. The results confirm that these traits

influence affect and cognition that consumers experience towards promotions. They also moderate the

process of impulse buying. Moreover, the results of our analysis about the relationship between buying

impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits show that although both traits result in increased buying urges and

impulsive purchases, they differ in focus and underlying affective and cognitive reactions. Impulsive

consumers make impulsive purchases due to their strong reward seeking tendency, whereas the impulsive

purchase of deal-prone consumers is a deliberative act of self-indulgence to gain from utilitarian benefits of

promotional offers.

This dissertation makes important contributions to the behavioural pricing and impulse buying literature. Our

results demonstrate how sales promotions encourage consumers to purchase on impulse. We also confirm

that promotion affect is a previously overlooked standalone predictor of consumer promotional responses.

Moreover, sales promotion category and consumer personality traits are found to moderate cognitive-affective-

behavioural triggers of impulsive promotional purchases. Finally, managerial implications are provided and it is

discussed how to manipulate sales promotion characteristics in order to encourage impulsive purchases

across consumers with different levels of buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits.

Keywords: Buyer behaviour, Impulse buying, Sales promotion, Emotional response, Promotion affect,

Cognitive response, Promotion Cognition, Buying impulsiveness trait, Deal-proneness trait

VII

Table of Contents

Résumé ............................................................................................................................................................. III

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... V

Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................................. VII

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... IX

Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................................. X

Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................................................. XI

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

(1) What role consumer emotions play in the process of impulse buying of promoted products? .................. 2

(2) What role consumer cognitions play in the process of impulse buying of promoted products? ................ 3

(3) What is the interplay between emotions and cognitions in this process? .................................................. 3

(4) Does sales promotion category influence the process of impulse buying? ............................................... 4

(5) How consumer personality traits influence the process of impulse buying of promoted products? ........... 4

General Organisation of the Dissertation ....................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 1: Literature Review .............................................................................................................................. 7

Influence of Sales Promotions on Impulse Buying ......................................................................................... 7

Cognitive-Affective Approach to Impulse Buying ............................................................................................ 7

Cognitive Reactions to Sales Promotions or Promotion Cognition ................................................................. 9

Affective Reactions to Sales Promotions or Promotion Affect ...................................................................... 11

Impulsive Urge to Buy versus Impulsive Purchase ....................................................................................... 14

Consumer Personality Traits and Impulse Buying........................................................................................ 15

Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait ..................................................................................................... 15

Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait .............................................................................................................. 16

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................... 18

Influence of Promotion Affect on Impulse Buying ......................................................................................... 18

Influence of Promotion Cognition on Impulse Buying ................................................................................... 20

Interplay between Promotion Cognition, Promotion Affect, and Impulse Buying .......................................... 21

Promotion Affect as a Standalone Predictor of Consumer Impulsive Behaviour .......................................... 24

Influence of Impulsive Urge to Buy on Impulsive Purchase .......................................................................... 24

Role of Sales Promotion Category ............................................................................................................... 25

Role of Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait ............................................................................................. 27

Impulsive Urge to Buy, Impulsive Purchase, and Buying Impulsiveness Trait ......................................... 27

Promotion Cognition and Buying Impulsiveness Trait .............................................................................. 28

VIII

Promotion Affect and Buying Impulsiveness Trait .................................................................................... 29

Role of Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait ...................................................................................................... 31

Impulsive Urge to Buy, Impulsive Purchase, and Deal Proneness Trait .................................................. 31

Promotion Cognition and Deal-Proneness Trait ....................................................................................... 32

Promotion Affect and Deal-Proneness Trait ............................................................................................. 35

Buying Impulsiveness Trait versus Deal-Proneness Trait ............................................................................ 36

Chapter 3: Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 38

Pre-test ......................................................................................................................................................... 38

Sample ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

Materials and Method ............................................................................................................................... 38

Main Study ................................................................................................................................................... 39

Sample ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

Materials and Method ............................................................................................................................... 41

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................................................ 44

Pre-test ......................................................................................................................................................... 44

Data Analysis and Results ....................................................................................................................... 44

Main Study ................................................................................................................................................... 44

Data Analysis and Results ....................................................................................................................... 44

Moderating Role of Sales Promotion Category .................................................................................... 50

Role of Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait .................................................................................... 51

Role of Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait ............................................................................................. 54

Buying Impulsiveness Trait versus Deal-Proneness Trait.................................................................... 57

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Discussion ............................................................................................................. 58

Theoretical Contributions .............................................................................................................................. 58

Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................................... 60

Managerial Implications ................................................................................................................................ 65

Limits and Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 67

Reference ......................................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................... 82

IX

List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of pre-test participants ....................................................................................... 38

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of main study participants .................................................................................. 39

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of participant subgroups .................................................................................... 39

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of participant subgroups .................................................................................... 40

Table 5: Statistics of impulsiveness score of the eight selected product categories ......................................... 44

Table 6: Results of the exploratory factor analysis ........................................................................................... 45

Table 7: Comparison of values between situations with and without sales promotions .................................... 46

Table 8: Comparison of mean values between situations with and without an impulsive purchase ................. 47

Table 9: Testing the Appraisal theory in the sales promotion context ............................................................... 49

Table 10: Comparison of values between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers ......................................... 52

Table 11: Comparison of values between deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers ..................................... 55

Table 12: Comparison of values between impulsive and deal-prone consumers ............................................. 57

X

Table of Figures

Figure 1: General organisation of the dissertation .............................................................................................. 6

Figure 2: Conceptual Model: A psychological model of the influence of sales promotions on impulse buying . 37

Figure 3: Comparison of values between situations with and without sales promotions ................................... 46

Figure 4: Analysis of the structural model using standardized coefficients ....................................................... 48

Figure 5: Analysis of the structural model of subgroups with significant discounts and free gifts using

standardized coefficients .................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 6: Comparison of values between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers .......................................... 52

Figure 7: Analysis of the structural model for impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers using standardized

coefficients ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 8: Comparison of values between deal-prone and nondual-prone consumers ...................................... 55

Figure 9: Analysis of the structural model for deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers using standardized

coefficients ........................................................................................................................................................ 56

XI

Acknowledgement

The present work is dedicated to my parents, Zahra and Mostafa. Without their unconditional love and never-

ending support, I would not have come so far.

I express my sincere gratitude to my doctoral advisor, Professor Frank Pons. In sharing his insightful advice

and guidance and showing great interest and belief in my research, he has provided me with a pleasurable

learning experience.

I am very grateful to the co-referees of my doctoral committee, Professor André Richelieu, Professor Nizar

Souiden, and Professor Mehdi Mourali. Their comments and feedback have been an invaluable input to my

research.

Last but not least, I am keenly thankful to my family, friends, and colleagues, who supported and encouraged

me through this research.

1

Introduction

‘What makes your store a profit powerhouse is the extent to which it sells each customer something he or she

did not intend to buy while making the planned purchase’ (Lewis, 1993, p. 24).

Impulse buying is increasingly salient among consumers across a broad range of product categories so that it

is recognized as one of the main determinants of today’s companies’ sales revenue, specifically in the retailing

and e-marketing sectors (Hausman, 2000; Vohs & Faber, 2007; Zhou & Wong, 2004). For instance, about

67% of groceries (Economides & Economides, 2007), 80% of luxury goods (Ruvio & Belk, 2013) and 48% of

books are purchased on impulse (Pollara Survey, 2002). A recent study by BMO Financial Group reports that

in 2012 every Canadian spent an average of $3,720 on impulsive purchases, with 31% of consumers

borrowed money or took out a loan to pay for their impulsive spending. Moreover, 23% of consumers reported

that due to spending on their impulses they could not afford what they needed (BMO Financial Group, 2012).

The importance of impulse buying phenomenon was the trigger of a multitude of research from academics and

practitioners over the last seventy years. Impulsive purchase is defined as an unplanned purchase, resulted

from a powerful, persistent, irresistible impulsive urge created by the store environment (e.g., Applebaum,

1951; Rook, 1987; Weun et al., 1998). The influence of different aspects of store environment (e.g., music,

lighting, layout, scent, temperature, and signage) on impulsive purchases has been investigated (e.g., Levy &

Weitz, 2007; Peck & Childers, 2006; Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). In particular, price and in-store sales

promotions are determined as major initiators of such purchases (e.g., Applebaum, 1951; Jalan, 2006; Kacen

et al., 2012; Rook, 1987; Rook & Fisher, 1995; Tendai & Crispen, 2009; Weun et al., 1998; Williams & Dardis,

1972). For instance, BMO Financial Group (2012)’s study reports that at least 55% of consumers make

impulsive purchases because a specific item is discounted. This kind of observations made the role of sales

promotions more salient, which led to growing use of in-store promotional activities in the retailing industry.

Sales promotions have become the most prominent marketing strategy of consumer packaged goods while

accounting for a quarter of marketing budget of consumer product companies (Raghubir et al., 2004). For

instance in 2008 Procter & Gamble Co. spent $3.5 billion on sales promotions and shopper marketing (Neff,

2009).

Although the influence of sales promotions on impulse buying caught the attention of several researchers and

despite the number of research about impulse buying in retail settings, the important role of consumer

psychological reactions to sales promotions has been relatively understudied. Researchers only investigated

‘whether’ sales promotions increase impulse buying while ignoring the ‘why’ and ‘how’ aspects of this

influence. It led to a critical gap in the impulse buying literature, since although the influence of promotional

2

stimuli on impulse buying is important, these stimuli do not cause all impulsive purchases and it is essential to

study consumer internal mechanisms that are at the origin of impulsive purchases (Rook, 1987). This

dissertation aims to address this gap. Therefore, its main research question is: why and how sales promotions

influence impulse buying? In other words, through what psychological processes sales promotions influence

impulse buying? This question leads to the following sub-questions: (1) What role consumer emotions play in

the process of impulse buying of promoted products? (2) What role consumer cognitions play in the process of

impulse buying of promoted products? (3) What is the interplay between emotions and cognitions in this

process? (4) How sales promotion category influences the process of impulse buying? (5) How consumer

personality traits influence the process of impulse buying of promoted products? The following explains why

these sub-questions are important and how this dissertation aims to answer them.

(1) What role consumer emotions play in the process of impulse

buying of promoted products?

The relationship between emotions and consumer behaviour is well established in the literature. The impulse

buying research demonstrates that impulsive purchase occurs when a consumer spontaneously feels strong

emotions towards an in-store stimulus, which in turn give rise to a sudden, powerful, irresistible urge to buy on

impulse (Baun & Gröppel-Klein, 2003; Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Rook, 1987; Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982). For

decades, the behavioural pricing research was cognitively biased and did not pay enough attention to

consumer emotions (Peine et al., 2009). However, there is suggestive evidence that a relevant part of

consumer responses to sales promotions is related to their affective reactions (Honea & Dahl, 2005). Given

that this research lies at the intersection of the impulse buying and behavioural pricing literature, these findings

lead us to our first research sub-question: what role consumer emotions play in the process of impulse buying

of promoted products?

To answer this question, we define promotion affect as consumer emotional reactions to a sales promotion

and investigate whether promotion affect mediates the influence of a sales promotion on impulsive purchase.

In line with Honea and Dahl (2005), we adopt a two-dimensional conceptualization of promotion affect: positive

and negative. This research is the first study about the relationship between promotion affect and impulsive

purchase. Besides contributing to the clarification of the process of impulse buying, we contribute to growing

understanding of the important role of consumer emotions in both the behavioural pricing and impulse buying

literature.

3

(2) What role consumer cognitions play in the process of impulse

buying of promoted products?

The relationship between cognitions and consumer behaviour is well supported in the literature. Impulse

buying research demonstrates that cognitive deliberation plays a part in impulse buying decisions. It is shown

that the information related to an external stimulus can be subject to deliberative processes focused on long-

term rational concerns, short-term emotional concerns, or both (Burroughs, 1996; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002;

Youn & Faber, 2000). As discussed above, the influence of cognitive price-related constructs on consumer

behaviour is well established in the behavioural pricing literature. These findings lead us to our second

research sub-question: what role consumer cognitions play in the process of impulse buying of promoted

products?

A cognitive construct well established in the behavioural pricing literature is ‘consumer perceived value.' It is

demonstrated that consumers respond to sales promotions because of the benefits that they provide (Keller,

1993). Therefore, in this dissertation, promotion cognition is defined as the evaluative meaning of a sales

promotion in terms of the benefits that can be derived out of it with the purchase of the promoted product

(Tesser & Martin, 1996). In line with Chandon et al. (2000), we distinguish between hedonic and utilitarian

benefits of sales promotions. As a result, we utilize a two-dimensional conceptualization of promotion

cognition: hedonic and utilitarian. With the aim of contributing to the clarification of the process of impulse

buying, we investigate the mediating role of promotion cognition in impulsive responses to sales promotions.

This is the first research about the relationship between promotion cognition and impulsive purchase.

(3) What is the interplay between emotions and cognitions in this

process?

Previous consumer research demonstrates that affect and cognition influence behaviour jointly, but

independently (Ajzen, 2001; Bargh, 2002; Cohen & Areni, 1991; Edwards, 1990; Schwarz, 2000; Sojka &

Giese, 1997). The impulse buying literature also shows that affective and cognitive mechanisms are operating

concurrently to shape impulsive purchases (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991; Rook & Hoch, 1985). Furthermore,

Peine et al. (2009) for the first time indicate that consumer response to price-increase information is a two-

dimensional construct consisting of both affective and cognitive dimensions. These findings lead us to our third

research sub-question: what is the interplay between emotions and cognitions in the process of impulse buying

of promoted products?

To answer this question, we examine the simultaneous influence of promotion affect and promotion cognitions

and determine whether these mechanisms play complementary or redundant roles in predicting consumer

impulsive behaviour. The influence of promotion affect and promotion cognition on consumer behaviour has

4

been studied separately in the past and no studies to date have examined their simultaneous influence.

Therefore, this is the first research in this domain and makes an important contribution to the sales promotion

literature by investigating the blurred relationship between promotion affect and promotion cognition

constructs. We also examine the relevance of the construct of promotion affect via evaluating its predictive

validity and mediating role in conjunction with promotion cognition construct. Our findings contribute to both the

behavioural pricing and impulse buying literature.

(4) Does sales promotion category influence the process of

impulse buying?

Although past research finds that different types of sales promotions influence impulse buying in quite different

ways (Kacen et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2009), the underlying cause of this difference is not clear yet. We found a

possible explanation in a comment by Blattberg and Neslin (1990). They note that the psychological

antecedents vary across the purchase of products promoted with different sales promotions. It leads us to our

fourth research sub-question: does sales promotion category influence the process of impulse buying of

promoted products?

To answer this question, we investigate consumer impulsive responses to two different types of sales

promotions, monetary versus nonmonetary, and examine how sales promotion category moderates the

mediational role of promotion affect and promotion cognition in consumer impulsive responses to these

promotions. The results will determine whether for a certain type of sales promotions the ability to evoke affect

is more influential, whereas cognitions are more pivotal for others. They also clarify under what conditions

promotion cognitions focus on the hedonic consequences of choosing an offer and when they focus on its

utilitarian properties. Among all, we contribute to the understanding of psychological correlates of consumer

promotional responses in both the behavioural pricing and impulse buying literature.

(5) How consumer personality traits influence the process of

impulse buying of promoted products?

There is a growing interest in the role of consumer personality characteristics in the impulse buying literature. It

is argued that although the influence of external stimuli on impulse buying is important, these stimuli do not

cause all impulsive purchases. It is thus essential to study personal characteristics that trigger consumers to

act on impulse (Chang et al., 2011; Rook & Hoch, 1985; Yu & Bastin, 2010). The behavioural pricing literature

also emphasizes the role of consumer personality characteristics. For instance, it is shown that consumers are

very heterogeneous regarding their attention and reaction to price and sales promotions (e.g., Buil et al., 2013;

Talukdar et al., 2010). These observations lead us to our fifth research sub-question: how consumer

personality traits influence the process of impulse buying of promoted products?

5

Given that this dissertation lies at the intersection of the behavioural pricing literature and the impulse buying

literature, we are only interested in consumer personality traits that are related to consumers’ attention and

reaction to sales promotions as well as their propensity to make impulsive purchases. Buying impulsiveness

trait, or impulse buying tendency (these terms are used interchangeably in the literature), and deal-proneness

trait fit in this framework. We investigate how buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits influence

cognitive-affective triggers of impulsive promotional responses. Among all, the results contribute to the growing

understanding of consumer psychological differences in the impulse buying and behavioural pricing literature.

Although consumer behaviour researchers have shown a great interest in investigating the role of buying

impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait, these research areas have been studied separately, and the

relationship between these traits did not catch enough attention from researchers. The existing literature is not

thus able to fully demonstrate the differences that exist between impulsive and deal-prone consumers. To

address this gap, this dissertation investigates whether buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits

moderate the psychological reactions underlying the impulsive purchase of promoted products in different

ways. The results make an important contribution to the investigation of the blurred relationship between

affect, cognition, impulsive purchase, buying impulsiveness, and deal-proneness constructs.

In sum, the present dissertation models and explains all aspects of why and how sales promotions reinforce

impulse buying behaviour and specifies the linkages among psychological affective and cognitive

mechanisms, impulsive urge to buy, impulse buying behaviour, sales promotion category, and consumer

buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits. Among all, our findings provide a better understanding of the

role of sales promotions in impulse buying situations while demonstrating which mechanism under which

condition has the greater influence on impulsive purchases. It also contributes to the limited understanding of

consumer personal differences in impulse buying behaviour (Kalla & Arora, 2011), specifically in the context of

sales promotions. This knowledge helps to improve the prediction of consumer impulsive behaviour towards

promotional stimuli. It also could be used to design the sales promotions that generate more impulsive

purchases.

General Organisation of the Dissertation

This introduction presented the relevance and importance of this dissertation. The next four chapters are

devoted to presenting the literature review, the conceptual framework, the methodology, and the results in

details. The final section is a general conclusion that discusses the main results, the theoretical and

managerial contributions, and finally the limits and future research avenues. Figure 1 depicts the general

organisation of this dissertation.

6

Figure 1: General organisation of the dissertation

Conclusion and Discussion: Theoretical Contributions, Summary of Findings, Managerial Implications,

Limits and Future Research

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework

Chapter 3: Methodology

Chapter 3: Results

Sub-question 1:

What role consumer

emotions play in the

process of impulse

buying of promoted

products?

Sub-question 2:

What role consumer

cognitions play in

the process of

impulse buying of

promoted products?

Sub-question 3:

What is the

interplay between

emotions and

cognitions in this

process?

Research Question:

Why and how sales promotions influence impulse buying? In other words, through

what psychological processes sales promotions influence impulse buying?

Sub-question 4:

Does sales

promotion

category influence

the process of

impulse buying?

Sub-question 5:

How personality

traits influence the

process of impulse

buying of promoted

products?

7

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Influence of Sales Promotions on Impulse Buying

The notion of exposure to external stimuli is firstly introduced to the impulse buying literature by Applebaum

(1951). He argues that impulse buying is a purchase not planned by the consumer before entering a store, but

resulted from an urge created by the promotional device in the store. Similarly, Rook and Gardner (1993) and

Weun et al. (1998) state that impulsive purchase is a reactive behaviour that happens when a consumer

experiences an unplanned, uncontrolled, spontaneous urge towards a stimulus encountered in the buying

situation. It is argued that the store environment stimulates impulse buying by increasing consumer interest in

different aspects of the store and capturing their attention to tempting items via in-store displays and

promotions (Cobb & Hoyer, 1986; Cox, 1964; Dittmar et al., 1995). The findings show that different aspects of

store environment (e.g., music, lighting, layout, scent, temperature, and signage) affect consumer decision-

making process and their consequent impulse buying behaviours (e.g., Levy & Weitz, 2007; Peck & Childers,

2006; Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001).

In this regard, sales promotions are found to have one of the strongest influences on impulsive purchases.

Williams and Dardis (1972) find that products on a promotional price prompt more impulsive purchases than

non-promotionally priced products do. Accordingly, Jalan (2006) states that price and in-store sales

promotions act as major initiators of impulsive urge and consequent impulsive purchases. Tendai and Crispen

(2009)’s study demonstrates that factors of an economic nature (e.g., price, sales promotions) are more likely

to influence impulse buying than those with an atmospheric effect. Kacen et al. (2012) also indicate that in-

store factors may facilitate the impulsive decision by drawing consumer attention to a product and enhancing

its appeal. In particular, their results show that a store environment with a low-high pricing strategy influences

impulse buying the most, while on sale products are more likely to be purchased on impulse than products that

are not on sale.

Given the important influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases, the present dissertation

investigates the mechanisms involved at the consumer level regarding this influence. The next section defines

impulse buying using a cognitive-affective approach. It is followed by illustrating the interplay of cognitive and

affective reactions resulting in buying on impulse. Further, we discuss how sales promotion category and

consumer personality traits influence cognitive-affective triggers of impulsive promotional responses.

Cognitive-Affective Approach to Impulse Buying

The role of affect is firstly introduced to the impulse buying literature by Rook (1987). Based on the experiential

approach to consumer behaviour analysis (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982), Rook defines impulse buying as an

8

unplanned purchase where a consumer spontaneously feels positive affect towards a product or some

promotional stimuli, which in turn gives rise to a sudden, often powerful, irresistible, and persistent urge to buy

something immediately. His results show that impulse buying is hedonically complex and may stimulate

emotional conflict by eliciting both pleasure and guilt in consumers. Impulsive buyers may simultaneously

experience positive (e.g., good, happy, satisfied, light, wonderful, high, self-indulgent, frivolous, naughty) and

negative feelings (e.g., strange, blank, restless, and nervous). In the same vein, Hoyer and MacInnis (2001)

describe impulsive purchases as low-effort, feeling-based decisions that are more associated with emotions

than with cognitive processing. Accordingly, Baun and Gröppel-Klein (2003) argue that impulse buying is the

result of a decision-making phenomenon that is not directly and solely determined by external stimuli and

needs to be studied in a more affective perspective. Their results show that the experience of positive

emotions like joy and surprise along with low cognitive control experienced during an unplanned purchasing

situation can differentiate impulsive purchases from ordinary purchases. Lee and Yi (2008)’s study also shows

that impulse buying is often associated with intense feeling states.

Although the role of affect in impulse buying is extensively highlighted in the literature, there is suggestive

evidence that affective reactions are not the only processes that influence impulsive decisions. Cognitive

deliberation also plays a part in impulse buying decisions. In other words, the information related to a tempting

stimulus can also be subject to cognitive deliberation. Rook and Hoch (1985) report that even at the height of

impulse buying episodes consumers engage in ‘inner dialogues’ to cope with their buying impulses. These

dialogues testify to consumers’ cognitive efforts. These cognitions may be associated with the potential

negative consequences that impulsive purchases may have on consumer personal finance, post-purchase

satisfaction, social reactions, or overall self-esteem (Rook & Fisher, 1995). However, the irresistible impulsive

urge to buy may discourage consumers from considering these negative cognitions (Hoch & Loewenstein,

1991). In their study about the relationship between mood and impulse buying, Rook and Gardner (1993)

approach impulse buying as an umbrella that includes varying degrees of spontaneous and deliberative

behaviours. Berkowitz (1993) and LeDoux (1995, 1996) also suggest that impulsive behaviours prompted by

affective reactions to an object can also be a result of higher-order processing when consumers allocate

processing resources to their decision tasks. Furthermore, Burroughs (1996) states that cognitions involved in

impulse buying are more than previously reported. Consumers utilize holistic information processing; they

evaluate the purchase decision with great speed by generalizing product information, compare quite

immediately though perhaps inadvertently its symbolic meanings to their self-image, and make an impulsive

purchase once a match between the product and their self-image is found. This observation is in line with

Cobb and Hoyer (1986) who note that impulsive buyers do in-store information processing and utilize simple

cognitive evaluations to select a product or brand. Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) argue that a spontaneous, short

response to a purchase stimulus may involve higher-order controlled cognitive processes. Moreover, Shiv and

9

Fedorikhin (1999, 2002)’s study shows that there are situations when consumers spend a lot of cognitive

efforts that lead to impulsive behaviour. They explain that the information related to a stimulus can be subject

to deliberative processes focused on the adverse consequences or the affect-laden results of choosing the

stimulus, or both. These observations are supported by Dholakia (2000) and Youn and Faber (2000) who note

that impulsive purchase decisions may be based on both long-term rational concerns and short-term emotional

concerns. A recent study by Miao (2011) also demonstrates that although impulse buying has a spontaneous

nature, consumers do go through a cognitive evaluation process to make normative judgments about their

impulsive behaviours. This normative evaluation may happen subconsciously. Taking the findings of the above

studies, the present dissertation adopts a cognitive-affective approach to impulse buying, which claims that

cognitive deliberation plays a role in impulse buying decisions, although affect would have more influences.

It is noteworthy that the impulsive literature is mainly focused on negative cognitions associated with acting on

impulse, while impulsive behaviours can also be associated with positive cognitions. In contradiction to the

traditional and extreme societal view of impulsive behaviours, few researchers extended the analysis of

impulse buying beyond a dysfunctional approach. They argued that impulsive behaviours would also be

associated with benefits. For instance, Rook and Fisher (1995) suggest that impulse buying has usually been

characterised as ‘being bad’ and causing negative consequences for personal finance, post-purchase

satisfaction, social reactions, and overall self-esteem. However, there are situations in which impulse buying is

viewed as a normatively neutral or even positively sanctioned behaviour, such as buying a product on impulse

to take advantage of a store special. Rook and Fisher (1995) explain that in this kind of situations impulse

buying is more virtuously motivated and elicits more positive cognitions. Likewise, Puri (1996) states that

impulsive behaviours can provide several benefits, including the pleasure of yielding to temptations or any

image-oriented benefits of avoiding control. Hausman (2000)’s study demonstrates that most consumers do

not regard impulsive purchases as wrong and express a favourable evaluation of their impulsive behaviours.

She emphasizes that once hedonic benefits are considered, impulse buying can be viewed as a valued

pastime rather than just a means to grab goods. Similarly, Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999, 2002) show that the

information related to a stimulus can be subject to deliberative processes focused on positive affect-laden

attributes of choosing it. Based on these findings and opposite to mainstream studies of impulse buying, the

present dissertation focuses on positive cognitions (instead of negative cognitions) that consumers experience

while making an impulsive purchase. This quality can differentiate our research from common studies on

impulse buying.

Cognitive Reactions to Sales Promotions or Promotion Cognition

Over the past thirty years, the increasing importance of pricing decisions led to a multitude of studies in the

behavioural pricing domain. These studies mainly focused on the cognitive content of consumer reactions

10

(Chandon, 1995). A cognitive reaction refers to evaluative judgments about the essence of a target and is

derived from a process whereby consumers consider descriptive qualities of the target and map them onto an

evaluation (Pham et al., 2001). According to the ‘cognitive approach’ (Raju & Hastak, 1980), a sales promotion

is considered as a cue at the point of purchase that triggers certain psychological processes in consumer

mind, including encoding the promotion and using it in the formation of beliefs used in the evaluation of the

offer as well as post-trial experiences (Gardner & Strang, 1984). A cognitive construct well established in the

behavioural pricing literature is ‘consumer perceived value’ (e.g., Christou, 2011; Fam et al., 2013; Jamal et

al., 2012; Kwok & Uncles, 2005; Laroche et al., 2003; Mishra et al., 2012). The perceived value is defined as

the benefits that a consumer attaches to a product (Keller, 1993). Consistent with this definition, the present

dissertation defines promotion cognition in terms of the personal value that a consumer attaches in a given

point of time to a promotional offer. Therefore, promotion cognition reflects the perceived benefits of a certain

promotion for a certain consumer. As follows, we explain different dimensions of promotion cognition construct.

Past research made a distinction between utilitarian (extrinsic) benefits and hedonic (intrinsic) benefits

(Holbrook, 1994; Stewart & Furse, 1986). Utilitarian benefits are primarily instrumental, functional, and

cognitive, and are used as a means to an end. On the other hand, hedonic benefits are non-instrumental,

experiential, and affective, and are appreciated for their own sake without considering their practical ends

(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). For two decades, the sales promotion literature was mainly based on the

assumption that sales promotion benefits for consumers are limited to economic benefits (see Blattberg &

Neslin, 1993 for a review). Few researchers have also emphasized the hedonic benefits generated by the

purchase of promoted products (Schindler, 1989; Shimp & Kavas, 1984). Chandon et al. (2000) integrated

both perspectives. They define sales promotion benefits as the perceived value attached to the sales

promotion experience, including promotion exposure (e.g., seeing a promotion on a product) and usage (e.g.,

redeeming a coupon or buying a promoted product). The result of their study is a multi-benefit framework that

classifies sales promotion benefits into utilitarian benefits (helping consumers maximize the utility, efficiency,

and economy of their shopping) and hedonic benefits (providing intrinsic stimulation, fun, and self-esteem).

According to this framework, sales promotions may provide consumers with monetary savings (savings

benefit) or reduce the price of otherwise unaffordable products and enable consumers to upgrade to higher-

quality products (quality benefit). They may also advertise the availability and the promotional status of

products at the point of sales and reduce consumer search and decision costs and improve their shopping

convenience (convenience benefit). Sales promotions may also increase consumer self-perception of being

smart or a good shopper and provide them with the opportunity to reaffirm their personal values (value

expression benefit). Sales promotions may also create an ever-changing shopping environment, produce

stimulation, and fulfil consumer need for information and exploration (exploration benefit), or provide

consumers with an entertaining shopping or consumption experience (entertainment benefit). In this

11

framework, savings, quality, and convenience benefits are classified as utilitarian benefits and entertainment

and exploration benefits as hedonic benefits. The value-expression benefit entails both hedonic and utilitarian

dimensions.

This dissertation adopts Chandon et al. (2000)’s framework. As a result, it utilizes a two-dimensional

conceptualization of promotion cognitions. In line with Tesser and Martin (1996), we define hedonic cognitions

as the evaluative meaning of a certain sales promotion in terms of the pleasure that can be derived out of it

with the purchase of the promoted product. Consistently, we define utilitarian cognitions as the evaluative

meaning of a certain sales promotion in terms of the functional utility that can be derived out of it with the

purchase of the promoted product.

Affective Reactions to Sales Promotions or Promotion Affect

Bodenhausen (1993) suggests that when studying the effects of emotions on judgment, decision, or behaviour,

one should differentiate between incidental emotional states and integral emotional responses. Incidental

emotional states are associated with pre-existing mood or enduring emotional dispositions (e.g., chronic

anxiety). Therefore, they are unrelated to the object of judgement or decision. On the other hand, integral

emotional responses are emotions and feelings evoked by real, perceived, or even imagined features of the

stimulus (Cohen et al., 2008). The focus of this dissertation is on integral emotional responses that consumers

experience in the presence of promotional offers.

We define emotions towards sales promotions as subjective feeling states that consumer experiences in a

given point of time towards a given sales promotion (such as joy, anger, or excitements) (Fiore & Kim, 2007).

Clusters of emotions with the same polarity are referred to as either positive promotion affect or negative

promotion affect (Oliver, 1997). A large body of theory and evidence suggests that emotions can be described

in terms of two primary dimensions that form a circumplex. Watson and Tellegen (1985) indicate positive

affectivity and negative affectivity as the two primary distinguishable orthogonal dimensions of this circumplex.

Honea and Dahl (2005) support these findings in the sales promotion domain. They show that emotions

experienced by consumers towards a promotional purchase can be classified into positive and negative

valenced affective responses. Consistently, this dissertation adopts a two-dimensional conceptualization of

promotion affect. In doing so, we hypothesize that positive and negative promotion affect make independent

contributions to enhance the prediction of consumer impulsive behaviours towards sales promotions.

In recent years, affect has been a subject of increasing interest to consumer behaviour researchers. The idea

of rational decision making wherein emotions and feelings are noises has been rejected. It is found that

moods, feelings, and emotions are important determinants of consumer behaviour and decision making

12

without their effects is impossible (e.g., Ajzen, 2001; Cohen & Areni, 1991; Damasio, 2000; Derbaix & Pham,

1991; Havlena & Holbrook, 1986; Lazarus, 1991a; Pham et al., 2001). The relationship between emotions and

purchase behaviour is also well supported in the retailing literature (Donovan et al., 1994). A growing stream of

research provides evidence that affective reactions are generated in response to purchase environment (e.g.,

Yoo et al., 1998), product and service consumption (e.g., Oliver, 1994), and marketing mix variables such as

advertisements (e.g., Aaker et al., 1988). These affective responses are found to influence consumer attitudes,

evaluations, and behaviour (e.g., Burke & Edell, 1989; Gardner & Rook, 1988; Rook, 1987).

Although in other areas of consumer research the role of affect is well established, the sales promotion

literature has mainly focused on cognitive price-related phenomena such as perceived value judgments (e.g.,

Bearden et al., 1984; Berkowitz & Walton, 1980; Biswas & Blair, 1991; Blair & Landon, 1979; Blattberg &

Neslin, 1990; Della Bitta et al., 1981; Folkes & Wheat, 1995; Hardesty & Bearden, 2003; Lichtenstein &

Bearden, 1989; Urbany et al., 1988), price threshold (e.g., Blair & Landon, 1979; Della Bitta et al., 1981; Gupta

& Cooper, 1992), price-quality inferences (e.g., Chandon, 1995; Davis et al., 1992; Gardner & Strang, 1984;

Kahn & Louie, 1990; Kelley, 1973; Lichtenstein & Bearden, 1986; Lichtenstein et al., 1991; Neslin &

Shoemaker, 1989; Olson & Fazio, 2001; Priya, 2004; Raghubir & Corfman, 1999), price knowledge (e.g.,

Grewal et al., 1996; Inman et al., 1990), and reference price (e.g., Diamond & Johnson, 1990; Kalwani & Yim,

1992; Kalwani et al., 1990; Kalyanaram & Winer, 1995; Lattin & Bucklin, 1989; Mayhew & Winer, 1992; Priya,

2004; Winer, 1986). Because of this cognitive bias, poor attention has been paid to the role of affect in

consumer promotional responses.

Regardless of this cognitive bias, there is still suggestive evidence that affective reactions are important

contributors to consumer responses to sales promotions. Some researchers indicate that promotions influence

consumers through a feeling-based route. Scott (1976) was the first to argue that the effectiveness of a

promotional offer can be explained through the affect that it generates in consumers. Moreover, Schindler

(1989) and Inman et al. (1990) note that promotional purchases can result in specific pride-related responses

such as feeling like a smart shopper. Lichtenstein et al. (1995) and Lichtenstein et al. (1997a) demonstrate that

deal-prone consumers develop links between their liking of specific kinds of sales promotions and their

inclination to buy products promoted by those promotions. Laroche et al. (2003) endorse this finding, stating

that feeling good about using promotions positively influences consumer purchase intentions of promoted

products. Heilman et al. (2002) note that a surprise coupon can elevate consumer mood and subsequently

increase their basket size. According to Naylor et al. (2006), since consumers have repeatedly associated

promotional stimuli to positive outcomes (e.g., monetary savings or feeling smart), positive affective responses

may be conditioned to be evoked on exposure to promotional stimuli. The resulted positive reactions in turn

may be generalized to products that are subsequently evaluated. Shirai (2009) shows that unexpectedly low

13

prices arouse feelings of surprised, amazed, pleased, excited, enthusiastic, contented, and thrilled in

consumers; these emotions in turn mediate the effect of the price experience on purchase intentions.

Moreover, Palazon and Delgado-Ballester (2013)’s study about affective and cognitive reactions involved in

choosing between hedonic and utilitarian free gifts shows that when a hedonic premium is preferred, affective

reactions exert a direct impact on purchase intention of the promotional offer.

Consumer responses to promotional activities may also entail negative affect. Mittal (1994) proposes that

consumers may feel ambivalent towards coupons; they may experience an approach-avoidance feeling due to

monetary benefits versus hassle and negative enjoyment of couponing. d'Astous and Jacob (2002)’s study

demonstrates that consumers may feel negative feelings regarding premium-based promotional offers due to

lack of interest in the product category or the gift or the perceived complexity of the offer. Their study on the

perceived dishonesty of the offer shows that mentioning the gift value may also have ambivalent effects. It

increases consumer appreciation of the offer. It also can get consumers to the inference that there would be

some gimmick behind the offer, which in turn results in consumer perception of manipulation. Raghubir et al.

(2004, p. 30) define affective influences of a promotion as ‘feelings and emotions aroused by exposure to a

promotion, purchase on a promotion, or missing a promotion.' They propose that negative affect associated

with purchasing on deal can include overall feelings such as annoyance (e.g., when the discount level is low,

or the consumer is inconvenienced) or irritation (e.g., due to having to clip the coupon and take it to the

cashier). The judgement about how unfair a price change is can also provoke negative affect in consumers

(Campbell, 1999; Peine et al., 2009). Consumers may also experience the embarrassment of feeling cheap or

the regret of missing out on a deal (Chandon et al., 2000; Inman & McAlister, 1994; Sevdalis et al., 2006;

Simonson, 1992; Tsiros, 2009; Tsiros & Hardesty, 2010). Likewise, Kim (2006) shows that consumer

responses to rebates may entail negative affect. Rebates attempt to increase deal perceptions by getting

consumers to compare two prices: the before- and after-rebate prices. Although rebates emphasize the lower-

rebate price, savings from rebates do not occur at the time of payment, and rebate redemptions need

consumer time and effort. As a result, consumers may perceive rebates as deceptive. This deception in turn

leads to the experience of negative feelings, such as unhappy, upset, and angry. We believe that this finding

can be generalized to other promotional activities as well. Consumers may not believe an offer to be genuine.

They may question the quality of the product or the motivation of the seller and associate them to deceiving

consumers in order to get rid of unwanted products or make more money (Feinberg et al., 2002; Lichtenstein &

Bearden, 1989; Suri et al., 2002). A recent study by Choi et al. (2014) indicates that using odd-ending prices

can decrease consumer anticipated guilt and provide justifications to choosing hedonic products over utilitarian

ones.

14

Although the mentioned studies confirm that affect is an important contributor to consumer responses to sales

promotions, they face an important criticism; they only focus on narrowly perceived affect (i.e., liking or

disliking a promotion) or consider one basic emotion, without providing a systematic study of the specific

emotions or the dimensions of affect as pertained to consumer promotional responses (Honea & Dahl, 2005).

Honea and Dahl (2005) have addressed this shortcoming. They examined the psychometric properties of

consumer affect produced by sales promotions and developed a promotion affect scale (PAS). PAS is able to

comprehensively measure consumer emotional responses to promotional stimuli. Honea and Dahl (2005)’s

construct of promotion affect is defined very broadly in terms of emotions that consumers feel towards the

overall encounter, including the product, the seller, the price, and the self. Such conceptual breadth may make

it difficult to only trace affective reactions to promotional stimuli. The present dissertation aims to address this

limitation through an empirical assessment of the emotions that consumers experience specifically towards

promotional offers.

It is also noteworthy that the mentioned studies about consumer affective reactions to sales promotions are

focused on ordinary purchases (instead of impulsive purchases). In retail settings, the empirical research

clearly based on an affective definition of impulse buying is limited to Baun and Gröppel-Klein (2003)’s. They

investigated the influence of two basic positive emotions of joy and surprise on consumer impulse buying,

without studying the influence of other positive or negative emotions. Moreover, their study is about general

grocery shopping excursions and does not examine the role of a specific external stimulus such as sales

promotion. With the aim of providing a better understanding of the role of sales promotions in impulse buying

situations, in general, and the role of affective reactions in this process, in particular, we are applying the

findings of the mentioned research to the impulse buying context.

Impulsive Urge to Buy versus Impulsive Purchase

In the psychological literature, impulsive urge refers to a strong, irresistible urge that is not consciously

planned but arises when a consumer encounters a certain stimulus (Goldenson, 1984). The impulsive

purchase is defined as the fulfilment of impulsive urge (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). Although resisting the urge felt

in the moments following the exposure to a tempting stimulus is very difficult (Rook, 1987), consumers use a

myriad of strategies to control their urges so that not every urge proceeds to an impulsive behaviour (Hoch &

Loewenstein, 1991). Therefore, an impulsive urge although powerful and irresistible is not always acted upon

(Rook & Fisher, 1995) and can be finally fought off leading to no purchase at all (Rook & Hoch, 1985). Based

on these observations, Beatty and Ferrell (1998) suggest that impulsive urge and impulsive purchase are two

different, although highly correlated constructs and thus in order to formulate a clear definition of impulse

buying it is necessary to distinguish between these two constructs. Endorsing this suggestion, in this

dissertation, we distinguish between impulsive urge and impulsive purchase constructs.

15

Up to this point, we have reviewed the literature about the processes that happen when a consumer is

spontaneously exposed to a tempting promotional offer and explained how they would prompt the consumer to

make an impulsive purchase. The following section discusses the important role of consumer personality traits

in the process of impulse buying.

Consumer Personality Traits and Impulse Buying

The antecedents of impulse buying behaviour can be broadly classified into market driven factors and

consumer individual factors (Xiao & Nicholson, 2012). Past research has mainly focused on the influence of

market-driven factors on impulse buying (e.g., Levy & Weitz, 2007; Mattila & Wirtz, 2008; Mihić & Kursan,

2010; Mohan et al., 2013; Park & Lennon, 2006; Peck & Childers, 2006), which led to limited understanding of

consumer individual differences in impulse buying behaviours (Kalla & Arora, 2011). The present dissertation

aims to contribute to this gap. To this end, we study the role of two consumer personality traits highly

emphasized in both the behavioural pricing and the impulse buying literature, namely buying impulsiveness

trait and deal-proneness trait. As follows, we investigate how these traits influence consumer impulsive

responses to promotional offers.

Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait

People vary in terms of a relatively stable pan-situational impulsivity trait (Gray, 1990; Puri, 1996). The general

impulsivity trait is defined as ‘a tendency to respond quickly to a given stimulus, without deliberation and

evaluation of consequences’ (Gerbing et al., 1987, p. 357). It is argued that as a result of differences in their

impulsivity trait, consumers do not behave identically to situational stimuli (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Dawson &

Kim, 2009; Jones et al., 2003; Rook & Fisher, 1995).

Consumer buying impulsiveness trait or impulse buying tendency (these terms are used interchangeably in the

literature) is a sub-trait of the general impulsivity trait construct. Based on Eysenck and Eysenck (1985)’s

model of personality, Rook (1987) offers the first definition of impulse buying tendency in terms of an individual

difference variable that addresses the differential tendency of consumers to buy on impulse. Further, Rook and

Fisher (1995) state that buying impulsiveness is a consumer consumption characteristic that embodies

consumer tendency to think and act in an identifiable and distinctive way. They define buying impulsiveness

trait as ‘a consumer’s tendency to buy spontaneously, unreflectively, immediately, and kinetically’ (p. 306).

Their results show that impulsive buyers are more open and receptive to sudden, unexpected buying ideas

than nonimpulsive buyers are. This definition of buying impulsiveness has been supported by several

researchers. However, it is also argued that this definition primarily emphasizes the extrovert facet of buying

impulsiveness (Rook & Fisher, 1995). To address this gap, several researchers studied other aspects of the

buying impulsiveness trait. As follows, we briefly discuss the results of some of these studies.

16

Puri (1996) argues that buying impulsiveness consists of three dimensions, including prudence (self-controlled,

farsighted, responsible, restrained, rational, methodical, a planner), hedonism (impulsive, extravagant, easily

tempted, enjoys spending) and carelessness. She also indicates that impulse buying is a function of the

relative accessibility of benefits and costs associated with impulsiveness. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) believe that

in the definition of impulse buying tendency it must differentiate between the impulsive urge and the impulsive

action. Thereby, they propose an extended version of the definition of impulse buying tendency as the

tendency to experience spontaneous, sudden urges to make on-the-spot purchases as well as to act on these

felt urges with little deliberation or evaluation of consequences. Their results indicate that the impulsive action

is the most critical element of an exhibition of impulse buying tendency. More importantly, Beatty and Ferrell

(1998) argue that impulse buying tendency is an individual difference variable, whereas felt urge and impulsive

purchase refer to what happens in a particular shopping excursion, which may or may not reflect the individual

trait. Moreover, Youn and Faber (2000) demonstrate that buying impulsiveness is related to a combination of

cognitive, affective, and behavioural elements. Cognitive elements include low cognitive deliberation, disregard

of the future, and unplanned buying. Affective elements involve irresistible urge to buy, positive buying

emotions, and mood management. Finally, behavioural elements are associated with rapidity and reactivity.

Likewise, Verplanken and Herabadi (2001) indicate that impulse buying tendency is rooted in consumer

personality. Using the big five personality model, they show that impulse buying tendency has both cognitive

and affective facets. Cognitive facet is associated with a low personal need for structure, a low need to

evaluate, and a lack of conscientiousness. Affective facet is related to act immediately and without inhibitions

and be influenced by others. In the same vein, Jones et al. (2003) state that an impulsive consumer is

characterized by a fast reaction time, lack of forecasts, and the ability to act without prudent planning.

Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait

Although promotional activities aim to generate a response across the market, not all consumers respond

favourably to sales promotions. While some consumers are highly influenced by promotions, others are not

really responsive (Blattberg et al., 1978). The literature about consumer responses to sales promotions

frequently uses the terms deal-proneness and deal-prone consumers. Consumers’ deal-proneness trait is

related to their responsiveness to promotions and deals (Blattberg & Neslin, 1990). Lichtenstein et al. (1990, p.

55) define deal-proneness as ‘a general proneness to respond to promotions because they are in deal form.'

Thereby, deal-proneness is not the actual purchase of promoted products or services but the psychological

propensity to buy them (DelVecchio, 2005).

The sales promotion literature analysed whether a consumer who is prone to purchase a certain kind of

promotional offers will also respond favourably to other promotional actions. The results provide three different

perspectives about deal-prone consumer segments. The first perspective states that deal-proneness is a

17

domain-specific construct and sensitivities to sales promotions differ across consumers and promotional types.

As a result, there is a need to segment the market based on consumer proneness to each deal type, such as a

discount-prone segment, a coupon-prone segment, and a rebate-prone segment (e.g., Blattberg & Neslin,

1990; Henderson, 1988; Lichtenstein et al., 1995; Mayhew & Winer, 1992).

The second perspective contends that deal-proneness is a generalised construct and there are underlying

characteristics that lead consumers to be either deal-prone across all deal types or deal-insensitive in general.

According to this perspective, consumers who modify their purchase behaviour in response to certain

promotions are likely to modify their behaviour in the presence of other promotions as well. It means that the

market can be segmented into consumers sensitive to all deal types and consumers relatively insensitive to all

deal types (e.g., Lichtenstein et al., 1997a; Price et al., 1988; Shimp & Kavas, 1984).

The third perspective adopts a middle position between these two perspectives. It suggests that deal-

proneness is domain specific and consumers may respond to certain types of deals, but not others. In this

respect, Schneider and Currim (1991) differentiate between active and passive deal-proneness. Active deal-

prone consumers are characterized as sensitive to store flyers and coupons and are prone to engage in

intensive search to find interesting promotions. Passive deal-prone consumers are described as more prone to

respond to in-store promotions like special displays as it demands minimal search. Schneider and Currim

(1991) show that consumers have a tendency to behave primarily in either active or passive manner, while few

consumers act in both manners. In the same way, Ailawadi et al. (2001) distinguish between proneness to out-

of-store promotions versus in-store promotions. Out-of-store promotions are those that take place out of store

and demand some search effort from consumers (e.g., coupons). In-store promotions are those that

consumers encounter in the store when shopping and using them requires minimal effort from consumers

(e.g., special displays). In another study, Shimp (1993) differentiates between price- and non-price-oriented

sales promotions. Price-oriented promotions result in lower purchase prices, whereas non-price-oriented

promotions do not offer a lower purchase price.

This dissertation adopts the third perspective. In line with Ailawadi et al. (2001), we differentiate between in-

store and out-of-store promotions while only considering in-store promotions. This decision is based on the

fact that using out-of-store promotions demands search and planning activities before shopping. These

activities increase the chance of making a planned purchase and decrease the chance of making an impulsive

purchase (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Martínez & Montaner, 2006). In using this approach, our research only

focuses on passive deal-proneness, since active deal-proneness would decrease the chance of making an

impulsive purchase. The next chapter discusses the conceptual framework and research hypotheses.

18

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework

Influence of Promotion Affect on Impulse Buying

Integral affective responses have an important influence on consumer evaluations of, decisions about, and

behaviours towards external stimuli (Abelson et al., 1982). Positive affective responses to a stimulus signal

that the environment is ‘likely,' thus an approach action is reasonable (Schwarz, 1990). On the other hand,

negative affective responses result in a desire to leave the environment as consumers perceive that their

intended purpose would not be satisfied (Machleit & Eroglu, 1993). Affect-as-information theory (Schwarz &

Clore, 1996) suggests that people make judgments by inspecting their feelings and interpreting what these

feelings mean about the target at hand. Consumers’ feelings can thus be transferred to a target product,

resulting in affect-congruent evaluations of that product (Gorn et al., 1993; Pham, 1998; Raghunathan et al.,

2006). According to Pham (2007), the primary reason behind this phenomenon is that consumers interpret

affective responses to a stimulus as distinct proxies for its value. Thereby, a stimulus that feels good is

considered to be desirable, and a stimulus that feels bad is assumed to be undesirable (Damasio, 1994;

Pham, 2004; Schwarz & Clore, 1996; Slovic et al., 2002). In the context of emotions produced by marketing

activities, ad-evoked affect is a good analogue for promotion affect, as both are marketing-induced

prepurchase affect. Past research demonstrates that ad-evoked emotions predict consumer attitudes towards

ads/brands and their purchase intentions (Batra & Ray, 1986; Burke & Edell, 1989; Edell & Burke, 1987). We

hypothesize that promotion affect has a similar influence on consumer impulsive behaviours.

Weinberg and Gottwald (1982) believe that impulsive decisions are associated with strong emotions and

automatic actions, while the role of both intelligence and information processing is of less importance. In order

to examine whether emotions of impulsive buyers differ from those of non-buyers, they study consumer self-

perception reports and observe consumer facial expressions. Their results show that impulsive buyers are

more emotionalized than nonbuyers and express more interest, enthusiasm, joy, and glee, but less

astonishment and indifference. Gardner and Rook (1988) indicate pleasure, excitement, and content/relaxation

as the first feelings consumers experience following an impulsive purchase. Rook and Hoch (1985) argue that

impulse buying exemplifies an affective purchase, where fun and feelings experienced by using the product

are emphasized, affect occurs first followed by impulsive behaviour. Rook (1987) indicates that impulse buying

occurs when a consumer experiences spontaneous positive affect towards a product or some promotional

stimulus, which in turn generates a sudden, often powerful, irresistible, and persistent impulsive urge to buy.

Hoch and Loewenstein (1991)’s study also shows that impulsive behaviours are often associated with positive

affective reactions. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) endorse past research findings of the influence of positive affect

on the sense of urgency to buy impulsively. Moreover, Baun and Gröppel-Klein (2003) demonstrate that the

19

experience of positive emotions of joy and surprise along with low cognitive control experienced during the

unplanned purchasing process can differentiate impulsive purchases from ordinary purchases. A study by

Herabadi et al. (2009) also reveals that impulsive buyers experience positive emotions of elated, excited,

enthusiastic, happy, and feeling an urge. Recently, Chang et al. (2011) show a positive relationship between

positive emotional responses to retail environment characteristics and impulse buying behavior. In line with

these studies, we hypothesize that:

H1: There is a significant positive relationship between positive promotion affect and (a) impulsive urge to buy

and (b) impulsive purchase of promoted products.

Researchers did not pay much attention to the role of integral negative affect in impulse buying process. Most

of the research about the influence of situational variables (especially sales promotions) on impulse buying is

primarily focused on the role of consumer positive affective reactions. Few researchers investigated the role of

incidental negative affect (or mood) in impulse buying process (e.g., Mick & DeMoss, 1990; Rook & Gardner,

1993; Sneath et al., 2009; Verplanken et al., 2005; Youn & Faber, 2000), which is not related to what we are

concerned with in this dissertation. Thereby, there is a lack of knowledge about the influence of consumer

negative affective reactions on impulse buying. One exception is Beatty and Ferrell (1998). Their results show

that negative affect does not influence consumer impulsive urges, but it reduces consumer tendency to

actually act on their impulses and engage in impulsive purchases. Recently, Mohan et al. (2013) also indicate

that the influence of negative affect on impulsive urges to buy is not significant. These observations imply that

consumers’ desire to act on impulse is mainly determined by their short-term interests. Even if at some point

they experience negative affect towards the tempting stimulus or the consequences of their impulsive

behaviour, this negative affect is overcome by their strong desire for the tempting stimulus or acting on

impulse. As a result, their impulsive urge to act on impulse is mainly influenced by their positive affect. On the

other hand, when consumers want to actually act on their impulses and make an impulsive purchase, they

consider both short-term and long-terms consequences of their behaviour. That is why the impulsive behaviour

is influenced by both positive and negative affective reactions that the consumer experiences. Based on this

reasoning and in line with previous studies, we hypothesize that:

H2(a): There is no relationship between negative promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy promoted

products.

H2(b): There is a significant negative relationship between negative promotion affect and impulsive purchase

of promoted products.

20

Influence of Promotion Cognition on Impulse Buying

Past research shows that cognitive processes mediate the influence of exposure to sales promotions on the

increase in purchase likelihood. For instance, Inman et al. (1990) argue that the exposure to promotional

stimuli increases the perceived monetary benefits of buying promoted products, which in turn leads consumers

to purchase more. Models proposed by Bagozzi et al. (1992) and Inman et al. (1997) are also compatible with

this cognitive mediation approach. This approach is further supported by Laroche et al. (2001) and Laroche et

al. (2003).

There is suggestive evidence that cognitive deliberation also mediates the influence of sales promotions on

impulsive purchases. For instance, Youn and Faber (2000) indicate that in exposure to what is perceived as a

good deal, consumers may experience a strong urge to buy. This urge in turn pushes them to purchase on

impulse in order to gain from the deal. Kivetz and Keinan (2006) also demonstrate that some consumers push

themselves to drop their control mechanisms and pursue their impulses, since always restraining impulses

results in the frustration over missed opportunities. These consumers try to yield to their temptations to enjoy

the perceived economic benefits of their immediate decisions, for instance, to take advantage of a great

bargain. In line with these studies, we expect that consumers’ cognitive evaluation of the utilitarian benefits of

a sales promotion, or utilitarian promotion cognition, mediates the influence of exposure to a sales promotion

on impulse buying. Then, we hypothesize that:

H3: There is a significant positive relationship between utilitarian promotion cognition and impulsive urge to

buy promoted products.

Likewise, there exists suggestive evidence that hedonic cognitive processes mediate the influence of tempting

stimuli on impulse buying. Past research finds that impulse buying has a hedonic component by which it

satisfies hedonic desires in consumers. Hausman (2000) recognizes some hedonic needs that motivate

consumers to buy on impulse, including the need for fun, novelty, variety, and surprise. Her results show that

consumers go shopping to satisfy their hedonic needs. Acquiring a specific product is considered as the

secondary objective of their shopping excursions. Arnould et al. (2004) endorse previous observations and

demonstrate that impulse buying is associated with sensation-seeking, exploratory and variety-seeking

tendencies. These results are supported by Sharma et al. (2010). Ramanathan and Menon (2002, 2006) also

indicate that impulsive behaviours are driven by hedonic gratification. Their results show that impulsive

behaviours are a result of hedonic or pleasure-seeking goals that cause an individual to experience strong

desires for related objects or products. Park et al. (2006)’s study emphasizes a relationship between having

hedonic motivations and making more impulsive purchases. A recent study by Verplanken and Sato (2011)

also demonstrates that impulsive purchases may be based on hedonic heuristics; for instance, a consumer

21

evaluates whether a product can elicit a certain level of excitement or joy before buying that product on

impulse. Consistent with these studies, we hypothesize a positive relationship between consumers’ evaluation

of hedonic benefits of promotional offers, or hedonic promotion cognition, and their respective impulsive

desires. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H4: There is a significant positive relationship between hedonic promotion cognition and impulsive urge to buy.

Up to this point, we have investigated the separate influence of promotion affect and promotion cognition on

impulse buying. In the following section, we discuss how these mechanisms operate together to influence

consumer impulse buying behaviour.

Interplay between Promotion Cognition, Promotion Affect, and

Impulse Buying

According to the Appraisal theory (Lazarus, 1991b), a stimulus relevant to a decision maker results in

emotions that are responses to the cognitive appraisal of the stimulus information. The valence of these

responses depends on whether the stimulus is consistent with the decision maker’s motives and goals.

Behaviours in turn are reactions that the decision maker performs to cope with their evoked emotions. The

Appraisal theory is in line with neuropsychology studies that indicate that the limbic structures of the brain

constantly receive information from the cortical structures. If these cognitions are affectively significant, they

may trigger the generation of affective reactions and then activate approach, or avoidance tendencies resulted

from a deliberative assessment of the information (Berkowitz, 1993; LeDoux, 1995). Consistently, Storbeck et

al. (2006) indicate that the brain must know what something is in order to evaluate whether it is good or bad.

Thus, before affective analysis, the features of the object must be integrated; the object must be categorized,

and then identified. It is in line with Mano and Oliver (1993)’s finding that favourable product-related feelings

stem from higher product perceived values. In other words, the perceived value of a product is an important

feature that makes the product a ‘feeling good product.' Peine et al. (2009) applied the Appraisal theory to the

behavioural pricing domain. Their results confirm that cognitive processes of price-increase information lead to

the experience of affect in shoppers. This affect in turn influences their purchase behaviour. Consistently, we

apply the Appraisal theory to the sales promotion context. We expect that consumers’ effort to cope with their

affective reactions (e.g., more positive promotion affect) resulted from the cognitive appraisal of a sales

promotion (e.g., savings opportunities) leads to behavioural changes (e.g., more impulsive purchases). In

other words, we hypothesize that promotion cognition influences promotion affect, and promotion affect in turn

mediates the effect of promotion cognition on consumer impulsive behaviour. Therefore, it is hypothesized:

H5: Promotion affect mediates the influence of promotion cognitions on impulse buying of promoted products:

22

Given that hedonic and utilitarian values of sales promotions would exert different influences on positive and

negative promotion affect, as follows, we discuss H5 for hedonic/utilitarian promotion cognition and

positive/negative promotion affect in separate hypotheses.

Hedonic benefits are non-instrumental, experiential, and affective. They are appreciated for their own sake

without considering their practical ends (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Van Trijp et al. (1996) demonstrate a

positive correlation between product hedonic features and consumer affective reactions. Consistently,

Chandon et al. (2000) argue that hedonic cognitive processes lead to the experience of affect; for instance,

consumers choose to participate in sweepstakes because they think doing so would be entertaining. They

explain that hedonic values of a promotional offer may get consumers to think of the pleasure and fun that they

would derive out of the promotion with the purchase of the promoted product. Chitturi et al. (2008) similarly

report an association between hedonic benefits of product design and the experience of positive emotions of

cheerfulness and delight in consumers. Consistently, we expect a positive link between hedonic promotion

cognition and positive promotion affect and hypothesize that:

H5_1(a): Hedonic promotion cognition has a positive influence on positive promotion affect.

Although the relationship between hedonic benefits and negative affect did not catch enough attention in the

literature, there is suggestive evidence that implies this relationship is positive. Hedonic consumption is

primarily motivated by the desire for sensual pleasure, fantasy, and fun (Choi et al., 2014). However, this

pleasure does not come without a cost. Hedonic products are perceived to be more discretionary than

utilitarian products (Okada, 2005) and their benefits are relatively difficult to quantify (Hsee, 1996; Shafir et al.,

1993). As a result, when consumers seek to gain hedonic pleasure, even before the consumption, they may

experience negative feelings like guilt. This negative feeling in turn adds a negative component to an otherwise

completely pleasurable experience (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998). Giner-Sorolla (2001) demonstrates that

hedonic experiences generate two kinds of emotional states: hedonic positive affect (i.e., excited, relaxed, fun,

enjoyment, thrilled, good, and carefree) and self-conscious negative affect (i.e., guilty, regretful, ashamed,

remorse, embarrassed, and sorry). Choi et al. (2014)’s study also demonstrates that hedonic purchase

decisions are more difficult than utilitarian ones since consumers anticipate feeling guilty. This guilt in turn

decreases the positive feelings resulted from hedonic consumption and makes hedonic purchases less

satisfying (Prelec & Loewenstein, 1998). Based on these observations, we expect that hedonic promotion

cognition increases negative promotion affect in consumers. Then, it is hypothesized that:

H5_1(b): Hedonic promotion cognition has a positive influence on negative promotion affect.

23

Taking H5_1(a) and H5_1(b) together, regarding the influence of hedonic promotion cognition on promotion

affect we hypothesize that:

H5_2: Promotion affect mediates the influence of hedonic promotion cognition on impulse buying of promoted

products.

Several studies evidence the presence of evaluative processing as the initial stage of consumer responses to

promotional offers. Shimp and Kavas (1984)’s and Mittal (1994)’s studies about coupon redemption find a

causal path between cost/benefit evaluations, affect, and purchase behaviour. Laroche et al. (2003) also

indicate that consumer evaluation of sales promotion benefits positively influences their liking of these

promotions. This liking in turn influences consumer subsequent behavioural intentions towards these

promotions. Consistent with the Appraisal theory, we argue that for a typical consumer paying less than the

regular price and saving some money is better. So, events that are congruent with this concern produce more

positive affect and less negative affect in consumers. A price decrease responds to this consumers’ concern.

Thus it should generate higher levels of positive affect and lower levels of negative affect. We also posit that

from a consumer perspective consuming higher-quality products is better. So, events that are consistent with

this concern produce more positive affect and less negative affect in consumers. The same is plausible for

events providing consumers with more convenient shopping or the opportunity to reaffirm their personal

values. Since sales promotions provide consumers with all these utilitarian benefits (Chandon et al., 2000), we

hypothesize that:

H5_3: Utilitarian promotion cognition has (a) a positive influence on positive promotion affect and (b) a

negative influence on negative promotion affect.

H5_4: Promotion affect mediates the influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on impulse buying of promoted

products.

As extensively discussed in chapter 1, for decades, the behavioural pricing literature has suffered from a

cognitive bias. As a result, very limited attention has paid to the role of consumer affective reactions to sales

promotions. Although recently some researchers studied the role of promotion affect in consumer responses to

sales promotions, the relationship between promotion cognition and promotion affect was still understudied in

the literature. In this section, we examined the interplay between these constructs. The next section evaluates

the importance of the construct of promotion affect via evaluating whether promotion affect improves the

prediction of consumer promotional behaviour above promotion cognition.

24

Promotion Affect as a Standalone Predictor of Consumer

Impulsive Behaviour

Past research suggests that affect and cognition shape behaviour jointly, but independently (Cohen & Areni,

1991; Edwards, 1990; Schwarz, 2000; Sojka & Giese, 1997). Sojka and Giese (1997) argue that in a specific

situation, an individual may process information using affect, cognition, both, or neither. Likewise, Lavine et al.

(1998) state that one’s judgments about an object can be influenced by both the cognitive assessment of its

attributes or the emotions that it arouses. The multi-component models (e.g., Ajzen, 2001; Bargh, 2002; Hoch

& Loewenstein, 1991) also assert that affect and cognition are standalone predictors of behaviour.

Empirical studies also confirm that affect and cognition exert nonredundant influences on consumer behaviour.

For instance, Abelson et al. (1982) find that considering voters’ emotional responses improves the prediction of

their votes over their cognitive evaluation of candidates’ personal qualities. Batra and Ray (1986) show that

consumer affective responses to ads can predict their attitudes towards ads while controlling the effect of their

cognitive responses. Likewise, Allen et al. (1992)’s study shows that emotions improve the prediction of

behaviour beyond attitudes with a cognitive component. We apply these observations to the sales promotion

context and hypothesize that promotion affect and promotion cognition are two complementary constructs. If

our results support this hypothesis, we can oppose the cognitive hegemony in the behavioural pricing research

in general and in the sales promotion research in particular.

H6: Promotion affect improves the prediction of consumer impulsive behaviour beyond promotion cognition.

Influence of Impulsive Urge to Buy on Impulsive Purchase

The relationship between impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase is supported in the literature. Beatty

and Ferrell (1998) find that as consumers experience more impulsive urges, the likelihood of engaging in

impulsive purchase increases as well. Their results demonstrate that impulsive urge is an important

intervening variable between actual impulsive purchase and its precursors, including store browsing, positive

affect, and consumer tendency to engage in impulse buying. A recent study by Kacen et al. (2012) also shows

that impulsive urge to buy is the most significant contributor of impulse buying behaviour. Consistently, we

hypothesize that:

H7: There is a positive significant relationship between impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase of

promoted products.

Up to this point, we have investigated the psychological processes leading to impulsive purchase of promoted

products. In the next section, we discuss how sales promotion category moderates this process.

25

Role of Sales Promotion Category

Chandon et al. (2000) evaluate the benefits of monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions. Their results

show that compared to monetary promotions, nonmonetary promotions provide stronger hedonic benefits and

weaker utilitarian benefits. As a result, they argue that monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions have

utilitarian and hedonic natures, respectively. These findings have been supported by Liao et al. (2009). They

demonstrate that nonmonetary promotions emphasize hedonic benefits. They fulfil the feelings of fashion and

novelty or satisfy the hedonic needs for affective and subjective preferences. On the other hand, monetary

promotions emphasize utilitarian benefits as they fulfil functional and objective preferences and let consumers

maximize the utility, efficiency, and economy of their shopping.

Moreover, there is suggestive evidence that consumers respond differently to sales promotions with a hedonic

nature and those with a utilitarian nature. Laroche et al. (2003)’s study shows that there is a differentiation at

the cognitive-affective level between the purchase of products promoted by coupons and free products. For

instance, in the case of coupons, information search plays an important role in shaping consumer promotional

responses, while for two-for-one promotions information search does not have a direct influence but rather it

influences consumer promotional responses through cost/benefit evaluations. These promotions are found to

have relatively different utilitarian and hedonic natures (Chandon et al., 2000). Palazon and Delgado-Ballester

(2013) also demonstrate that the type of premium offered with a product influences affective and cognitive

reactions of consumers during shopping. For hedonic premiums, affective reactions exert a direct positive

influence on purchase intention, whereas this influence is mediated by cognitive reactions in the case of

utilitarian premiums. Given the respective utilitarian and hedonic nature of monetary and nonmonetary sales

promotions (Chandon et al., 2000), we expect that monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions stimulate

impulse buying in different ways. In other words, we hypothesize that sales promotion category moderates the

psychological processes involved in the influence of sales promotions on impulse buying. As follows, we

illustrate these differences in more details.

H8: Sales promotion category moderates the psychological processes involved in the influence of sales

promotions on impulse buying:

Past research demonstrates that when consumers purchase a product primarily for its hedonic benefits, their

major consumption goal is enjoyment and fun. As a result, their purchase decision is heavily influenced by

their affective reactions to that product (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Mehrabian & Wixen, 1986). Likewise, Naylor et

al. (2006) argue that affective reactions are used as the main judgment basis in the evaluation of hedonic

items. Palazon and Delgado-Ballester (2013) indicate that, in a promotional context, the hedonic/utilitarian

nature of the offered premium stimulates the relevance of affective/cognitive reactions in the decision-making

26

process. Their results demonstrate that positive affective reactions increase the preference for hedonic

premiums and decrease the preference for utilitarian ones. Taking these findings into consideration, given the

hedonic (utilitarian) nature of nonmonetary (monetary) promotions (Chandon et al., 2000), we expect that the

influence of positive promotion affect on the impulse buying process differs between these promotions. More

particularly, we expect that the purchase decision of products promoted by nonmonetary promotions is highly

influenced by consumer positive affective reactions towards these stimuli. However, this association is likely to

be weaker for monetary promotions. As a result, we hypothesize that:

H8_1: The influence of positive promotion affect on (a) impulsive urge to buy and (b) impulsive purchase of

promoted products is significantly higher among nonmonetary sales promotions than monetary sales

promotions.

From a consumer perspective, the price is the amount of money that the consumer must lose to acquire a

product. According to Thaler (1985), sales promotions can be framed as either gains or reduced losses.

Promotions seen segregated from the original purchase price are framed as a gain. Promotions seen as a

mere reduction of the purchase price are framed as a reduced loss. Following Thaler (1985), Diamond and

Johnson (1990) argue that since it is difficult to integrate nonmonetary promotions with the cost of the product,

consumers regard these promotions as separate gains. Therefore, the decision to buy these promotions only

entails evaluating gains. On the other hand, as monetary promotions are expressed in the same units as

product price, consumers regard them as reduced losses. Taking these findings and arguments together, we

suggest that purchasing a nonmonetary promotional offer is an all pleasure experience. In exposure to a

nonmonetary sales promotion consumers mainly base their purchase decisions on the positive affect that they

experience towards the offer. On the other hand, the purchase decision of a monetary promotional offer is

based on a cost-benefit evaluation, where consumers consider both positive and negative affect that they

experience towards the offer. Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize that:

H8_2: The influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive purchase is (a) significant for monetary

promotions and (b) nonsignificant for nonmonetary promotions.

Earlier, we argued that consumers’ evaluations of benefits of a sales promotion mediate the influence of the

sales promotion on impulse buying (H3 and H4). The fact that monetary and nonmonetary promotions have

respective utilitarian and hedonic nature implies that the role of hedonic and utilitarian cognitions in the

process of impulse buying may differ for these promotions. More particularly, we expect that hedonic

(utilitarian) cognition has a significant role in the decision-making process underlying the impulsive purchase of

products offered with a nonmonetary (monetary) sales promotion. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

27

H8_3: The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on impulse buying process is (a) nonsignificant for

monetary sales promotions and (b) significant for nonmonetary sales promotions.

H8_4: The influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on impulse buying process is (a) significant for monetary

sales promotions and (b) nonsignificant for nonmonetary sales promotions.

In the next sections, we investigate how consumer personality traits influence cognitive-affective-behavioural

mechanisms that mediate the influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases.

Role of Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait

Impulsive Urge to Buy, Impulsive Purchase, and Buying Impulsiveness Trait

Previous research demonstrates a positive association between buying impulsiveness trait and impulsive urge

to buy and impulsive purchase. It is shown that impulsive consumers experience buying impulses more

frequently and more strongly. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) show that buying impulsiveness trait influences

impulsive purchases via increasing the felt urge to buy on impulse. Their results show that impulsive

consumers tend to engage in more in-store browsing, which in turn leads to the experience of a higher number

of buying impulses. Jones et al. (2003)’s study shows that consumers scoring high on impulse buying

tendency are highly prone to make impulsive purchases across product categories. Adelaar et al. (2003) also

state that impulse buying tendency is a personality trait that influences consumers’ desire to purchase on

impulse. We aim to verify this association in the case of promoted products. In line with previous observations,

we expect that in exposure to sales promotions, impulsive consumers experience more impulsive urge to buy

and engage in more impulsive purchases of promoted products. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H9_1: There is a positive relationship between buying impulsiveness trait and (a) impulsive urge to buy and (b)

impulsive purchase of promoted products.

Although previous studies have mostly focused on the direct influence of buying impulsiveness trait on impulse

buying, there is suggestive evidence that buying impulsiveness also moderates the relationship between

impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase. More particularly, it is found that impulsive consumers are more

likely to respond positively and immediately to their buying impulses (Lee & Yi, 2008; Rook & Fisher, 1995).

Yet, one should note that even impulsive consumers don’t respond to every buying impulses. Impulsive

purchases are usually associated with ‘being bad’ and having negative consequences for personal finances,

post-purchase satisfaction, social reactions, and overall self-esteem. Thus, various intervening factors like

economic position, social visibility, or time pressure can impede the shift from impulsive urge to impulsive

purchase (Rook, 1987; Rook & Hoch, 1985). However, there are consumption situations in which impulse

28

buying would be viewed as a normatively neutral or even positively approved behaviour, including a

spontaneous gift for an ill friend, a sudden decision to pay for the bill of a meal, or simply taking advantage of a

sales promotion at a store. These impulsive behaviours respectively represent kind, generous, and practical

activities. In these situations, a positive relationship exists between consumer buying impulsiveness trait and

subsequent impulsive behaviours (Rook & Fisher, 1995). The present dissertation focuses on impulsive

purchases of products offered with a sales promotion, which is likely to elicit positive normative evaluations in

consumers’ mind (Rook & Fisher, 1995). Therefore, in line with mentioned observations, we expect that buying

impulsiveness trait moderates the relationship between impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase.

Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H9_2: The relationship between impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase of promoted products is

significantly higher among impulsive consumers than nonimpulsive consumers.

As follows, we examine how buying impulsiveness trait influences the cognitive-affective mechanisms that

mediate the influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases.

Promotion Cognition and Buying Impulsiveness Trait

Past research demonstrates a positive relationship between buying impulsiveness and hedonism. Puri (1996)

shows that buying impulsiveness includes a hedonic dimension. Impulsive buyers tend to be extravagant,

easily tempted, and interested in spending. Hausman (2000)’s study also indicates a positive association

between buying impulsiveness trait and consumer desires to fulfil their hedonic needs for fun, novelty, variety,

and surprise. Sharma et al. (2010) also demonstrate a significant positive relationship between consumer

buying impulsiveness and variety seeking. It is explained that impulsive behaviour is a function of the extent to

which goals to seek pleasure in different domains are chronically accessible in consumers’ mind. Impulsive

people have chronic hedonic goals whose pursuit feeds back into their affective system. Upon the perception

of a tempting stimulus in the environment, chronic hedonic goals of impulsive consumers are spontaneously

activated. It results in affective reactions which in turn produce impulsive desires and subsequent impulsive

behaviours (Park et al., 2006; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006). On the other hand, nonimpulsive consumers

have stronger self-control goals and weaker hedonic goals (Ramanathan & Menon, 2006). Thereby, they are

susceptible to impulse buying for utilitarian rather than hedonic reasons. In the presence of a perceived good

deal, they may experience a strong urge to buy. This urge may push them to purchase on impulse in order to

gain from the deal, rather than because of a great desire for the product or to change their mood (Youn &

Faber, 2000). Kivetz and Keinan (2006)’s study demonstrates that some ‘over-controlled’ consumers push

themselves to drop their control mechanisms and pursue their impulses, since always restraining all impulses

results in the frustration over missed opportunities. These consumers try to yield to their temptations and

29

engage in a deliberate act of self-indulgence to enjoy the economic benefits of their immediate decisions, for

instance, to take advantage of a great bargain that expires soon (Kivetz & Keinan, 2006).

Taking these findings and arguments into consideration, we expect that buying impulsiveness trait moderates

the role of perceived hedonic and utilitarian benefits of promotions in the process of impulse buying. Earlier,

we argued that hedonic and utilitarian cognitions exert a positive influence on positive promotion affect and

impulsive urge (H5_1(a), H5_3(a), H3, H4). Given that impulsive purchases of impulsive and nonimpulsive

consumers have respective hedonic and utilitarian nature, we expect that the influence of hedonic (utilitarian)

cognition on positive promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy is higher among impulsive (nonimpulsive)

consumers. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H9_3: The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on impulsive urge to buy is significantly higher among

impulsive consumers than nonimpulsive consumers.

H9_4: The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on positive promotion affect is significantly higher among

impulsive consumers than nonimpulsive consumers.

H9_5: The influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on impulsive urge to buy is significantly higher among

nonimpulsive consumers than impulsive consumers.

H9_6: The influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on positive promotion affect is significantly higher among

nonimpulsive consumers than impulsive consumers.

Promotion Affect and Buying Impulsiveness Trait

Past research has not elaborated whether emotions of impulsive consumers differ from those of nonimpulsive

ones. However, there is suggestive evidence that impulsive consumers experience more positive affect

towards tempting stimuli than nonimpulsive consumers do. For instance, Rook and Fisher (1995) indicate that

impulsive consumers are dominated by emotional attraction to an attractive product as well as the immediate

gratification. Youn and Faber (2000) and Verplanken and Herabadi (2001) also demonstrate a strong

correlation between buying impulsiveness and susceptibility to emotional arousal. Extending these results to

the sales promotion context, we expect that, compared to nonimpulsive consumers, impulsive consumers

experience higher levels of positive promotion affect. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H9_7: Impulsive consumers experience more positive promotion affect than nonimpulsive consumers do.

Moreover, previous research demonstrates a significant positive relationship between buying impulsiveness

and seeking of pleasure, fun, novelty, variety, and surprise (Hausman, 2000; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006;

30

Sharma et al., 2010). It is shown that upon the perception of tempting stimuli, impulsive consumers experience

strong positive affective reactions resulted from the spontaneous activation of their hedonic goals. These

affective reactions in turn produce impulsive desires and subsequent impulsive behaviours (Ramanathan &

Menon, 2006). Liao et al. (2009) emphasize that the purchasing style of nonimpulsive consumers is more

persistent, deliberate, and methodical, whereas impulsive consumers are likely to shop at an emotional and

arousal-driven pace. Taking these observations, we expect that buying impulsiveness trait moderates the

influence of positive promotion affect on impulse buying process of promoted products. This influence should

be higher for impulsive consumers than nonimpulsive consumers. Thus, we hypothesize that:

H9_8: The influence of positive promotion affect on (a) impulsive urge to buy and (b) impulsive purchase is

significantly higher among impulsive consumers than nonimpulsive consumers.

Moreover, as discussed above, impulsive consumers are highly motivated to seek pleasure, fun, novelty,

variety, and surprise. Upon the perception of tempting stimuli in the environment, these consumers

spontaneously activate their hedonic goals and show an immediate approach towards the object. They may

experience ambivalence when their relatively weaker control goals conflict with their immediate desire for the

object. But, this ambivalence is overcome by the power of their impulsive desires (Hausman, 2000;

Ramanathan & Menon, 2006). On the contrary, in such an impulsive situation, nonimpulsive consumers

spontaneously activate their higher-order goals to stay in control and thus show an immediate avoidance

reaction (Fishbach et al., 2003; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002). Based on these

findings, it is reasonable to suggest that for impulsive consumers the impulsive purchase is an all pleasure

practice. Even if they experience negative affect towards the tempting stimuli or acting on impulse, this

negative affect is overcome by the power of their positive affect and their strong desire for the impulsive

purchase. On the other hand, we expect that nonimpulsive consumers do a cost-benefit calculation and base

their impulsive purchase decisions on both positive as well as negative affect that they experience towards

sales promotions. This reasoning leads us to the following hypothesis:

H9_9: The influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive purchase is significantly higher among

nonimpulsive consumers than impulsive consumers.

Up to this point, we have examined the role of consumer buying impulsiveness trait on impulse buying process

of promoted products. In the next section, we discuss the role of consumer deal-proneness trait. As discussed

above, the role of deal-proneness trait is extensively studied in the sales promotion literature. There are also a

few evidences that deal-prone consumers have a high tendency to purchase promotional offers on impulse.

However, the latter effect has not received enough attention in the literature. We aim to contribute to this gap.

31

Role of Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait

Impulsive Urge to Buy, Impulsive Purchase, and Deal Proneness Trait

Sales promotions are regarded as a tool to speed up the selling process and maximize sales volume (Neslin et

al., 1985). Previous research demonstrates that deal-prone consumers are unable to pass up a deal

(Hackleman & Duker, 1980). They are prone to commit to deals mindlessly (Lichtenstein et al., 1990) and

purchase promoted items, no matter they need them or not (Thaler, 1985). Rook and Hoch (1985) report that

impulsive consumers are likely to be more deal-prone, as they find it difficult to resist the urge to buy products

available on promotions. A study by Inman et al. (1990) shows a positive relationship between special display-

proneness and impulsiveness. They demonstrate that consumers’ use of special displays as a signal of price

cut is related to their need for cognition. Consumers with a lower need for cognition tend to process

information peripherally. It increases the likelihood of using promotional signals as a decision-making proxy,

without analysing the promotion for its true meaning and value. On the other hand, consumers with a higher

need for cognition tend to process information centrally via diligent and active processing. They are thus less

likely to simply assume that promotions are signals of a price cut. Lichtenstein et al. (1997b) also show that

buy-one-get-one-free, free-gift-with-purchase, and display proneness are positively associated with

impulsiveness and negatively associated with the need for cognition. Applying this rationale more broadly, they

argue that impulsiveness is also associated with other deal-responsive behaviours related to in-store decision

making. Furthermore, DelVecchio (2005) argues that deal-prone consumers use promotions as a choice

heuristic to limit cognitive effort and information processing. He explains that deal-prone consumers adopt a

non-compensatory decision strategy in which the presence of a deal is regarded as a necessary and sufficient

condition to purchase. These consumers conclude their product search upon finding a sales promotion on an

acceptable brand. The results of Martínez and Montaner (2006)’s study endorse these findings. They

demonstrate that in-store deal-proneness is related to buying impulsiveness, whereas impulsive consumers

are not prone to out-of-store promotions as they require an additional effort prior to purchase (Ailawadi et al.,

2001). Based on these observations, we hypothesize that compared to nondeal-prone consumers, deal-prone

consumers experience higher urges to buy promoted products on impulsive and engage in more impulsive

purchases of promoted products.

H10_1: There is a positive relationship between deal-proneness and (a) impulsive urge to buy and (b)

impulsive purchase of promoted products.

As follows, we examine how deal-proneness trait influences the cognitive-affective mechanisms that mediate

the influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases.

32

Promotion Cognition and Deal-Proneness Trait

The key aspect of promotional activities is the extra incentives that they provide for consumers (Schultz &

Robinson, 1982). This incentive is additional to the basic benefits of the brand and temporarily changes

consumer perceived value (Strang, 1983). Deal-proneness refers to an increased propensity to respond to an

offer because the form of the offer positively affects consumer purchase evaluation (Lichtenstein et al., 1990).

It is shown that deal-prone consumers modify their purchase behaviour to benefit from the temporary

incentives offered by sales promotions (Wakefield & Barnes, 1997). To characterise deal-prone consumers,

previous research emphasizes the economic benefits of sales promotions (e.g., Bawa & Shoemaker, 1987;

Blattberg et al., 1978), the hedonic benefits generated by the purchase of promoted products (e.g., Schindler,

1989; Shimp & Kavas, 1984), or both (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000). As follows, we present a detailed discussion

of the relationship between deal-proneness and the perceived value of utilitarian and hedonic benefits

provided by sales promotions.

Deal-proneness has been traditionally associated to price-sensitivity. Economic benefits and purchase costs

are used as a reference to characterise deal-prone consumers (Bawa & Shoemaker, 1987). It is shown that

price-sensitive consumers express a more positive attitude towards sales promotions and respond more

positively to promotional offers (Babakus et al., 1988; Narasimhan, 1984; Tat & Bejou, 1994). A study by

Lichtenstein et al. (1990) finds a positive relationship between coupon-proneness and price recall accuracy.

They suggest that coupon-prone consumers are more likely to focus on price information of products they

purchase. Mulhern and Padgett (1995)’s study shows that special shoppers are highly price sensitive. They

search for price specials before entering the store in order to locate and acquire low-priced goods. Chen et al.

(1998) also demonstrate that price-sensitive consumers make a greater effort to look for promotions. Ailawadi

et al. (2001) emphasize that consumers who are seeking deals are motivated by economic benefits, the need

and desire for price reductions, and the maximization of their purchasing power. Gijsbrechts et al. (2003) also

state a direct relationship between price sensitivity and deal-proneness. Their results show that price-sensitive

consumers have a greater propensity to consult store flyers before entering the store. Likewise, Martínez and

Montaner (2006)’s analysis of psychographic traits associated with deal-proneness shows that consumers who

favourably respond to in-store promotions are characterized by their high price consciousness. Zentes et al.

(2007) refer to deal-prone consumers as HILO- (high-low-promotion-strategy) prone and indicate that these

consumers are more price-sensitive and wait for a sale to buy then. Gazquez-Abad and Sanchez-Perez (2009)

also note that consumers who are more sensitive to price are more prone to respond to sales promotions.

Their results indicate that these consumers show more proneness to both price-promotions and non-price

promotions.

33

Besides economic benefits, deal-proneness may also serve to simplify purchase decisions. According to

Zeithaml (1988), deal-prone consumers define value in terms of deal availability. It helps them to select

promoted products without making complex cross-brand trade-offs between price and quality. Lichtenstein et

al. (1993) find that sale-prone consumers show lower price accuracy, which evidences their reliance on

promotional signal and subsequently decreased information processing. Likewise, DelVecchio (2005) states

that deal-prone consumers use promotions as a heuristic to limit cognitive effort and information processing.

Martínez and Montaner (2006) also recognize that deal-prone consumers tend to use promotional information

as a reference to make purchase decisions. These observations are consistent with Chandon et al. (2000)’s

findings that promotional signals reduce consumer search costs (via making the brand more visible at the point

of purchase) and decision costs (via providing consumers with a simple justification for the choice of promoted

products). As a result, promotional signals improve consumer shopping convenience.

Deal-proneness is also associated with hedonic seeking. Previous research indicates that buying on deal

provides consumers with psychological benefits regardless the financial consequences. A deal-prone

consumer responds to price-based benefits of deals because they are offered in a form of a deal rather than

simply because of a lower price. That is, in addition to the acquisition utility, a deal-prone consumer pays an

increasing attention to the overall transaction utility of the purchasing process (DelVecchio, 2005; Lichtenstein

et al., 1990, 1995; Ramaswamy & Srinivasan, 1998). Wakefield and Barnes (1997) show that variety seeker

consumers regard promotions as a salient attribute in their patronage choice. Likewise, Chandon et al. (2000)

indicate that sales promotions create an ever-changing shopping environment, provide stimulation, and fulfil

consumers’ needs for information and exploration. Sales promotions are often fun to see and to use and

provide consumers with entertainment benefits. Pechtl (2004) notes that HILO-prone consumers feel

enjoyment when hunting bargains and are willing to spend time and effort to search for special offers.

Silverstein et al. (2006) note that deal hunting is present in all income segments of the market. Likewise,

Talukdar et al. (2010) report that deal-prone consumers spend considerable time and effort in bargain hunting

and enjoy the thrill of getting bargains along with monetary savings. These findings are in line with the studies

that emphasize the positive experience of enjoyment and feeling like a thrifty and smart shopper as a result of

using promotions (Chandon et al., 2000; Mittal, 1994; Shimp & Kavas, 1984). Consistently, Martínez and

Montaner (2006) demonstrate that saving is not the only reason to buy a product on promotion. Deal-

proneness is also associated to being attracted to new products and shopping enjoyment.

The relationship between deal-proneness and positive evaluation of sales promotions has been emphasized in

the literature. Alford and Biswas (2002) demonstrate that highly deal-prone consumers express higher

perceptions of offer value and have more intention to buy promoted products. In their study about the relative

impact of various promotional strategies in UK spirits market, Fearne et al. (1999) find that a higher proportion

34

of ‘promotional junkies’ and low-price seeker consumers are attracted to gift promotions. Likewise, d'Astous

and Jacob (2002) find evidence for a positive relationship between deal-proneness and consumer evaluation

of premium-based promotional offers. Their results show that, compared to low deal-prone consumers, high

deal-prone consumers are more appreciative of premium-based promotions and less likely to see such

promotions as manipulative. A study by d'Astous and Landreville (2003) demonstrates a positive association

between deal-proneness and overall evaluation of promotions. They explain that deal-prone consumers have a

psychological tendency to respond favourably to promotions due to benefits that they acquire from buying on

deal. Montaner et al. (2011) also propose a positive relationship between deal-proneness, gift promotion

overall evaluation, and consumer intentions to purchase gift promotional offers. A recent study by Buil et al.

(2013) also demonstrates that deal-prone consumers express higher evaluations of sales promotion hedonic

benefits. Based on these observations, we expect that deal-proneness trait positively influences consumer

evaluations of hedonic and utilitarian benefits of sales promotions. In other words, we expect deal-prone

consumers to show higher levels of hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognition. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

H10_2: There is a positive relationship between deal-proneness and (a) hedonic promotion cognition and (b)

utilitarian promotion cognition.

Previous research supports the presence of mental processing as the initial stage of consumer responses to

sales promotions. Shimp and Kavas (1984)’s and Mittal (1994)’s studies about coupon redemption show a

causal path between cost-benefit evaluation, affect, and behaviour. Laroche et al. (2003) also indicate that

consumer evaluation of sales promotion benefits positively influences their liking of promotions. This liking in

turn influences consumer subsequent behavioural intentions towards promoted products. As discussed above,

deal-prone consumers attribute more importance to hedonic and utilitarian benefits of sales promotions. They

also acquire a psychological propensity to respond to promotions due to the benefits that they acquire from

buying on deal (DelVecchio, 2005; Lichtenstein et al., 1990, 1995; Ramaswamy & Srinivasan, 1998).

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that deal-proneness trait moderates the influence of consumer

evaluations of hedonic and utilitarian promotional benefits on the impulse buying process, with this influence is

expected to be higher for deal-prone consumers. However, a recent study by Shukla and Babin (2013) finds

that in deal-prone consumers’ mind deals are significantly associated with utilitarian worth. As a result, deal-

prone consumers base their purchase decisions primarily on promotional utilitarian values. Taking these

findings and reasoning together, we also expect that hedonic/utilitarian promotion cognitions have a higher

influence on the impulse buying process for nondeal-prone/deal-prone consumers, respectively. Thus, it is

hypothesized that:

35

H10_3: The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on (a) positive promotion affect and (b) impulsive urge to

buy is significantly higher among nondeal-prone consumers than deal-prone consumers.

H10_4: The influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on (a) positive promotion affect and (b) impulsive urge

to buy is significantly higher among deal-prone consumers than nondeal-prone consumers.

Promotion Affect and Deal-Proneness Trait

The literature has not yet clearly investigated whether emotions of deal-prone consumers differ from those of

nondeal-prone consumers. However, there is limited evidence that deal-prone consumers experience more

positive promotion affect than do nondeal-prone consumers. Recently, Shukla and Babin (2013) state that in

the presence of various promotions, deal-prone consumers experience higher excitement and participation in

the purchase process, which in turn increases their perception of the pleasure associated with the shopping

value. Consistently, we expect deal-prone consumers to experience higher positive promotion affect than

nondeal-prone consumers do. Moreover, Lichtenstein et al. (1995) and Lichtenstein et al. (1997a) suggest that

deal-prone consumers develop links between their liking of promotions and their tendency to buy products

offered with these promotions. Laroche et al. (2003) also state that feeling good about using promotions play a

major role in directing the behaviour of deal-prone consumers. Their results demonstrate a positive link

between consumers’ liking of promotions and their intention to purchase on promotion. We extend these

findings to the impulse buying context and expect that the influence of positive promotion affect on impulse

buying process of promoted products is higher among deal-prone consumers. Then, we hypothesize that:

H10_5: There is a positive relationship between deal-proneness and positive promotion affect.

H10_6: The influence of positive promotion affect on (a) impulsive urge to buying and (b) impulsive purchase

is significantly higher among deal-prone consumers than nondeal-prone consumers.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Affective Reactions to Sales Promotions or Promotion Affect section, promotional

activities may also generate negative feelings in consumers. Given that deal-prone consumers are highly

familiar with promotional activities, they are less likely to use promotions as a quality cue and so the negative

effect of price-quality relationship is less probable to be applied to these consumers (Kahn & Louie, 1990;

Martínez & Montaner, 2006). For the same reason, we expect that the feelings of ambivalence,

embarrassment, and cheapness towards using promotions are less relevant to these consumers. Deal-prone

consumers are also less likely to perceive deception or irritation about using promotions. Thereby, in overall,

we expect that, compared to nondeal-prone consumers, deal-prone consumers experience lower levels of

negative promotion affect. Moreover, we expect the influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive

promotional responses to be significantly lower among deal-prone consumers. Thus, it is hypothesized that:

36

H10_7: There is a negative relationship between deal-proneness and negative promotion affect.

H10_8: The influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive purchase is significantly higher among

nondeal-prone consumers than deal-prone consumers.

Up to this point, we have examined how consumer buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait

influence the impulse buying process of promoted products. As discussed in the Introduction section, the

existing literature has understudied the association between buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness

trait. As a result, it is not clear whether there are differences between psychological correlates of these traits.

The next section aims to address this gap. We explore how the strength of cognitive-affective mediational

mechanisms is different among impulsive and deal-prone consumers.

Buying Impulsiveness Trait versus Deal-Proneness Trait

The association between buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait has caught very limited attention

in the literature. A few studies suggest that this association is positive. For instance, it is indicated that

impulsive consumers are highly deal-prone (e.g., Rook & Hoch, 1985) and in-store deal-proneness is related

to buying impulsiveness (e.g., Lichtenstein et al., 1997b; Martínez & Montaner, 2006). These studies are

mainly based on the behavioural-level measurement of impulsiveness and deal-proneness. Therefore, they

tend only to demonstrate the similarities existing between impulsive and deal-prone consumers in terms of

impulsive shopping of promotional offers. As a result, we argue that the existing literature would have

overemphasized the similarities between buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits. It in turn led to its

inability to recognise the differences that may exist between these traits in the attitudinal level regarding

underlying cognitive and affective mechanisms. Based on this reasoning, we expect that buying impulsiveness

trait and deal-proneness trait moderate the psychological model underlying the impulsive purchase of

promoted products in different ways. As follows, we explain this difference in more details.

H11: The psychological model underlying the influence of sales promotions on impulse buying is significantly

different between deal-prone and impulsive consumers:

As discussed above, impulsive consumers have chronic hedonic goals. They engage in impulse buying to fulfil

their hedonic needs for fun, novelty, variety, and surprise. These consumers regard shopping as a surrogate

for more primal types of hunting. They consider the search and acquisition of products as rewards and

acquiring a specific product is the secondary objective of their shopping excursions (Hausman, 2000; Park et

al., 2006; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006). Past research also emphasizes the importance of hedonic and

utilitarian benefits of sales promotions to deal-prone consumers. However, there is suggestive evidence that in

deal-prone consumers’ mind deals are significantly associated with utilitarian worth. As a result, deal-prone

37

consumers base their purchase decisions primarily on the utilitarian perceived value of deals (Shukla & Babin,

2013). Based on these observations, it is rational to suggest that the influence of hedonic perceived benefits

on impulse buying process is higher among impulsive consumers than deal-prone consumers. More

particularly, we expect that the influence of hedonic promotion cognition on positive promotion affect and

impulsive urge to buy is higher among impulsive consumers than deal-prone consumers. We also expect that

the influence of consumer evaluations of utilitarian benefits, or utilitarian promotion cognition, on positive

promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy to be higher among deal-prone consumers. Therefore, it is

hypothesized that:

H11_1: The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on (a) positive promotion affect and (b) impulsive urge to

buy is significantly higher among impulsive consumers than deal-prone consumers.

H11_2: The influence of utilitarian promotion cognition on (a) positive promotion affect and (b) impulsive urge

to buy is significantly higher among deal-prone consumers than impulsive consumers.

The conceptual model and research hypotheses are depicted in Figure 2. To avoid making this figure too

complex, the role of sales promotion category and consumer personality traits are not mentioned.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model: A psychological model of the influence of sales promotions on impulse buying

38

Chapter 3: Methodology

A thorough pre-test procedure was used to select product categories and individual grocery products with

expected characteristics. These products were then used in the main study to verify the conceptual model and

research hypotheses. By doing so, our research is not limited to a specific product type, the fact that increases

the generalizability of our results.

Pre-test

Sample

The data were collected through an online survey during September and October 2014 using a snowball

sampling. The resulting sample consisted of 97 participants. More than 62% were female. The age of

participants varied from 19 to 64. The average age was 30 years old. About 44% had income less than

$20,000 and 82.4% have completed university education (see, Table 1 for the descriptive statistics).

Table 1: Descriptive statistics of pre-test participants

Age (%) Education (%) Gender (%) Marital Status (%) Income $ (%)

19 – 24 32.3 Primary or

High School 1.1 Male 37.6 Single 48.4 < 20,000 44.1

25 – 44 59.1 College 16.5

Female 62.4

Unmarried

Spouse 26.8 20,000 - 29,999 11.8

45 – 64 8.6

Bachelor

Degree 32.9 Married 22.6 30,0000 - 49,999 12.9

Master or

Ph.D. Degree 49.5

Separated 1.1 50,000 or over 17.3

Divorced 1.1 Prefer not to say 14.0

Materials and Method

An online exploratory study was performed. The objective was to measure the perceived impulsiveness of

products that consumers usually buy in a typical grocery shopping excursion. The questionnaire consisted of a

list of 62 products. For each product, participants were asked to complete the sentence “I feel … a strong,

irresistible urge to buy this product” (adapted from Shiv and Fedorikhin (2002)) by one of the following options:

5 (always), 4 (often), 3 (sometimes), 2 (rarely), and 1 (never).

It is noteworthy that the survey instrument was in French. To prepare the French version of questions, we used

a back translation process. The questions were translated from English to French by two translators. This

translation was then given to another bilingual translator to be translated into English. We compared the two

English versions (the initial one and the final one). No major changes in the translation were necessary.

The impulsiveness score of each product was computed as the average of the scores that all participants gave

to that product. Therefore, the high value of impulsiveness score of a product shows that in average

39

consumers consider this product as an impulsive product. Products with the highest and lowest impulsiveness

scores (i.e., impulsive and nonimpulsive products, respectively) were selected. Afterwards, two members of

the research team independently classified impulsive and nonimpulsive products as hedonic or utilitarian. The

differences in coding were resolved via discussion. Finally, in each impulsive/nonimpulsive hedonic/utilitarian

product category, two individual products were selected.

Main Study

Sample

The data were collected through an online survey during November and December 2014. A total of 546

participants volunteered to take part in the research by responding to an email sent to the university staff and

student list. Females were 76.1% of the sample. The age of participants varied from 17 to 60, and the average

age was 28 years old. More than 61% had income less than $20,000 and 71.3% have completed university

education (see, Table 2 for descriptive statistics).

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of main study participants

Age (%) Education (%) Gender (%) Marital Status (%) Income $ (%)

17 – 24 53.3 Primary or

High School 0.9 Male 23.9 Single 46.0 < 20,000 61.4

25 – 44 41.5 College 27.8

Female 76.1

Unmarried

Spouse 38.4 20,000-29,999 10.9

45 – 60 5.2

Bachelor

Degree 43.9 Married 13.0 30,0000-49,999 9.5

Master or

Ph.D. Degree 27.4

Separated 1.2 50,000 or over 9.0

Divorced 1.4 Prefer not to say 9.2

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of participant subgroups

Age Education Gender (M) Marital Status Income Group Size

Without Promotion

Mean SD

27.36 8.720

3.08 .795

24.4%

1.80 .927

1.83

1.445

131

With Promotion

Mean SD

26.44 7.719

2.94 .754

23.7%

1.71 .782

1.64

1.113

415

Test Results 1.086 a 3.201 a .020 c .977 a 170.395 b

With Discount

Mean SD

26.23 8.599

2.82 .704

18.4%

1.71 .844

1.60

1.080

137

With Free Gift

Mean SD

26.54 7.235

3.00 .774

26.4%

1.71 .751

1.66

1.131

278

Test Results .104 a 3.803 a 2.329 c .004 a .178 a

Notes: a: ANOVA, b: Welch-test, c: Chi-square test

The sample consisted of two different groups of participants: (1) participants exposed to a product with no

promotion at all and (2) participants exposed to a product offered with a promotion. The second group was

further divided into two different subgroups: (a) participants exposed to a product offered with a significant

40

discount and (b) participants exposed to a product offered with a hedonic. Table 3 presents the results of the

cross-group analysis. For each subgroup mean and standard deviation of age, education, marital status, and

income variables were calculated. ANOVA was used to compare mean scores between group 1 and group 2

and between group a and group b. If Levene-test did not support the equality of variances, the ANOVA test

was based on the Welch-test. For the binary variable of gender, the percentage of male participants was

mentioned in the table. Chi-square test was used to verify whether the percentage of male/female participants

was different between group 1 and group 2 and between group a and group b. The results showed no

significant differences.

Furthermore, buying impulsiveness trait was formed by averaging the relevant items. Impulsive and

nonimpulsive subgroups were formed by dividing the sales promotion sample (group 2) at the median value of

the buying impulsiveness trait variable (i.e., 2.11). Ties were assigned to the low group. Similarly, deal-

proneness trait was formed by averaging the relevant items. Deal-prone and nondeal-prone subgroups were

formed by dividing the sales promotion sample (group 2) at the median value of the deal-proneness variable

(i.e., 2.71). Ties were assigned to the low group. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of

impulsive/nonimpulsive and deal-prone/nondeal-prone participants. For each subgroup mean and standard

deviation of age, education, marital status, and income variables were calculated. ANOVA was used to

compare mean scores between impulsive and nonimpulsive groups and between deal-prone and nondeal-

prone groups. For the binary variable of gender, the percentage of male participants was mentioned in the

table. Chi-square test was used to verify whether the percentage of male/female participants was different

between impulsive and nonimpulsive groups and between deal-prone and nondeal-prone groups. The results

showed no significant differences.

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of participant subgroups Age Education Gender (M) Marital Status Income Group Size

Impulsive

Mean SD

25.71 6.704

2.85 .746

19.8%

1.70 .798

1.66

1.166

222

NonImpulsive

Mean SD

26.99 8.388

3.00 .756

26.6%

1.71 .772

1.62

1.074

193

Test Results 1.937 a 3.063 a 1.834 b .028 a .092 a Deal-prone

Mean SD

25.95 7.408

2.90 .733

26.5%

1.72 .797

1.67

1.155

228

Nondeal-Prone

Mean SD

26.97 8.044

2.97 .779

20.8%

1.70 .767

1.61

1.068

187

Test Results 1.243 a .687 a 1.301 b .056 a .206 a

Notes: a: ANOVA, b: Chi-square test

41

Materials and Method

An experimental between-subjects design was employed. For each of the eight products selected in the pre-

test, three different promotional situations were generated: (1) the product offered with no promotion at all, (2)

the product offered with a monetary sales promotion, and (3) the product offered with a nonmonetary sales

promotion. Discounts and free gifts were used as monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions, respectively.

To increase the generalizability of results, both hedonic and utilitarian free gifts were used. Bacon, chips, and

chocolate milk were used as hedonic free gifts. Utilitarian free gifts included spaghetti, milk, and plastic

container. We controlled for the potential influence of price by choosing products with very close prices. Given

that the format of discounts (i.e., dollar versus percentage) influences consumer responses (Hardesty &

Bearden, 2003), we controlled the discount format by only considering discounts presented in dollar format.

Discounts of about 30% were offered as consumers consider them as important discounts (Gupta & Cooper,

1992). The utilitarian/hedonic gifts were chosen according to what is common in the marketplace (see

Appendix for few examples of used promotional situations).

An online experiment was undertaken. Before starting the experiment, participants were invited to follow the

instruction that reads: imagine you are in the grocery store where you usually do your grocery shopping. While

walking through store aisles, you confront a certain offer. Keep this situation in mind and answer the following

questionnaire. Then, each participant was randomly assigned to a promotional situation and its respective

questionnaire.

It should be noted that this approach has some advantages compared to retrospective approach and asking

questions about consumer past impulse buying behaviours. If we wanted to ask questions about past

impulsive purchases, it was highly probable that participants could not remember their past purchases or their

details. It would cause a critical problem in our research since we are interested in details about consumer

impulsive purchases and the specific emotions and cognitions experienced at the moment of purchase. It

should also be noted that to avoid participants from comparing two or more promotions, each participant was

only exposed to a randomly chosen promotional situation. This random assignment also made the probability

of making a planned purchase very rare. Therefore, in this research, impulsive purchases should be

considered as pure impulsive purchases, rather than reminder impulsive purchases (see Stern, 1962 for more

details about the difference between pure impulsive and reminder impulse buying).

The questionnaire was prepared in two different versions. The first version was adapted to situations without

any sales promotion offered. Therefore, it only consisted of questions about impulsive urge to buy, impulsive

purchase, affective reactions to offer, and demographic questions. The second version was adapted to

situations with a sales promotion offered. This questionnaire consisted of questions about impulsive urge to

42

buy, impulsive purchase, affective reactions to sales promotion, cognitive reactions to sales promotion, deal-

proneness trait, buying impulsiveness trait, and finally demographic questions. Using this order of questions,

we avoided priming any certain responses in participants.

To measure impulsive urge to buy, participants were asked to state on a 5-point Likert scale whether they feel

a strong, irresistible urge to buy the product (adapted from Shiv and Fedorikhin (2002)). Impulsive purchase

was measured asking whether they want to buy the product: 1 (yes) and 0 (no). Honea and Dahl (2005)’s PAS

was used to measure consumer positive or negative affective reactions to offer. PAS items were presented in

a random order and participants were asked to state on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (very much) to 1

(not at all) whether the items more or less describe their emotions towards the presented offer. Positive affect

scale includes 14 emotions, such as grateful, thankful, fortunate, lucky, excited, enthusiastic, good, happy,

pleased, efficient, smart, justified, proud, and victorious. Negative affect scale includes 14 emotions, such as

angry, annoyed, hesitant, uncertain, deceived, unhappy, upset, regret, discouraged, disappointed, guilty,

ashamed, cheap, and embarrassed. Hedonic promotion cognition was measured using the exploration and

entertainment scales of Chandon et al. (2000)’s multi-benefit framework. The exploration scale included three

items: I feel like trying new brands, I can avoid always buying the same brands, and I can get new ideas of

things to buy. The entertainment scale included the following items: these promotions are fun, these

promotions are entertaining, and these promotions are enjoyable. The savings and quality scales of Chandon

et al. (2000)’s multi-benefit framework were used to measure utilitarian promotion cognition. The savings scale

includes three items, such as I really save money, I feel that I am getting a good deal, and I really spend less.

The items of the quality scale were: I can have a higher-quality product at the same price, I can afford a better-

than-usual product, and I can upgrade to a better brand. These items were presented in a random order and

participants were asked to indicate their response on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).

Consumer deal-proneness was measured using three items: if a product is on sale, that can be a reason for

me to buy it (adapted from Lichtenstein et al., 1993), I find it difficult to pass up a bargain (adapted from

Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001), and promotional activities (price reduction, buy 1/get 2, etc.) frequently affect

my purchase (adapted from Mihić & Kursan, 2010). Consumer buying impulsiveness trait was measured using

Rook and Fisher (1995)’s items (I often buy things spontaneously, ‘Just do it’ describes the way I buy things, I

often buy things without thinking, and ‘Buy now, think about it later’ describes me). Demographic questions

about age, gender, education, marital status, and income came at the end of the questionnaire. Education

scale had four items, including 1 (primary or high school), 2 (college), 3 (bachelor degree), 4 (Master or Ph.D.

degree). Marital status was measured using the following items: 1 (single), 2 (unmarried spouse), 3 (married),

4 (divorced), 5 (separated), 6 (widow). Income was measured using a 7 Likert scale: 1 (<20,000), 2 (20,000 –

29,999), 3 (30, 000 – 49, 999), 4 (50,000 – 74,999), 5 (75,000 – 99,999), 6 (≥ 100,000), 7 (prefer not to say). It

43

is also noteworthy that the survey instrument was in French and the same procedure used in the pre-test was

employed to translate the questions from English to French.

44

Chapter 4: Results

Pre-test

Data Analysis and Results

By using the procedure illustrated in Chapter 3, pre-test section, eight product categories were selected: eggs

and tomatoes (impulsive utilitarian), chocolate and yogurt (impulsive hedonic), ketchup and margarine

(nonimpulsive utilitarian), and pudding and pretzels and mix (nonimpulsive hedonic). The means and standard

deviations of the impulsiveness score of these products are mentioned in Table 5. Given that this research is

about grocery products, we did not expect consumers to express very high degrees of impulsiveness towards

purchase. The research instrument might also influence consumers’ experienced purchase impulsiveness. Our

participants were exposed to a list of product category names and were asked about their impulsive desire to

purchase them. Given that the presentation mode influences the strength of consumer reactions to focal

stimuli (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999), using photographs of items or real items would lead to the experience of

more impulsiveness in consumers. Therefore, we consider the resulting impulsiveness scores as satisfactory.

Moreover, the paired-samples t-test confirmed that the impulsiveness scores of impulsive utilitarian products

were significantly higher than that of nonimpulsive utilitarian products. The same results were found for the

comparison between the impulsiveness scores of impulsive hedonic and nonimpulsive hedonic products.

Table 5: Statistics of impulsiveness score of the eight selected product categories Product Category Mean SD

IU1: Eggs 2.80 1.48 IU2: Tomatoes 3.54 1.34 IH1: Chocolate 3.09 1.26 IH2: Yogurt 3.17 1.33 NU1: Ketchup 2.08 1.04 NU2: Margarine 1.83 1.03 NH1: Pudding 1.71 0.96 NH2: Pretzels and mix 1.85 1.02

Notes: tIU1-NU1 = 7.191***, tIU1-NU2 = 5.351***, tIU2-NU1 = 12.052***, tIU2-NU2 = 10.996***, tIH1-NH1 = 9.491***, tIH1-NH2 = 8.021***, tIH2-NH1 = 9.769***, tIH2-NH2 = 9.111***, and *** p < .000

Main Study

Data Analysis and Results

An exploratory maximum likelihood factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. Given that positive and negative

affectivity are distinguishable orthogonal dimensions (Honea & Dahl, 2005), an orthogonal rotation was used.

Equamax rotation was selected as it showed a better fit with the data and allowed more items to be retained

on positive and negative promotion affect scales. Based on minimum eigenvalue of one and the interpretability

of the solution, an eight-factor solution was obtained (see Table 6 for the results). Items with very low loading

have been removed from the factors. It resulted in deleting fortunate, pleased, smart, proud, and victorious

emotions from the positive affect scale. For the same reason, annoyed, hesitant, uncertain, disappointed, and

45

cheap emotions were removed from the negative affect scale. The Cronbach’s alpha (> .75) indicated

satisfactory homogeneity for all eight factors. EFA did not include impulsive urge to buy and impulsive

purchase scales since they only have one item. Thereafter, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was

conducted, which showed a good fit (Chi-square: 995.672, df: 439, p: .000, CFI: .924, RMSEA: .055).

Table 6: Results of the exploratory factor analysis Items Factors a Cronbach’s alpha

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8

enthusiastic .762 .081 .127 .121 .231 .256 .076 .096 .918

grateful .729 .076 .115 .175 .303 .281 .032 .092

happy .710 .063 .138 .057 .225 .210 .080 .131

lucky .670 .161 .119 .113 .235 .211 .059 .095

excited .662 .179 .152 .118 .162 .207 .088 .079

good .628 .064 .047 .076 .149 .088 .115 .080

thankful .621 .025 .068 .180 .348 .249 .172 .139

efficient .590 .054 -.041 .144 .056 .024 .161 .086

justified .542 .017 .026 .245 .360 .071 .131 .104

upset .023 .784 .005 -.015 -.052 .009 .009 .029 .827

unhappy .016 .763 -.035 -.074 -.083 -.073 -.016 .031

angry .051 .669 -.050 -.061 -.170 -.103 .029 .015

embarrassed .063 .654 .117 -.069 -.003 .048 -.048 -.039

discouraged .033 .646 -.068 -.055 -.196 .071 .045 -.030

ashamed .114 .626 .102 .006 .002 .134 .043 -.047

guilty .207 .532 .014 .097 .007 .139 -.057 -.025

regretful .092 .479 .038 .000 .041 -.035 .028 .041

deceived .045 .430 -.043 -.105 -.186 -.037 .026 .094

purchaseImpulsiveness4 -.002 -.002 .837 .046 .061 .045 .045 .150 .862

purchaseImpulsiveness3 .025 -.009 .788 .109 .068 .082 -.007 .231

purchaseImpulsiveness2 .064 .034 .747 .048 .075 .075 .081 .080

purchaseImpulsiveness1 .066 .002 .627 .129 .026 .018 .042 .396

quality1 .067 -.068 .107 .807 .218 .192 .263 .072 .887

quality2 .030 -.005 .108 .750 .240 .126 .301 .092

quality3 .098 -.032 .119 .607 .234 .197 .376 .105

saving1 .107 -.082 .110 .284 .699 .134 .261 .103 .791

saving2 .259 -.164 .041 .336 .628 .216 .267 .097

saving3 .131 -.125 .110 .319 .624 .141 .301 .048

entertainment1 .101 -.033 .081 .181 .042 .745 .226 .093 .865

entertainment3 .154 -.035 .048 .196 .349 .646 .191 .169

entertainment2 .025 .027 .059 .083 .064 .613 .265 .124

exploration1 .049 -.014 .087 .282 .142 .193 .672 .152 .795

exploration2 .017 .032 .026 .284 .235 .232 .599 .144

exploration3 .038 .054 -.003 .202 .140 .281 .589 .094

dealProneness3 .022 -.019 .191 .103 -.021 .055 .043 .754 .750

dealProneness1 -.042 .019 .107 .021 .153 .122 .138 .660

dealProneness2 .179 -.002 .256 .040 .015 .118 .123 .601

Notes: KMO: .905, Bartlett: 8490.063, df: 666, Sig: .000, % variance explained: 58%, a F1: Positive promotion affect, F2: Negative promotion affect, F3: Buying impulsiveness trait, F4: Quality benefit, F5: Savings benefit, F6: Entertainment benefit, F7: Exploration benefit, F8: Deal-proneness trait

Discriminant validity between impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase variables was examined. The

confidence interval (plus or minus standard errors) around the correlation estimate between the two constructs

46

was calculated. It was verified whether this interval includes the unity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bearden et

al., 2001).The estimated interval was [.509 .675], which supports the discriminant validity between impulsive

urge to buy and impulsive purchase variables.

Figure 3: Comparison of values between situations with and without sales promotions

As the first step, we investigated whether the presence of a sales promotion has a significant influence on

impulse buying process. To this end, the impulse buying process was compared between situations where

consumers were exposed to a product offered with no sales promotion and situations where consumers were

exposed to a sales promotion. In doing so, we used the no sales promotion sample as a control group. We

investigated whether the presence of a sales promotion can influence positive or negative affect that

consumers experience towards an offer, increase their impulsive urge for the offer, and lead to more impulsive

purchases. To this end, positive and negative affect were formed by averaging their relevant items. Means and

standard deviations of positive affect, negative affect, and impulsive urge to buy were calculated for no sales

promotion and sales promotion samples. It should be noted that we considered all observations in each

sample, whether consumers made an impulsive purchase or not. For the binary variable of impulsive

purchase, the percentage of impulsive purchase was calculated for each sample. Figure 3 presents the

results. As it shows, in situations with a sales promotion, participants expressed more positive affect and less

negative affect. They also experienced more impulsive urge to buy and made more impulsive purchases.

Table 7: Comparison of values between situations with and without sales promotions

No Sales Promotion Sales Promotion Constructs Mean SD Mean SD Test Results Effect Size

Positive Affect 1.5488 .5976 1.8026 .8266 14.729*** a .35

Negative Affect 1.2068 .5071 1.1651 .3493 .865 a .10

Impulsive Urge to Buy 1.9375 1.128 2.478 1.236 21.506*** a .46

Impulsive Purchase .19 .31 7.081** b .12

Notes: *** p < .001, ** p < .05, a: Welch-test, b: Chi-square test

ANOVA was used to compare mean values of positive and negative affect and impulsive urge to buy between

no sales promotion and sales promotion samples (see Table 7 for the results). Since Levene-test did not

support the equality of variances for these variables, the ANOVA test was based on the Welch-test. Chi-

square test was used to verify whether the percentage of impulsive purchases was different between no sales

47

promotion and sales promotion groups. Cohen's d and Phi estimates were used to estimate effect sizes for

ANOVA and Chi-square test, respectively.

The difference of positive affect, impulsive urge to buy, and impulsive purchase was significant at p < .05

between situations with and without sales promotions. For negative affect, we found no significant difference

between two samples. Among all, these results demonstrate that the increase of positive affect, impulsive urge

to buy, and impulsive purchase observed in the presence of products offered with sales promotions must be

attributed to the presence of sales promotions, rather than the product. These results imply that the presence

of a sales promotion increases impulsive purchases via increasing positive affect and impulsive urge to buy

that consumers experience. As follows, we investigate these relationships in more details. Please note that the

reminder of this data analysis section is only about the sales promotion sample.

The mean values of positive and negative promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions and

impulsive urge to buy variables were compared between situations where consumers made an impulsive

purchase and situations where no impulsive purchase happened. As Table 8 shows, consumers who made an

impulsive purchase expressed higher levels of positive promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian promotion

cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy. The experience of negative promotion affect was not significantly

different between consumers who did and who did not purchase on impulse.

Table 8: Comparison of mean values between situations with and without an impulsive purchase

No Impulsive Purchase Impulsive Purchase Constructs Mean SD Mean SD ANOVA Effect Size

Positive Promotion Affect 1.4804 .5965 2.5167 .8195 191.580*** a 1.45

Negative Promotion Affect 1.1810 .4064 1.1244 .2744 351.897 a .16

Hedonic Promotion Cognition 2.3311 .8514 2.9880 .6704 308.621*** a .86

Utilitarian Promotion Cognition 2.1279 .9198 2.9763 .7167 311.592*** a 1.03

Impulsive Urge to Buy 1.9878 .9821 3.5669 1.0304 222.886*** .35

Notes: a ANOVA is based on the Welch-test, since according to Levene-test, the equality of variances could not be assumed, *** p < .001

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was performed via AMOS to test the conceptual model (see Figure 4 for

the results). The model fit statistics indicated a good fit (Chi-square: 997.839, df: 441, p: .000, CFI: .924,

RMSEA: .055). H1 predicts a positive relationship between positive promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy

and impulsive purchase. As expected, consumers who experienced more positive promotion affect also

reported higher impulsive urge to buy and made more impulsive purchases. It supports H1. H2 states that the

influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive urge is not significant. Negative promotion affect

contributes to the impulse buying process by directly decreasing impulsive purchases. The results supported

H2. H3 and H4 predict that utilitarian and hedonic promotion cognitions increase impulsive urge to buy. The

results did not support H3. Consistent with H4, consumers who experienced more hedonic promotion cognition

48

expressed higher levels of impulsive urge to buy. H7 predicts that the more consumers experience impulsive

urge, the more they purchase on impulse. This hypothesis was supported.

Figure 4: Analysis of the structural model using standardized coefficients

Notes: *** p < .000, ** p < .01, * p < .05

The Appraisal theory argues that positive and negative affect are respectively triggered by motive-consistent

and motive-inconsistent events. Consistent with this theory, H5_1 predicts that consumer hedonic evaluations

of a sales promotion benefits increase the positive and negative affect that they experience towards the sales

promotion. Accordingly, H5_3 predicts a positive (negative) relationship between utilitarian promotion cognition

and positive promotion affect (negative promotion affect). The results supported these hypotheses.

Moreover, the Appraisal theory argues that consumers change their behaviour to cope with their emotional

reactions resulting from their cognitive appraisal. Consistently, H5_2 and H5_4 state that promotion affect

mediates the influence of hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions on impulse buying, respectively. A

mediation analysis based on Baron and Kenny (1986)’s approach was performed to verify H5_2 and H5_4. As

Table 9 shows, positive promotion affect partially mediated the effect of hedonic cognition on impulsive urge.

Given that the direct influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive urge was not significant, we conclude

that negative affect did not mediate the influence of promotion cognition on impulsive urge. The direct

influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive purchase was not significant, which means that the influence of

hedonic cognition on impulsive purchase was not mediated by negative or positive affect. Moreover, the

results indicated that the effect of utilitarian cognition on impulsive urge and impulsive purchase was fully

mediated by positive and negative promotion affect. It explains why we did not find support for H3. Among all,

these results confirm that promotion affect mediates the influence of promotion cognition on impulse buying of

promoted products. Thus, H5 is supported.

H6 states that promotion affect improves the prediction of consumer impulsive behaviour above promotion

cognition. It should be noted that although the confirmation of H5 does not automatically show that promotion

affect was incrementally valid beyond promotion cognition, the existence of partial mediation implies that the

influences of promotion affect and promotion cognition were not redundant. It means that promotion affect and

49

promotion cognition are complementary constructs. To provide more evidence for H6, we made an incremental

validity test. If H6 was correct, positive and negative promotion affect must jointly account for a significant

amount of variance in impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase beyond that already explained by hedonic

and utilitarian promotion cognitions. Our test involved a comparison between the Chi-square value of a

cognitive-affective model with the Chi-square value of a nested cognitive reference model. In the cognitive

reference model, we constrained the effect of promotion affect on impulsive urge and impulsive purchase to

zero (i.e., the affective paths were dropped). If the effect of promotion affect on impulsive urge or impulsive

purchase were actually different from zero, the fit of the nested cognitive reference model would be worse than

that of the cognitive-affective model. The comparison between the fit of the cognitive-affective model, Chi-

square (441) = 997.839, and the nested cognitive reference model, Chi-square (445) = 1137.445, revealed

that positive and negative promotion affect jointly achieved incremental validity above hedonic and utilitarian

promotion cognitions, ∆ Chi-square (4) = 139.606 at p < .000. The consideration of promotion affect improved

the prediction of impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase in terms of R2 by 11.9% and 8.3%,

respectively. Therefore, we confirm that promotion affect and promotion cognition are distinct constructs that

jointly improve the prediction of consumer impulse buying. H6 is supported.

Table 9: Testing the Appraisal theory in the sales promotion context

Relationships Direct Effect without

Mediator (p) Direct Effect with

Mediator (p) Remarks

H-P-IU .332 (.000) .206 (.005) Partial mediation H-P-IP .048 (ns) .019 (ns) No mediation H-N-IP .048 (ns) .022 (ns) No mediation U-P-IU .265 (.000) .084 (ns) Full mediation U-P-IP .232 (.001) .073 (ns) Full mediation U-N-IP .232 (.001) .095 (ns) Full mediation

Notes: Whether positive promotion affect (P) and negative promotion affect (N) mediate the effect of hedonic promotion cognition (H) and utilitarian promotion cognition (U) on impulsive urge to buy (IU) and impulsive purchase (IP) of promoted products?

Baron and Kenny (1986)’s approach was also used to test the mediating role of impulsive urge to buy. The

results showed that the direct influence of positive promotion affect on impulsive purchase with (without) the

mediator was .437 and p < .000 (.645 and p < .000). It means that impulsive urge to buy partially mediated the

influence of positive promotion affect on impulsive purchase. Since the direct influence of negative promotion

affect on impulsive urge was not significant, we conclude that impulsive urge did not mediate the influence of

negative promotion affect on impulsive purchase. The same is true for utilitarian promotion cognition. To verify

the mediating role of impulsive urge to buy in hedonic promotion cognition – impulsive purchase relationship,

the same procedure was used. The results showed that the direct influence of hedonic promotion cognition on

impulsive purchase with (without) the mediator was .065 and p was nonsignificant (.510 and p < .000). It

supports a full mediation.

50

Moderating Role of Sales Promotion Category

H8 predicts that sales promotion category moderates the psychological processes involved in the influence of

sales promotions on impulse buying. To verify this hypothesis, we employed the multi-group analysis

approach. The sales promotion sample was divided into two subgroups: consumers exposed to a significant

price discount and consumers exposed to a free gift.

Figure 5: Analysis of the structural model of subgroups with significant discounts and free gifts using standardized coefficients

Notes: *** p < .000, ** p < .01, * p < .05

The test of metric invariance was conducted. The fit of the unconstrained model was compared to the fit of the

fully constrained model, where the factor pattern coefficients (i.e., loadings) were constrained to be equal

between subgroups. The results showed that these models were not significantly different (∆ Chi-square (25)

= 29.311). Therefore, metric invariance was satisfied. Then, structural invariance was examined by comparing

the fits of the unconstrained and the fully constrained models, where all regression weights were constrained

to be equal across subgroups. The results showed that Chi-square (df) for unconstrained and fully constrained

models were 1571.776 (882) and 1697.946 (919), respectively, and they were different at p < .000. Based on

these results, structural invariance was not satisfied; four constraints were released. Furthermore, given that

the fit of the unconstrained model was superior to the fit of the fully constrained model, we confirmed that

compositional differences existed on the moderating variable (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Thus, H8 is supported.

51

In order to test the hypotheses about the moderating role of sales promotion category on the impulse buying

process, the structural model was estimated separately for both subgroups. Figure 5 presents the results of

the multi-group analysis. The statistics indicated that the proposed model fitted the data well (Chi-square:

1571.776, df: 882, p: .000, CFI: .908, RMSEA: .044). The comparison of the model fit of the full sample with

that of the subgroups indicated that the latter was superior at p < .000.

H8_1 predicts that the influence of positive promotion affect on impulse buying is higher when consumers are

exposed to a nonmonetary promotion. Paternoster et al. (1998)’s statistical test for the equality of estimated

coefficients was used to test H8_1. The results supported H8_1(a) (the estimated Z-score was 2.676 and p <

.011). However, the influence of positive promotion affect on impulsive purchase was not significantly different

between promotional situations with a free gift and discount (the estimated Z-score was .690 and p is not

significant). Thus, H8_1(b) is not supported. H8_2 states that the impulsive purchase of nonmonetary offers is

an all positive action, whereas in the case of monetary promotions negative promotion affect also plays a part

in the impulse buying process. As expected, in promotional situations with a significant discount, negative

promotion affect had a significant negative influence on impulsive purchase. However, this influence was not

significant for promotional situations with a free gift. It supports H8_2.

H8_3 and H8_4 are concerned with the influence of promotion cognition on impulse buying process and how

this influence is different among monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions. As shown in Figure 5, for

promotional situations with a free gift, hedonic and utilitarian cognitions exerted a significant influence on

positive and negative promotion affect. The influence of hedonic promotion cognition on impulsive urge was

also significant for these promotions. It supports H8_3(b) and does not support H8_3(b). On the other hand, for

promotional situations with a significant discount, the influence of utilitarian (hedonic) promotion cognition on

positive and negative promotion affect was significant (not significant). Thus, H8_4 is supported.

Role of Consumer Buying Impulsiveness Trait

The multi-group analysis approach was employed to examine the role of consumer buying impulsiveness trait

in the impulse buying process of promoted products. Using the procedure explained in chapter 3, main study

sample section, impulsive and nonimpulsive subgroups were formed. We compared the impulse buying

process of impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers. To this end, mean and standard deviation values of

positive and negative promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy

were calculated for two groups. It should be noted that we considered all observations in each sample,

whether consumers made an impulsive purchase or not. For the binary variable of impulsive purchase, the

percentage of impulsive purchase was calculated for each group. Figure 6 presents the results. As the graphs

show, compared to nonimpulsive consumers, impulsive consumers expressed higher levels of positive

52

promotion affect and lower levels of negative promotion affect. They also expressed higher levels of hedonic

and utilitarian promotion cognitions and impulsive urge to buy and made more impulsive purchases.

Figure 6: Comparison of values between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers

Table 10: Comparison of values between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers Nonimpulsive Impulsive

Constructs Mean SD Mean SD Test Results Effect Size

Positive Promotion Affect 1.6758 .7393 1.9127 .8825 8.851 ** b .30

Negative Promotion Affect 1.1653 .7393 1.1649 .3738 .000 a .00

Hedonic Promotion Cognition 2.3754 .9089 2.6742 .7806 12.709 *** b .35

Utilitarian Promotion Cognition 2.2057 .9546 2.5532 .9111 14.274 *** b .37

Impulsive Urge to Buy 2.2317 1.2208 2.6933 1.2114 14.886 *** a .38

Impulsive Purchase .21 .40 16.310 *** c .20

Notes: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, a: ANOVA, b: Welch-test, c: Chi-square test

ANOVA was used to compare mean scores of positive and negative promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian

promotion cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy between impulsive and nonimpulsive subgroups. Welch-test

was used if Levene-test did not support the equality of variances. We employed Chi-square test to verify

whether the percentage of impulsive purchases was different between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers.

The results are presented in Table 10.

H9_1 predicts a positive relationship between buying impulsiveness trait and impulsive urge to buy and

impulsive purchases. As expected, impulsive consumers expressed higher levels of impulsive urge to buy.

They also made more impulsive purchases. H9_7 states a positive relationship between buying impulsiveness

trait and the experience of positive affect towards sales promotions. Consistent with this hypothesis, we found

that impulsive consumers expressed higher levels of positive promotion affect, supporting H9_7. Although not

mentioned in our hypotheses, the results showed that impulsive consumers experienced higher levels of

hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions than nonimpulsive consumers did. Moreover, we did not find a

significant difference between the negative promotion affect experienced by impulsive versus nonimpulsive

consumers.

53

Figure 7: Analysis of the structural model for impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers using standardized coefficients

Notes: *** p < .000, ** p < .01, * p < .05

Metric invariance was evaluated between impulsive and nonimpulsive subgroups. The comparison between

the fits of the unconstrained and the fully constrained models showed that they were not significantly different

(∆ Chi-square (25) = 33.228). Thus, metric invariance was supported. Then, structural invariance was verified.

The results showed that Chi-square (df) for unconstrained and fully constrained models were 1633.094 (880)

and 1702.954 (917), respectively, and they were different at p < .000. It meant that structural invariance was

not supported; four constraints were released. Moreover, given that the unconstrained model fitted the data

significantly better than the fully constrained model, we concluded that compositional differences existed on

the moderating variable (i.e., buying impulsiveness trait) (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

To further examine the moderating role of buying impulsiveness trait on the impulse buying process, the

structural model was estimated separately for subgroups with relatively low and high buying impulsiveness

trait. Figure 7 presents the results of this multi-group analysis. The statistics indicated that the proposed model

fitted the subgroups of data well (Chi-square:1633.094, df: 880, p: .000, CFI: .902, RMSEA: .046). The

comparison of the model fit of the full sample with that of the subgroups indicated that the latter was superior

at p < .000.

54

H9_2 predicts that buying impulsiveness trait moderates the relationship between impulsive urge to buy and

impulsive purchase, with this relationship is higher for impulsive consumers. Paternoster et al. (1998)’s

statistical test was employed to test the equality of estimated coefficients. The results did not show a

significant difference (the estimated Z-score was .583 and p was not significant). Thus, H9_2 is not supported.

H9_3 and H9_4 predict that buying impulsiveness trait moderates the role of hedonic and utilitarian promotion

cognitions in impulse buying process of promoted products. As Figure 7 shows, for impulsive consumers,

hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions had a significant influence on positive promotion affect. The

influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive urge to buy was also significant for these consumers. On the other

hand, for nonimpulsive consumers, the influence of utilitarian (hedonic) promotion cognition on positive

promotion affect was significant (not significant). Thereby, H9_3 and H9_4 are supported. Utilitarian cognition

– impulsive urge to buy relationship was not significant for both impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers. The

results of the statistical test of equality of estimated coefficients showed that utilitarian promotion cognition –

positive promotion affect relationship was not significantly different between impulsive and nonimpulsive

consumers (the estimated Z-score was .175 and p was not significant). Thus H9_6 is not supported.

H9_7 predicts a positive relationship between buying impulsiveness trait and positive promotion affect. As

Figure 7 shows, in both impulsive and nonimpulsive groups, positive promotion affect had a significant positive

influence on impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase. The results of the statistical test of equality of

estimated coefficients indicated that the influence of positive promotion affect on impulsive urge to buy was

significantly different between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers (the estimated Z-score was 1.857 and p

< .1). However, interestingly, the direction of this difference was opposite to our hypothesis. The results also

showed that the influence of positive promotion affect on impulsive purchase was not significantly different

between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers (the estimated Z-score was .185 and p was not significant).

Thus, H9_8 is partially supported but in the opposite direction. H9_9 states that buying impulsiveness trait

moderates the influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive purchase, with this influence is higher for

nonimpulsive consumers. As shown in Figure 7, the influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive

purchase was significantly supported for nonimpulsive consumers. However, this influence was not significant

for impulsive consumers. It supports H9_9.

Role of Consumer Deal-Proneness Trait

The same procedure was used to compare the impulse buying process between deal-prone and nondeal-

prone consumers (see Figure 8 and Table 11 for the results). H10_1 predicts a positive relationship between

deal-proneness and impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchase. H10_2 states that deal-prone consumers

tend to make a higher evaluation of hedonic and utilitarian benefits of sales promotions. According to H10_5,

there is a positive relationship between the level of deal-proneness and positive affect experienced towards

55

sales promotions. Consistent with these hypotheses, we found that deal-prone consumers expressed more

positive promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy. They also

made more impulsive purchases. Therefore, H10_1, H10_2, and H10_5 are supported. The results showed no

significant difference between negative promotion affect experienced by deal-prone and nondeal-prone

consumers. Thus H10_7 is not supported.

Figure 8: Comparison of values between deal-prone and nondual-prone consumers

Table 11: Comparison of values between deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers Nondeal-Prone Deal-Prone

Constructs Mean SD Mean SD Test Results Effect Size

Positive Promotion Affect 1.6064 .6752 1.9634 .9026 409.680 *** b .45

Negative Promotion Affect 1.1578 .37121 1.1711 .3310 .157 a .04

Hedonic Promotion Cognition 2.3667 .81520 2.6735 .8634 13.635 *** a .37

Utilitarian Promotion Cognition 2.2673 .90643 2.4935 .9682 5.938 ** a .25

Impulsive Urge to Buy 2.2568 1.1463 2.6606 1.1463 409.730 *** b .35

Impulsive Purchase .26 .35 3.790** c .10

Notes: *** p < .000, ** p < .05, a: ANOVA, b: Welch-test, c: Chi-square test

The multi-group analysis approach was employed to examine the moderating role of consumer deal-

proneness trait. At first, metric invariance was evaluated between groups with relatively low and high deal-

proneness trait. The fit of unconstrained and fully constrained models was compared. The models were not

significantly different (∆ Chi-square (25) = 33.389). Therefore, metric invariance was satisfied. Thereafter, the

test of structural invariance was established by constraining all regression weights to be equal across

subgroups. The results showed that Chi-square (df) for unconstrained and fully constrained models was

1517.809 (880) and 1583.12 (917), respectively. They were different at p < .003. Therefore, structural

invariance was not satisfied; four constraints were released. Given that the unconstrained model fitted the data

significantly better than the fully constrained model, in line with Hu and Bentler (1999), we concluded that deal-

proneness trait moderates the impulse buying process.

To further investigate this moderating effect, the structural model was estimated separately for subgroups with

different levels of deal-proneness trait. Figure 9 presents the results of the multi-group analysis. The statistics

demonstrated that the proposed model fitted the subgroups of data well (Chi-square:1517.809, df: 880, p:

56

.000, CFI: .914, RMSEA: .042). The comparison of the model fit of the full sample with that of the subgroups

indicated that the latter was superior at p < .000.

Figure 9: Analysis of the structural model for deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers using standardized coefficients

Notes: *** p < .000, ** p < .01, * p < .05

H10_3 and H10_4 predict that the influence of hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions on positive

promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy significantly differs between deal-prone and nondeal-prone

consumers. The results of the statistical test of equality of estimated coefficients showed that the influence of

utilitarian promotion cognition on positive promotion affect was significantly higher among deal-prone

consumers (the estimated Z-score was 2.125 and p < .1). It provides support for H10_4(b). Moreover, for

nondeal-prone consumers, the influence of hedonic promotion cognition on positive promotion affect and

impulsive urge to buy was significantly positive. However, this influence was not significant for deal-prone

consumers. These findings support H10_3. Utilitarian promotion cognition – impulsive urge to buy relationship

was not significant for both deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers.

According to H10_6, deal-proneness trait moderates the influence of positive promotion affect on impulse

buying, with this influence is higher for deal-prone consumers. The influence of positive promotions affect on

57

impulsive urge to buy, and impulsive purchase was significant for both deal-prone and nondeal-prone

consumers. The results of the statistical test of equality of estimated coefficients showed that this influence

was not significantly different between these consumers (the estimated Z-score was .022 and 1.403 and p was

not significant). Therefore, H10_6 is not supported. The influence of negative promotion affect on impulsive

purchase was significantly supported for nondeal-prone consumers. However, this influence was not

significant for deal-prone consumers. It supports H10_8.

Buying Impulsiveness Trait versus Deal-Proneness Trait

ANOVA was used to compare the mean values of positive and negative promotion affect, hedonic and

utilitarian promotion cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy between impulsive and deal-prone consumers. Chi-

square test was used to verify whether the percentage of impulsive purchases was different between these

two consumers. As Table 12 shows, no significant differences were found.

Table 12: Comparison of values between impulsive and deal-prone consumers Impulsive Deal-Prone

Constructs Mean SD Mean SD Test Results

Positive Promotion Affect 1.9127 .8825 1.9634 .9026 .362a

Negative Promotion Affect 1.1649 .3738 1.1711 .3310 .034a

Hedonic Promotion Cognition 2.6742 .7806 2.6735 .8634 .445b

Utilitarian Promotion Cognition 2.5532 .9111 2.4935 .9682 .453a

Impulsive Urge to Buy 2.6933 1.2114 2.6606 1.1463 .078a

Impulsive Purchase .40 .35 .996c

Notes: a: ANOVA, b: Welch-test, c: Chi-square test

Moreover, we compared the results of the analysis of the structural model for impulsive and deal-prone

consumers. H11_1 and H11_2 predict that the influence of hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions on

positive promotion affect and impulsive urge to buy differs between impulsive and deal-prone consumers.

Consistently, we found that hedonic promotion cognition – positive promotion affect relationship and hedonic

promotion cognition – impulsive urge to buy relationship were only significant for impulsive consumers. It

supports H11-1. The results of the statistical test of equality of estimated coefficients showed that the influence

of utilitarian promotion cognition on positive promotion affect was not significantly different between impulsive

and deal-prone consumers (the estimated Z-score was 1.447 and p was not significant). Therefore, H11-2(a)

is not supported. Utilitarian cognition – impulsive urge to buy relationship was not significant for both impulsive

and deal-prone consumers. Finally, it is noteworthy that the support of H11-1 provides enough evidence that

the psychological correlates of impulsive promotional responses differ between impulsive and deal-prone

consumers. Therefore, H11 is supported. The following section discusses the implications of our results.

58

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

The dissertation stands at the intersection of the behavioural pricing and impulse buying research and

contributes to the previous literature in several ways. First and most importantly, this is the first research about

the psychological mechanisms involved in the influence of sales promotions on consumer impulsive

purchases. Although previous studies emphasized that a significant percentage of impulsive purchases come

from sales promotions, they did not investigate why and how this influence exists. In this dissertation, we

addressed this critical gap. We demonstrated how affective and cognitive reactions elicited from encountering

sales promotions, or promotion affect and promotion cognition respectively, influence consumer impulse

buying behaviour.

Secondly, due to the cognitive bias often introduced by the behavioural pricing literature, research about

promotion affect has been relatively limited. Few studies found evidence that affect is an important contributor

to consumer responses to sales promotions. However, they only focused on narrowly perceived affect or

considered one basic emotion and did not provide a study of the specific emotions or the dimensions of affect

as pertained to consumer promotional responses (Honea & Dahl, 2005). Honea and Dahl (2005) contributed to

this shortcoming. They studied the psychometric properties of consumer affect produced by encountering

sales promotions and developed a scale to measure consumer emotional responses to sales promotions

(PAS). The present research verified PAS in an experimental context. It is the first experimental study about

positive and negative emotions that consumers experience towards sales promotions. Among all, our results

made it clear that promotion affect is an important previously overlooked predictor of consumer promotional

responses.

Thirdly, although previous studies have examined some effects of consumer emotions on impulse buying, the

understanding about these effects was still vague. Specifically, in retail settings, the empirical research clearly

based on an affective definition of impulse buying was limited to Baun and Gröppel-Klein (2003). They focused

on the influence of two basic positive emotions joy and surprise on consumer impulse buying, without

studying the influence of other positive or negative emotions. Moreover, their study focused on general grocery

shopping excursions and did not examine the role of a specific external stimulus such as sales promotions.

Furthermore, the impulsive literature has not paid enough attention to the role of integral negative affect on

impulse buying process. The research in this domain was only limited to two studies, Beatty and Ferrell (1998)

and Mohan et al. (2013). Therefore, the influence of negative affect on impulsive urge and impulse buying

behaviour required further study. This dissertation aimed to address these shortcomings. This is the first

research that studied specific emotions and dimensions of affect as pertained to consumer impulsive

59

promotional behaviour and established the relevance of both positive promotion affect and negative promotion

affect in this context. We also empirically showed the emotional conflict that consumers usually experience

while doing an impulsive purchase. Our results made an important contribution to the impulse buying literature

by demonstrating the critical influence of positive and negative promotion affect on impulsive purchases.

Fourthly, past research indicated that affective and cognitive mechanisms influence consumer behaviour

jointly, but independently. However, no studies to date have investigated the simultaneous influence of

promotion affect and promotion cognition. This dissertation addressed this gap. It studied how these

mechanisms operate together to influence consumer promotional responses. It also investigated the relevance

of the promotion affect construct via evaluating its predictive validity and mediating properties in conjunction

with promotion cognition construct. Our multi-component model addressed the differential influences of

positive and negative affective and hedonic and utilitarian cognitive reactions across the impulsive purchase of

promoted products. Our results made it clear that promotion affect is a previously overlooked standalone

predictor of consumer promotional behaviours.

Our fifth contribution is related to the study of the moderating role of sales promotion category on impulse

buying process of promoted products. Past research indicated that different types of sales promotions

influence impulse buying in different ways (Kacen et al., 2012; Liao et al., 2009). However, they did not explain

why this difference exists. The present dissertation provided underlying reasons for this difference by

explaining how sales promotion category moderates affective and cognitive reactions involved in the influence

of sales promotions on impulsive purchases. Our results contributed to the understanding of psychological

correlates of consumer promotional responses in both the sales promotion and impulse buying literature.

Sixthly, this dissertation contributed to the understanding of consumer individual differences in impulse buying

behaviour. The antecedents of impulse buying behaviour can be broadly classified into market driven factors

and consumer individual factors. Past research has mainly focused on the former (e.g., Levy & Weitz, 2007;

Mattila & Wirtz, 2008; Mihić & Kursan, 2010; Mohan et al., 2013; Park & Lennon, 2006; Peck & Childers,

2006), leading to inadequate understanding about consumer individual differences in impulse buying

behaviour (Kalla & Arora, 2011). Two consumer personality traits related to consumers’ attention and reaction

to sales promotions and their proneness to buy on impulse are buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness

trait. The influence of deal-proneness trait on consumer responses to sales promotions caught much attention

in the sales promotion literature. The impulse buying literature also has shown an increasing interest in the

influence of buying impulsiveness trait on consumer impulsive purchases. Moreover, there is limited evidence

that deal-proneness trait and buying impulsiveness trait are positively associated. Given that the present

research stands at the intersection of the sales promotion and impulse buying literature, we studied the role of

60

these traits. We provided a detailed discussion of how buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait

influence the mediational role of cognitive and affective reactions in the psychological processes leading to the

influence of sales promotions on impulsive purchases.

Seventhly, the relationship between buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait did not get enough

attention in the literature. A few studies indicated a positive link between these traits. However, these studies

only focused on the similarities that exist in the behavioural level between impulsive and deal-prone

consumers in terms of impulsive spending and shopping of promotional offers. They did not consider the

differences that may exist in terms of underlying motivations and focus. Therefore, it was not clear whether the

strength of cognitive-affective mediational mechanisms underlying the impulsive purchase of promoted

products is different between impulsive and deal-prone consumers. In the present dissertation, we contributed

to this gap. Our results evidenced that these personality traits have differing psychological correlates.

Finally, it is of importance that the methodology employed in this dissertation also contributes to its originality.

The majority of studies about psychological processes underlying impulsive behaviours (e.g., Hoch &

Loewenstein, 1991; Ramanathan & Menon, 2006; Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002) assumed that choosing hedonic

and utilitarian products is an impulsive and nonimpulsive behaviour, respectively. Contrary to this assumption,

our pre-test showed that consumers could purchase a utilitarian product on impulse or vice versa. Based on

this finding, in the main study, we measured the level of impulsiveness of each purchase explicitly, without

assuming that just due to the nature of a product (hedonic/utilitarian or impulsive/nonimpulsive), its purchase is

impulsive or not. Further, using the consumers’ immediate affective and cognitive responses to sales

promotions makes this study distinguished from the majority of impulsive studies that relied on scanner data or

retrospective surveys. Finally yet importantly, in this dissertation, emotional responses to sales promotions

were measured using PAS. Honea and Dahl (2005) demonstrated that PAS can differentiate main aspects of

promotional purchase environment better than measures specific to other domains of consumer behaviour

research (e.g., EBFS for advertising: Edell & Burke, 1987; or CES for consumption activities: Richins, 1997).

Summary of Findings

The research agenda for this dissertation was fivefold, including: (i) to study the affective triggers of

promotional impulsive purchases, (ii) to study the cognitive triggers of promotional impulsive purchases, (iii) to

analyse the interplay between promotion affect, promotion cognition, and consumer impulsive behaviour and

determine the relevance of promotion affect construct by examining its predictive validity and mediating

properties in conjunction with promotion cognition construct, (iv) to examine how sales promotion category

moderates these processes, and (v) to examine how consumer personality traits influence these processes.

The following briefly discusses our findings.

61

Our investigations about the underlying psychological triggers of impulsive promotional responses

demonstrated that two separate mechanisms, affect transfer and cognitions, are the foundations of impulse

buying decisions of promoted products. In other words, the influence of sales promotions on impulsive

purchases is mediated by promotion affect and promotion cognition. Based on these findings, we confirm that

consumer promotional responses are composed of both cognitive and affective responses and they must be

treated as coexisting components.

More particularly, we found that positive promotion affect increases impulsive purchases directly or indirectly

via inducing more impulsive urges in consumers. The experience of negative promotion affect, on the other

hand, does not influence consumers’ desire to act on impulse. However, when they want to act on their

impulses and make an impulsive purchase they consider this negative affect. It in turn may prevent them from

making impulsive purchases.

To study the interplay between promotional affective and cognitive responses, we applied the Appraisal theory

into the impulse buying literature. The Appraisal theory argues that consumers change their behaviour to cope

with their emotional reactions resulting from their cognitive appraisal. Consistent with this theory, we found that

a sales promotion induces positive and negative affect in consumers through changes in their promotion

cognition. Promotion affect in turn mediates the influence of promotion cognition on consumer impulsive

behaviour.

More particularly, our results indicated that utilitarian promotion cognition increases positive promotion affect

and decreases negative promotion affect. The influence of utilitarian cognition on impulsive urge and impulsive

purchase is fully mediated by positive and negative promotion affect. It explains why the direct influence of

utilitarian cognition on these variables is not significant (H3). Negative promotion affect in turn decreases

impulsive purchases, whereas positive promotion affect is associated with the experience of more impulsive

urges as well as making more impulsive purchases. Therefore, in overall, utilitarian promotion cognition

increases consumer impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchases.

On the other hand, hedonic promotion cognition increases both positive and negative promotion affect. Given

that negative promotion affect involves negative self-conscious emotions such as guilty, embarrassed,

ashamed, and regretful (Giner-Sorolla, 2001; Honea & Dahl, 2005), the positive influence of hedonic cognition

on negative affect is reasonable and consistent with H5_1(b). Negative promotion affect does not mediate the

influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive urge to buy or impulsive purchases. Therefore, the overall

influence of hedonic promotion cognition on impulsive urge to buy and impulsive purchases is positive.

Moreover, the influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive urge to buy is partially mediated by positive

promotion affect while hedonic promotion cognition still exerts a significant positive influence on impulsive

62

urge. The direct influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive purchase is not significant. Given that promotion

affect does not mediate the influence of hedonic cognition on impulsive purchases, this influence is fully

mediated by impulsive urge to buy. It means that hedonic values of a sales promotion produce impulsive urges

in consumers and these urges in turn increase the likelihood of buying the promoted product on impulse.

The results of our investigations about the interplay between promotional affective and cognitive responses

demonstrated that promotion affect has a complementary influence and improves the prediction of consumer

impulsive behaviour beyond promotion cognition. As a result, we conclude that promotion affect is a previously

overlooked standalone predictor of consumer promotional behaviours. It means that, although multiple

mediational processes may happen simultaneously, they have differential effects on consumer decision

making. In a more methodological vein, these results suggest that traditional sales promotion research may

suffer from a specification error. The fact that these studies ignored the influence of promotion affect implies

that they misrepresented the relationship between sales promotion, promotion cognition, and consumer

behaviour. In other words, by ignoring the mediating role of promotion affect, they equated the direct influence

of promotion cognition on consumer behaviour with the total effect of promotion cognition on consumer

behaviour, while the inclusion of promotion affect as a mediating construct weakens the direct influence of

promotion cognition on consumer behaviour. Thus, by ignoring the mediating role of promotion affect, previous

studies overestimated the direct influence of promotion cognition on consumer behaviour. Overall, based on

our results, we suggest that incorporating promotion affect in future research provides a more detailed account

of consumer responses to sales promotions and thus improves the prediction of consumer behaviour towards

these marketing stimuli.

Our results also confirmed that sales promotion category moderates the mediational role of affective and

cognitive reactions in the psychological processes leading to the influence of sales promotions on impulsive

purchases. More particularly, we found that the impulsive purchase of products promoted by nonmonetary

promotions is primarily influenced by the positive affect that consumers experience towards those promotions,

whereas in the case of monetary promotions the experience of negative promotion affect also has a significant

decreasing influence on impulsive purchases. Furthermore, the impulsive purchase of products promoted by

monetary and nonmonetary sales promotions is influenced by utilitarian and hedonic benefits of the offer,

respectively. In the case of nonmonetary promotional offers, the influence of perceived utilitarian benefits on

impulse buying process was also significant, which is opposite to H8_4(b). This finding can be due to the fact

that in our nonmonetary sales promotions the price of free gifts has been mentioned, which might get our

participants to also consider the utilitarian values (e.g., savings) of nonmonetary promotions. This finding

should be reevaluated in future research where the price of free gifts is not mentioned.

63

Our investigations about the role of consumer buying impulsiveness trait showed that cognitive-affective

triggers of impulsive promotional responses differ between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers. More

particularly, we found that impulsive consumers experience higher levels of positive promotion affect, hedonic

and utilitarian promotion cognitions, and impulsive urge to buy. They also engage in more impulsive purchases

of promoted products.

Positive promotion affect – impulsive urge relationship is significantly different between impulsive and

nonimpulsive consumers. However, interestingly, this difference is supported in the direction opposite to what

hypothesized in H9-8. We found some explanation in a comment by Lee and Yi (2008). They argued that

buying impulsiveness trait moderates the strength of the relationship between shopping emotions and impulse

buying. Impulsive consumers are not heavily influenced by their emotions towards a product, since they

already have a strong instinctive tendency to buy impulsively. As a result, the effect of emotions on impulse

buying is expected to be lower for them. Conversely, consumers with low buying impulsiveness trait are likely

to rely on their emotions when making impulsive purchases. It means that the relationship between emotions

and impulse buying is expected to be higher for these consumers. These results have also been supported by

Mishra et al. (2014).

Interestingly, our results indicated that the impulsive urge to buy – impulsive purchase relationship is not

significantly different between impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers. As mentioned above, we found that

impulsive consumers experience more impulsive urge and make more impulsive purchases. Therefore, it is

reasonable to conclude that impulsive consumers engage in more impulsive purchases because they

experience more impulsive urge to buy, not because they have a higher tendency to respond positively to their

impulses.

Our analysis about the differential value of utilitarian and hedonic benefits for consumers with different levels of

buying impulsiveness trait showed that nonimpulsive consumers are primarily concerned with the utilitarian

benefits of sales promotions. Their evaluation of hedonic promotion benefits does not have any significant role

in their impulsive promotional responses. Interestingly, our impulsive participants expressed higher evaluations

of utilitarian promotion benefits than nonimpulsive consumers did. We also found no significant difference in

utilitarian promotion cognition – positive promotion affect relationship between impulsive and nonimpulsive

consumers. Although this result is contrary to H9-6 that expected the influence of utilitarian cognition to be

lower among impulsive consumers, it can be explained based on the results of previous research on

impulsiveness. Indeed, impulsiveness has been found to be associated with a generalized overactive

tendency to approach rewards and an underactive tendency to avoid such behaviours (Gray, 1987;

Ramanathan & Menon, 2006). Ramanathan and Menon (2006) found that impulsive people perform better on

64

tasks that carry monetary rewards. Moreover, previous research on reward responsiveness demonstrated that

exposure to monetary rewards is associated with more dopamine activity, which in turn leads to higher

motivations to response (Montague et al., 2004). This association has been found to be stronger for people

scoring high on impulsiveness (Depue & Collins, 1999). Based on these observations and our findings, it is

reasonable to conclude that both impulsive and nonimpulisve consumers are prone to engage in impulsive

purchase of what is perceived as a good deal but for different reasons. Impulsive consumers buy on impulse

due to their strong reward seeking tendency, whereas the impulsive purchase of nonimpulsive consumers is a

deliberative act of self-indulgence to benefit from utilitarian benefits of offers. These findings need further

investigations.

It is also noteworthy that we found no significant differences between the level of negative promotion affect

experienced by impulsive and nonimpulsive consumers. However, the decreasing influence of negative affect

on impulsive purchase was only significant among nonimpulsive consumers. These findings support our

hypothesis that the impulsive purchase of impulsive consumers is an all pleasure practice, whereas

nonimpulsive consumers do a cost-benefit calculation and base their impulsive decisions on both positive as

well as negative affect that they experience. This finding is also in line with our latter suggestion that the

impulsive purchase of impulsive consumers is a reward seeking act, while nonimpulsive consumers engage in

impulsive purchases to take advantage of a good deal.

Similarly, we found evidence that consumer deal-proneness trait influences cognitive-affective triggers of

impulsive promotional purchases. Our results showed that deal-prone consumers experience higher positive

promotion affect and express higher evaluations of hedonic and utilitarian benefits of sales promotions. These

consumers also experience higher impulsive urge to buy promoted products and make more impulsive

purchases.

Moreover, our results supported the moderating role of deal-proneness trait. We found that utilitarian

promotion cognition – positive promotion affect relationship is higher among deal-prone consumers. Although

deal-prone consumers express higher hedonic evaluations of promotions, their impulsive purchases are

primarily based on the utilitarian cognition that they experience towards a promotion. Based on these results, it

is reasonable to conclude that deal-prone consumers engage in impulsive purchases to take advantage of

perceived utilitarian values of offers, rather than their hedonic values. It is consistent with Shukla and Babin

(2013)’s finding that in deal-prone consumers’ mind deals are significantly associated with their task-related

worth. Finally, it is noteworthy that, although there is no significant difference between the level of negative

promotion affect experienced by deal-prone and nondeal-prone consumers, the decreasing influence of

negative affect on impulsive purchase is only significant among nondeal-prone consumers.

65

The last part of our results is related to differing psychological correlates of buying impulsiveness and deal-

proneness traits. We found no significant differences between the level of experienced positive and negative

promotion affect, hedonic and utilitarian promotion cognitions, impulsive urge to buy, and impulsive purchase

between these consumers. However, our results revealed two major differences between psychological

mechanisms leading to impulsive promotional responses among impulsive versus deal-prone consumers.

Firstly, impulsive consumers experience a positive relationship between hedonic promotion cognition and

positive promotion affect, while this relationship is not significant among deal-prone consumers. Further,

hedonic promotion cognition exerts a positive influence on impulsive urge to buy promoted products among

impulsive consumers, while this influence is not significant among deal-prone consumers. These results

confirmed our hypothesis that although buying impulsiveness and deal-proneness traits may produce the

same outcomes (i.e., increase in impulsive urge and impulsive purchase of promoted products), they differ in

terms of underlying motivations and focus on impulsive spending and shopping. The next section discusses

the managerial implications of our findings.

Managerial Implications

This dissertation provides a number of empirical insights about consumer impulse buying, especially in retail

settings. As before discussed, impulsive purchases are the results of in-store decisions that in some product

categories account for 80% of purchases (Abrahams, 1997). That is why, fostering impulse buying is

considered as one of the main determinants of today’s companies’ sales revenue (Hausman, 2000).

Consumers make their in-store decisions in a complex environment where various factors simultaneously

influence their impulsive purchases. In order to attract a significant share of impulsive purchases, retailers

need to recognize the factors that prompt consumers to purchase on impulse. They also need to know about

the possible changes that they can make to these factors to bring large improvements. In this vein and in line

with previous research, the present dissertation confirmed the important effect of sales promotions on impulse

buying. Therefore, retailers’ decisions to offer a product along with a sales promotion play an important role in

consumer impulse buying decisions and subsequent profits for stores.

In this vein, the choice of appropriate sales promotions is a crucial decision for retailers. In order to fully benefit

from the impulsive phenomenon, they need to know how to design sales promotions that maximize impulse

buying chance among consumers. To this end, retailers need to understand the mechanisms involved at the

consumer level regarding the impulsive purchase of promoted products. The findings of this dissertation

provide this understanding. In order to represent the shopping experience from consumer perspective, we

assessed the simultaneous influence of positive/negative promotion affect and hedonic/utilitarian promotion

cognitions on impulse buying process of impulsive/nonimpulsive and hedonic/utilitarian products promoted via

monetary/nonmonetary sales promotions.

66

The finding that sales promotions are a source of affect which in turn drives consumer impulsive behaviour

poses a challenge for retailers. Given that positive and negative promotion affect have respective positive and

negative influences on impulsive purchase, we suggest that retailers can get the best value of their huge

spending in promotional activities by creating sales promotions that, all else equal, translate into more positive

affect and less negative affect. Our results also can inform retailers about the timing of their pricing decisions.

According to the goal-gradient effect (Hull, 1934), as a focal event gets closer, affective intensity increases as

well. In the context of this research, it implies that a sales promotion communicated to consumers few minutes

prior to making a purchase generates more positive affect compared to one communicated some hours in

advance, in pre-purchase phase.

But, the question is how retailers can design sales promotions that generate more positive affect and less

negative affect in consumers. Our findings answered this question, too. We provided the understanding about

the specific features of sales promotions that induce positive or negative affect among consumers. We found

that perceived utilitarian values of sales promotions have respective positive and negative influence on positive

and negative affect. Therefore, in order to elicit more consumer positive affect and less negative affect, we

suggest retailers to offer sales promotions with high perceived utilitarian values while promoting the utilitarian

characteristics of their offers effectively and clearly. Moreover, our results demonstrated that perceived

hedonic benefits augment impulsive purchases via increasing positive affect as well as impulsive urges. It

implies that in order to encourage more impulsive purchases retailers need to offer sales promotions that, all

else equal, provide more hedonic values for consumers.

Although in general both utilitarian and hedonic promotion values increase impulsive purchases, retailers need

to know that the relative importance of these values differs for different categories of sales promotions.

According to our results, the impulsive purchase of monetary sales promotions is primarily utilitarian, whereas

in impulsive purchase of nonmonetary sales promotions hedonic perceived values also play a major role.

Based on these findings, we suggest that to provoke more impulsive purchases, retailers should highlight the

utilitarian (hedonic) aspects of their monetary (nonmonetary) sales promotions, respectively.

Retailers will also benefit from understanding the contribution of affective and cognitive aspects of sales

promotions in impulsive promotional decisions for consumers with different personality traits. By determining

the strength of the mediational processes and explaining under what condition one process will dominate the

other, we were able to provide a framework to guide retailers in choosing the optimally designed sales

promotions for different segments of consumers.

More particularly, our results confirmed that impulsive and deal-prone consumers make the most impulsive

promotional purchases, which makes them the most attractive segments for retailers. Moreover, we showed

67

that perceived utilitarian values of promotional offers increase positive affect and subsequent impulsive urges

to buy and impulsive purchases for these segments. It implies that to increase impulsive purchases among

these segments of the market, retailers should offer sales promotions with high perceived utilitarian values

while promoting the utilitarian characteristics of their offers effectively and clearly. Moreover, our finding that

perceived utilitarian values of promotional offers also have an increasing influence on impulsive purchases

among other segments of the market (i.e., nonimpulsive and nondeal-prone consumers) makes the importance

of perceived utilitarian values doubled.

Furthermore, our results supported the influence of hedonic perceived values on impulse buying for impulsive

and nondeal-prone consumers. It implies that to encourage impulse buying among these consumers, retailers

need to build more hedonic and engaging promotional offers.

Finally, we found that consumers with low buying impulsiveness trait rely more heavily on their emotions when

doing impulsive purchases. Based on this finding, we suggest that retailers can attract consumers scoring low

on buying impulsiveness by creating sales promotions that, all else equal, translate into more positive affect

and less negative affect.

Limits and Future Research

Concerning limitations and future research, some points are noteworthy. In this research data was assembled

through an online experiment, which provided several advantages as opposed to a retrospective or a

laboratory experiment. For instance, online experiment allowed us to reach out to a large sample (546

participants), in a limited time period and with limited financial spending. Participants answered questions

about the specific emotions and cognitions that they experienced at the moment of purchase. Moreover, each

participant was only exposed to a randomly chosen promotional situation, the fact that avoided them from

comparing two or more promotions or doing a planned or reminder impulsive purchase. Despite these

advantages, doing an online experiment also brought some limitations to our research. Consumers

experienced less complexity compared to a real life situation. They were also exposed to pictures of promoted

products and were asked about their affective and cognitive reactions towards them. As stated by Shiv and

Fedorikhin (1999), presentation mode may influence the strength of affective and cognitive reactions that

consumers experience. Compared to a symbolic mode (i.e., where photographs of items are presented), in a

real mode (i.e., where real items are presented) consumers may experience higher levels of affective

reactions. Therefore, it is likely that an actual shopping situation in a make-up grocery store depicts a more

accurate real shopping situation. Using an online experiment also made it difficult to measure the actual

impulsive purchase. Therefore, we measured impulsive purchase by asking consumers whether they want to

buy the product. Since this scale may have a more intentional (instead of behavioural) nature, future research

68

is recommended to replicate this study using field experiments and utilize consumer actual impulsive

purchases as the measure of an impulsive purchase.

This research employed explicit (self-report) measures. Previous research demonstrated that, contrary to

explicit measures, implicit measures can reflect associations to which consumers lack introspective access or

reveal information that consumers are reluctant to admit (see Greenwald et al., 2002 for a detailed discussion).

Given that consumers may associate impulse buying to ‘being bad’ or causing negative consequences for

personal finance, post-purchase satisfaction, social reactions, and overall self-esteem (Lin & Chen, 2012;

Rook & Fisher, 1995), they might do not answer explicit questions about their impulses and impulsive

behaviours very honestly. Moreover, as discussed before, impulsive purchases can be based on hedonic

heuristics (Verplanken & Sato, 2011). Consumers may also use promotions as a choice heuristic to limit

cognitive effort and information processing (Chandon et al., 2000; DelVecchio, 2005). Nosek and Banaji (2009)

noted that implicit measures are able to inform us about the mental work that happens outside of conscious

awareness, conscious control, without intention, or without self-reflection. Thus, implicit measures disclose the

information about heuristics and rapid assessments that consumers perform, to which explicit measures do not

have access. Based on these arguments and findings, it is likely that a methodology based on implicit

questions can access to information that our explicit questions did not have and thus produces results different

from ours. One promising avenue for future studies is to replicate this research using implicit measures.

Additionally, in this research, we focused on consumer affective reactions towards sales promotions and

studied how they influence the process of impulse buying. Given that promotion affect is part of consumer

overall affective encounter (Honea & Dahl, 2005), it would be interesting to study how promotion affect

interacts with other affective aspects of the encounter, and how this interaction influences consumer

propensity to purchase on impulse. It would also be invaluable to study the role of each single emotion (e.g.,

excited) and cognition (e.g., exploration) separately and investigate how they interact and contribute to the

overall impulse buying situation.

Another limitation of this research is about not considering the important role of brands and brand loyalty.

Brand loyalty is defined as a consistent purchase of a particular brand due to a favourable attitude and

attachment that a consumer experiences towards the brand (Podoshen, 2008; Wilkie, 1994). Interestingly, the

relationship between brand loyalty and impulse buying did not catch enough attention in the literature. Only

recently, Šeinauskienė et al. (2015) showed that brand loyalty is positively related to impulse buying tendency.

More particularly, they found a positive link between brand loyalty and affective facet of impulse buying

tendency, associated with feelings of pleasure and excitement, an urge to buy, the difficulty to leave things,

and possible regret afterwards (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). These findings are in line with Podoshen and

69

Andrzejewski (2012) who showed a positive relationship between materialism and impulse buying and

between materialism and brand loyalty. Based on these findings, it is reasonable to conclude that impulsive

consumers are highly prone to purchase their favourite brands on impulse. In this regard, a relevant interesting

research question is how impulsive consumers react towards the brands to which they are not loyal. A

comment by Dabholkar (1999) may provide a preliminary answer to this question; the conceptualization of

loyalty would be less applicable for understanding the situations where consumers buy low-risk, frequently-

purchased brands, or when impulse buying or variety seeking happen. Future research is recommended to

investigate this question in details. Moreover, the results of this dissertation showed that the presence of sales

promotions increase impulsive purchases among consumers. In this regard, it would be interesting to

investigate how this impulse buying increase can influence consumer brand loyalty in short-term as well as in

long-term. To answer this question, a finding by Banerjee and Saha (2012) would be of great value. They

noted that sales promotions temporarily enhance the value of an offer, motivate consumers to buy now rather

than in future, and encourage brand switching among consumers. Given that brand loyalty is mainly expressed

in terms of revealed behaviour (Uncles et al., 2003), it may imply that the pervasive use of sales promotions in

today’s market (Neff, 2009; Raghubir et al., 2004) can result in the decrease of brand loyalty among

consumers. This hypothesis should be verified in future research.

Moreover, past research showed that atmosphere and physical aspects of the retailing environment affect

consumer mood and shopping behaviour (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Martínez-Ruiz et al., 2010; Peck & Childers,

2006). In the context of impulse buying, Beatty and Ferrell (1998) demonstrated that in a store with a pleasant

environment, consumers experience higher positive affect and spend more time browsing in the store, which in

turn lead to more impulsive purchases. Kacen et al. (2012) studied the influence of store environment on

consumer impulse buying. Every day-low-price (EDLP) stores typically have a discount retailing environment

where low prices and limited store atmosphere are provided. On the other hand, high-low-promotion strategy

(HiLo) stores typically provide consumers with a more sensory-based atmosphere (using music, lighting, etc.)

and higher service levels (Hoch et al., 1994). Kacen et al. (2012)’s study about consumer impulsive behaviours

in EDLP and HiLo stores showed that products in a HiLo store are more likely to be purchased on impulse

than are products in an EDLP store. Another interesting direction for future research would be to examine

consumer impulsive promotional responses in EDLP and HiLo stores and investigate how the store

environment (EDLP vs. HiLo) moderates cognitive–affective psychological correlates of promotional impulse

buying.

This research examined the moderating role of three different factors on the process of impulse buying of

promoted products, including one environmental factor (i.e., sales promotion category) and two consumer

personality factors (i.e., buying impulsiveness trait and deal-proneness trait). An interesting direction for future

70

research would be to investigate how other relevant factors (e.g., gender, age, income, culture, product

category experience, product involvement, shopping involvement) moderate this process. It is also noteworthy

that this research is the first study about the differences and similarities between buying impulsiveness trait

and deal-proneness trait. Although our hypotheses about the differential influence of hedonic and utilitarian

promotion cognitions were grounded on past research findings, the comparison of other causal links was

mostly exploratory. Future research needs to investigate the reasons behind our exploratory findings in more

details. The last point is related to our sample, which was a young, educated sample with relatively limited

financial resources. To generalize our findings, future research should replace our study using a sample with

more diverse socio-demographic characteristics.

71

Reference

Aaker, David A, Stayman, Douglas M, & Vezina, Richard. (1988). Identifying feelings elicited by advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 5(1), 1-16.

Abelson, Robert P, Kinder, Donald R, Peters, Mark D, & Fiske, Susan T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of personality and social psychology, 42(4), 619.

Abrahams, Ben. (1997). It’s all in the mind. Marketing, 27(1), 31-33. Adelaar, Thomas, Chang, Susan, Lancendorfer, Karen M, Lee, Byoungkwan, & Morimoto, Mariko. (2003).

Effects of media formats on emotions and impulse buying intent. Journal of Information Technology, 18(4), 247-266.

Ailawadi, Kusum L, Neslin, Scott A, & Gedenk, Karen. (2001). Pursuing the value-conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. Journal of marketing, 65(1), 71-89.

Ajzen, Icek. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 27-58. Alford, Bruce L, & Biswas, Abhijit. (2002). The effects of discount level, price consciousness and sale

proneness on consumers' price perception and behavioral intention. Journal of Business research, 55(9), 775-783.

Allen, Chris T, Machleit, Karen A, & Kleine, Susan Schultz. (1992). A comparison of attitudes and emotions as predictors of behavior at diverse levels of behavioral experience. Journal of consumer research, 18(4), 493-504.

Anderson, James C, & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.

Applebaum, William. (1951). Studying customer behavior in retail stores. The Journal of Marketing, 16(2), 172-178.

Arnould, E., Price, L. , & Zinkhan, G. (2004). Consumers (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Babakus, Emin, Tat, Peter, & Cunningham, William. (1988). Coupon redemption: A motivational perspective.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5(2), 37-43. Babin, Barry J, & Attaway, Jill S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of

customer. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 91-99. Bagozzi, Richard P, Baumgartner, Hans, & Yi, Youjae. (1992). State versus action orientation and the theory

of reasoned action: an application to coupon usage. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 505-518. Banerjee, Sonali, & Saha, Sunetra. (2012). Impulse buying behaviour in retail stores–Triggering the senses.

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review, 1(2), 1-21. Bargh, John A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior, and

motivation. Journal of consumer research, 29(2), 280-285. Baron, Reuben M, & Kenny, David A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Batra, Rajeev, & Ahtola, Olli T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing letters, 2(2), 159-170.

Batra, Rajeev, & Ray, Michael L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of consumer research, 13(2), 234-249.

Baun, Dorothea, & Gröppel-Klein, Andrea. (2003). Joy and surprise as guides to a better understanding of impulse buying behaviour. European advances in consumer research, 6, 290-299.

Bawa, Kapil, & Shoemaker, Robert W. (1987). The coupon-prone consumer: some findings based on purchase behavior across product classes. The Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 99-110.

Bearden, William O, Hardesty, David M, & Rose, Randall L. (2001). Consumer self‐confidence: refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121-134.

Bearden, William O, Lichtenstein, Donald R, & Teel, Jesse E. (1984). Comparison price, coupon, and brand effects on consumer reactions to retail newspaper advertisements. Journal of Retailing, 60(2), 11-34.

72

Beatty, Sharon E, & Ferrell, M Elizabeth (1998). Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 169-191.

Berkowitz, Eric N, & Walton, John R. (1980). Contextual influences on consumer price responses: an experimental analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(3), 349-358.

Berkowitz, Leonard. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. Biswas, Abhijit, & Blair, Edward A. (1991). Contextual effects of reference prices in retail advertisements. The

Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 1-12. Blair, Edward A., & Landon, E. Laird, Jr. . (1979). The Effects of Reference Prices in Retail Advertisements.

Working Paper, University of Houston, 45(2). Blattberg, R.C., & Neslin, S.A. (1990). Sales promotion: Concepts, methods, and strategies: Prentice Hall

Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Blattberg, R.C., & Neslin, S.A. (1993). Sales promotion models. In J. Eliashberg & G. Lilien (Eds.), Handbooks

in Operations Research and Management Science: Marketing Models (pp. 553-609). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Blattberg, Robert, Buesing, Thomas, Peacock, Peter, & Sen, Subrata. (1978). Identifying the deal prone segment. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(3), 369-377.

BMO Financial Group. (2012). BMO Psychology of Spending Report: Impulse Shopping a Costly Habit for Canadians. [online] https://newsroom.bmo.com/press-releases/bmo-psychology-of-spending-report-impulse-shoppin-tsx-bmo-201209250821167001

Bodenhausen, Galen V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect and stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (Vol. xiv, pp. 13-37). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

Buil, Isabel, de Chernatony, Leslie, & Montaner, Teresa. (2013). Factors influencing consumer evaluations of gift promotions. European Journal of Marketing, 47(3/4), 574-595.

Burke, Marian Chapman, & Edell, Julie A. (1989). The impact of feelings on ad-based affect and cognition. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(1), 69-83.

Burroughs, James E. (1996). Product symbolism, self meaning, and holistic matching: the role of information processing in impulsive buying. Advances in Consumer Research, 23(1), 463-469.

Campbell, Margaret C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of marketing research, 36(2), 187-199.

Chandon, Pierre. (1995). Consumer research on sales promotions: A state‐of‐the‐art literature review∗. Journal of Marketing Management, 11(5), 419-441.

Chandon, Pierre, Wansink, Brian, & Laurent, Gilles. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. The Journal of marketing, 64(4), 65-81.

Chang, Hyo-Jung, Eckman, Molly, & Yan, Ruoh-Nan. (2011). Application of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model to the retail environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse buying behavior. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 21(3), 233-249.

Chen, Shih-Fen S, Monroe, Kent B, & Lou, Yung-Chien. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion messages on consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of retailing, 74(3), 353-372.

Chitturi, Ravindra, Raghunathan, Rajagopal, & Mahajan, Vijay. (2008). Delight by design: The role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 48-63.

Choi, Jungsil, Li, Yexin Jessica, Rangan, Priyamvadha, Chatterjee, Promothesh, & Singh, Surendra N. (2014). The odd-ending price justification effect: the influence of price-endings on hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(5), 545-557.

Christou, Evangelos. (2011). Exploring online sales promotions in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(7), 814-829.

Cobb, Cathy J, & Hoyer, Wayne D. (1986). Planned versus impulse purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 62(4), 384-409.

Cohen, Joel B, & Areni, Charles S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. Handbook of consumer behavior, 4(7), 188-240.

73

Cohen, Joel B, Pham, Michel Tuan, & Andrade, Eduardo B. (2008). The nature and role of affect in consumer behavior.

Cox, Keith. (1964). The responsiveness of food sales to shelf space changes in supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(2), 63-67.

d'Astous, Alain, & Jacob, Isabelle. (2002). Understanding consumer reactions to premium-based promotional offers. European Journal of Marketing, 36(11/12), 1270-1286.

d'Astous, Alain, & Landreville, Valerie. (2003). An experimental investigation of factors affecting consumers' perceptions of sales promotions. European Journal of Marketing, 37(11/12), 1746-1761.

Dabholkar, P.A. (1999). Expectancy value models. In P. E. Earl & S. Kemp (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Consumer Research and Economic Psychology (pp. 201‐208.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descarres'error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Putnam. Damasio, Antonio R. (2000). The feeling of what happens: Body, emotion and the making of consciousness:

Vintage. Davis, Scott, Inman, J Jeffrey, & McAslister, Leigh. (1992). Promotion has a negative effect on brand

evaluations: Or does it? Additional disconfirming evidence. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 143-148.

Dawson, Sandy, & Kim, Minjeong. (2009). External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying online. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(1), 20-34.

Della Bitta, Albert J, Monroe, Kent B, & McGinnis, John M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(4), 416-427.

DelVecchio, Devon. (2005). Deal‐prone consumers' response to promotion: The effects of relative and absolute promotion value. Psychology & Marketing, 22(5), 373-391.

Depue, Richard A, & Collins, Paul F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extraversion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 491-517.

Derbaix, Christian, & Pham, Michel T. (1991). Affective reactions to consumption situations: A pilot investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(2), 325-355.

Dholakia, Utpal M. (2000). Temptation and resistance: an integrated model of consumption impulse formation and enactment. Psychology & Marketing, 17(11), 955-982.

Diamond, William D, & Johnson, Robert R. (1990). The framing of sales promotions: an approach to classification. Advances in consumer research, 17(1), 494-500.

Dittmar, Helga, Beattie, Jane, & Friese, Susanne. (1995). Gender identity and material symbols: Objects and decision considerations in impulse purchases. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(3), 491-511.

Donovan, Robert J, Rossiter, John R, Marcoolyn, Gilian, & Nesdale, Andrew. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of retailing, 70(3), 283-294.

Economides, Steve, & Economides, Annette. (2007). America's Cheapest Family Gets You Right on the Money: Your Guide to Living Better, Spending Less, and Cashing in on Your Dreams: The Doubleday Religious Publishing Group

Edell, Julie A, & Burke, Marian Chapman. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal of Consumer research, 14(3), 421-433.

Edwards, Kari. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(2), 202.

Eysenck, H.J. , & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences – A Natural Science Approach. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Fam, Kim-Shyan, Cyril de Run, Ernest, Shukla, Paurav, Teck Weng, Jee, & Cyril de Run, Ernest. (2013). Consumers' personal values and sales promotion preferences effect on behavioural intention and purchase satisfaction for consumer product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(1), 70-101.

Fearne, Andrew, Donaldson, Adam, & Norminton, Phil. (1999). The impact of alternative promotion strategies on the spirits category: evidence from the UK. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(5), 430-443.

74

Feinberg, Fred M, Krishna, Aradhna, & Zhang, Z John. (2002). Do we care what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. Journal of Marketing research, 39(3), 277-291.

Fiore, Ann Marie, & Kim, Jihyun. (2007). An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(6), 421-442.

Fishbach, Ayelet, Friedman, Ronald S, & Kruglanski, Arie W. (2003). Leading us not into temptation: Momentary allurements elicit overriding goal activation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(2), 296.

Folkes, Valerie, & Wheat, Rita D. (1995). Consumers' price perceptions of promoted products. Journal of Retailing, 71(3), 317-328.

Gardner, Meryl P, & Rook, Dennis W. (1988). Effects of impulse purchases on consumers’ affective states. Advances in consumer research, 15(1), 127-130.

Gardner, Meryl P, & Strang, Roger A. (1984). Consumer response to promotions: some new perspectives. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 420-425.

Gazquez-Abad, Juan C, & Sanchez-Perez, Manuel. (2009). Characterising the deal-proneness of consumers by analysis of price sensitivity and brand loyalty: An analysis in the retail environment. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 19(1), 1-28.

Gerbing, David W, Ahadi, Stephen A, & Patton, Jim H. (1987). Toward a conceptualization of impulsivity: Components across the behavioral and self-report domains. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22(3), 357-379.

Gijsbrechts, Els, Campo, Katia, & Goossens, Tom. (2003). The impact of store flyers on store traffic and store sales: a geo-marketing approach. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 1-16.

Giner-Sorolla, Roger. (2001). Guilty pleasures and grim necessities: affective attitudes in dilemmas of self-control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(2), 206.

Goldenson, Robert M. (1984). Longman Dictionary Of Psychology And Psyvhiatry. Gorn, Gerald J, Goldberg, Marvin E, & Basu, Kunal. (1993). Mood, awareness, and product evaluation.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 237-256. Gray, Jeffrey A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in

Personality, 21(4), 493-509. Gray, Jeffrey A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion, 4(3),

269-288. Greenwald, Anthony G, Banaji, Mahzarin R, Rudman, Laurie A, Farnham, Shelly D, Nosek, Brian A, & Mellott,

Deborah S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological review, 109(1), 3.

Grewal, Dhruv, Marmorstein, Howard, & Sharma, Arun. (1996). Communicating price information through semantic cues: the moderating effects of situation and discount size. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 148-155.

Gupta, Sunil, & Cooper, Lee G. (1992). The discounting of discounts and promotion thresholds. Journal of consumer research, 19(3), 401-411.

Hackleman, Edwin C, & Duker, Jacob M. (1980). Deal proneness and heavy usage: Merging two market segmentation criteria. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8(4), 332-344.

Hardesty, David M, & Bearden, William O. (2003). Consumer evaluations of different promotion types and price presentations: the moderating role of promotional benefit level. Journal of Retailing, 79(1), 17-25.

Hausman, Angela. (2000). A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying behavior. Journal of consumer marketing, 17(5), 403-426.

Havlena, William J, & Holbrook, Morris B. (1986). The varieties of consumption experience: comparing two typologies of emotion in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 394-404.

Heilman, Carrie M, Nakamoto, Kent, & Rao, Ambar G. (2002). Pleasant surprises: Consumer response to unexpected in-store coupons. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 242-252.

Henderson, Caroline M. (1988). The Interaction of Coupons With Price and Store Promotions. Advances in consumer research, 15(1), 364-371.

75

Herabadi, Astrid G, Verplanken, Bas, & Van Knippenberg, Ad. (2009). Consumption experience of impulse buying in Indonesia: Emotional arousal and hedonistic considerations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 20-31.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C, & Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. The Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

Hoch, Stephen J, Drèze, Xavier, & Purk, Mary. (1994). EDLP, Hi-Lo, and Margin Arithmetic. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 16-27.

Hoch, Stephen J, & Loewenstein, George F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492-507.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the consumption experience. In R. Rust & R. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. California: Sage.

Honea, Heather, & Dahl, Darren W. (2005). The promotion affect scale: defining the affective dimensions of promotion. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 543-551.

Hoyer, W D, & MacInnis, D J. (2001). Consumer Behavior (2nd edn. ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Hsee, Christopher K. (1996). Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 122-129.

Hu, Li‐tze, & Bentler, Peter M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Hull, Clark L. (1934). The rat's speed-of-locomotion gradient in the approach to food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17(3), 393.

Inman, J Jeffrey, & McAlister, Leigh. (1994). Do coupon expiration dates affect consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 423-428.

Inman, J Jeffrey, McAlister, Leigh, & Hoyer, Wayne D. (1990). Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut? Journal of consumer research, 17(1), 74-81.

Inman, J Jeffrey, Peter, Anil C, & Raghubir, Priya. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 68-79.

Jalan, Nikhil. (2006). Impulse buying, personality traits, in-store atmospherics, and their interaction. United Kingdom: University of Nottingham.

Jamal, Ahmad, Peattie, Sue, & Peattie, Ken. (2012). Ethnic minority consumers' responses to sales promotions in the packaged food market. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1), 98-108.

Jones, Michael A, Reynolds, Kristy E, Weun, Seungoog, & Beatty, Sharon E. (2003). The product-specific nature of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 505-511.

Kacen, Jacqueline J, Hess, James D, & Walker, Doug. (2012). Spontaneous selection: The influence of product and retailing factors on consumer impulse purchases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 578-588.

Kahn, Barbara E, & Louie, Therese A. (1990). Effects of retraction of price promotions on brand choice behavior for variety-seeking and last-purchase-loyal consumers. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 279-289.

Kalla, Supriya M, & Arora, AP. (2011). Impulse buying a literature review. Global Business Review, 12(1), 145-157.

Kalwani, Manohar U, & Yim, Chi Kin. (1992). Consumer price and promotion expectations: an experimental study. Journal of marketing Research, 29(1), 90-100.

Kalwani, Manohar U, Yim, Chi Kin, Rinne, Heikki J, & Sugita, Yoshi. (1990). A price expectations model of customer brand choice. Journal of Marketing research, 27(3), 251-262.

Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy, & Winer, Russell S. (1995). Empirical generalizations from reference price research. Marketing Science, 14(3 supplement), G161-G169.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

76

Kelley, Harold H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American psychologist, 28(2), 107. Kim, Hyeong Min. (2006). Consumers’ responses to price presentation formats in rebate advertisements.

Journal of Retailing, 82(4), 309-317. Kivetz, Ran, & Keinan, Anat. (2006). Repenting Hyperopia: An Analysis of Self‐Control Regrets. Journal of

Consumer Research, 33(2), 273-282. Kwok, Simon, & Uncles, Mark. (2005). Sales promotion effectiveness: the impact of consumer differences at

an ethnic-group level. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 170-186. Laroche, Michel, Pons, Frank, Zgolli, Nadia, Cervellon, Marie-Cecile, & Kim, Chankon. (2003). A model of

consumer response to two retail sales promotion techniques. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 513-522.

Laroche, Michel, Pons, Frank, Zgolli, Nadia, & Kim, Chankon. (2001). Consumers use of price promotions: a model and its potential moderators. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(5), 251-260.

Lattin, James M, & Bucklin, Randolph E. (1989). Reference effects of price and promotion on brand choice behavior. Journal of Marketing research, 26(3), 299-310.

Lavine, Howard, Thomsen, Cynthia J, Zanna, Mark P, & Borgida, Eugene. (1998). On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of experimental social psychology, 34(4), 398-421.

Lazarus, Richard S. (1991a). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American psychologist, 46(4), 352. Lazarus, Richard S. (1991b). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American

psychologist, 46(8), 819. LeDoux, Joseph E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual review of psychology, 46(1), 209-235. LeDoux, Joseph E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lee, Grace Yuna, & Yi, Youjae. (2008). The effect of shopping emotions and perceived risk on impulsive

buying: the moderating role of buying impulsiveness trait. Seoul Journal of Business, 14(2), 69-92. Levy, M, & Weitz, B A. (2007). Retailing management Boston. Irwin: McGraw-Hill. Lewis, Gerard. (1993). The Impulse Zone. NPN, National Petroleum News, 85(4), 24. Liao, Shu-Ling, Shen, Yung-Cheng, & Chu, Chia-Hsien. (2009). The effects of sales promotion strategy,

product appeal and consumer traits on reminder impulse buying behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 274-284.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, & Bearden, William O. (1986). Measurement and structure of Kelley's covariance theory. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 290-296.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, & Bearden, William O. (1989). Contextual influences on perceptions of merchant-supplied reference prices. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 55-66.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Burton, Scot, & Netemeyer, Richard G. (1997a). An examination of deal proneness across sales promotion types: a consumer segmentation perspective. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 283-297.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Burton, Scot, & Netemeyer, Richard G. (1997b). Psychological Correlates of a Proneness to Deals: A Domain-Specific Analysis. Advances in consumer research, 24(1), 274-280.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Netemeyer, Richard G, & Burton, Scot. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. The Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54-67.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Netemeyer, Richard G, & Burton, Scot. (1991). Using a theoretical perspective to examine the psychological construct of coupon proneness. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 501-508.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Netemeyer, Richard G, & Burton, Scot. (1995). Assessing the domain specificity of deal proneness: a field study. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 314-326.

Lichtenstein, Donald R, Ridgway, Nancy M, & Netemeyer, Richard G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-245.

Lin, Yi-Hsiu, & Chen, Chen-Yueh. (2012). Adolescents' impulse buying: susceptibility to interpersonal influence and fear of negative evaluation. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 40(3), 353-358.

77

Machleit, Karen A, & Eroglu, Sevgin A. (1993). Atmospheric factors in the retail environment: sights, sounds and smells. Advances in consumer research, 20(1), 34.

Mano, Haim, & Oliver, Richard L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer research, 20(3), 451-466.

Martínez-Ruiz, María Pilar, Jiménez-Zarco, Ana Isabel, & Izquierdo-Yusta, Alicia. (2010). Customer satisfaction's key factors in Spanish grocery stores: Evidence from hypermarkets and supermarkets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(4), 278-285.

Martínez, Eva, & Montaner, Teresa. (2006). The effect of consumer's psychographic variables upon deal-proneness. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(3), 157-168.

Mattila, Anna S, & Wirtz, Jochen. (2008). The role of store environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(7), 562-567.

Mayhew, Glenn E, & Winer, Russell S. (1992). An empirical analysis of internal and external reference prices using scanner data. Journal of Consumer research, 19(1), 62-70.

Mehrabian, Albert, & Wixen, Warren J. (1986). Preferences for individual video games as a function of their emotional effects on players. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(1), 3-15.

Miao, Li. (2011). Guilty pleasure or pleasurable guilt? Affective experience of impulse buying in hedonic-driven consumption. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(1), 79-101.

Mick, David Glen, & DeMoss, Michelle. (1990). Self-gifts: Phenomenological insights from four contexts. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 322-332.

Mihić, Mirela, & Kursan, Ivana. (2010). Assessing the situational factors and impulsive buying behavior: Market segmentation approach. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 15(2), 47-66.

Mishra, Hari Govind, Sinha, Piyush Kumar, & Koul, Surabhi. (2014). Buying Impulsive Trait: An effective moderator for shopping emotions and perceived risk. Journal of Management Research, 14(2), 109.

Mishra, Uma Sankar, Das, Jyoti Ranjan, Mishra, Bibhuti Bhusan, & Mishra, Pallavi. (2012). Perceived benefit analysis of sales promotion: a case of consumer durables. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 98, 145-154.

Mittal, Banwari. (1994). An integrated framework for relating diverse consumer characteristics to supermarket coupon redemption. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 533-544.

Mohan, Geetha, Sivakumaran, Bharadhwaj, & Sharma, Piyush. (2013). Impact of store environment on impulse buying behavior. European Journal of Marketing, 47(10), 1711-1732.

Montague, P Read, Hyman, Steven E, & Cohen, Jonathan D. (2004). Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control. Nature, 431(7010), 760-767.

Montaner, Teresa, de Chernatony, Leslie, & Buil, Isabel. (2011). Consumer response to gift promotions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20(2), 101-110.

Mulhern, Francis J, & Padgett, Daniel T. (1995). The relationship between retail price promotions and regular price purchases. The Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 83-90.

Narasimhan, Chakravarthi. (1984). A price discrimination theory of coupons. Marketing Science, 3(2), 128-147. Narasimhan, Chakravarthi, Neslin, Scott A, & Sen, Subrata K. (1996). Promotional elasticities and category

characteristics. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 17-30. Naylor, Rebecca Walker, Raghunathan, Rajagopal, & Ramanathan, Suresh. (2006). Promotions

spontaneously induce a positive evaluative response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 295-305.

Neff, J. (2009). P&G taking its marketing back to the store. Advertising Age September, 21. Neslin, Scott A, Henderson, Caroline, & Quelch, John. (1985). Consumer promotions and the acceleration of

product purchases. Marketing science, 4(2), 147-165. Neslin, Scott A, & Shoemaker, Robert W. (1989). An alternative explanation for lower repeat rates after

promotion purchases. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2). Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Implicit attitude. In P. Wilken, T. Bayne & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Oxford

companion to consciousness Oxford (pp. 84-85). UK: Oxford University Press. Okada, Erica Mina. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of

Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.

78

Oliver, Richard L. (1994). Conceptual issues in the structural analysis of consumption emotion, satisfaction, and quality: evidence in a service setting. Advances in consumer research, 21, 16-16.

Oliver, Richard L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Olson, Michael A, & Fazio, Russell H. (2001). Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning.

Psychological Science, 12(5), 413-417. Palazon, Mariola, & Delgado-Ballester, Elena. (2013). Hedonic or utilitarian premiums: does it matter? .

European Journal of Marketing, 47(8), 7-7. Park, Eun Joo, Kim, Eun Young, & Forney, Judith Cardona. (2006). A structural model of fashion-oriented

impulse buying behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(4), 433-446.

Park, Jihye, & Lennon, Sharron J. (2006). Psychological and environmental antecedents of impulse buying tendency in the multichannel shopping context. Journal of consumer Marketing, 23(2), 56-66.

Paternoster, Raymond, Brame, Robert, Mazerolle, Paul, & Piquero, Alex. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859-866.

Pechtl, Hans. (2004). Profiling intrinsic deal proneness for HILO and EDLP price promotion strategies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11(4), 223-233.

Peck, Joann, & Childers, Terry L. (2006). If I touch it I have to have it: Individual and environmental influences on impulse purchasing. Journal of business research, 59(6), 765-769.

Peine, Klaus, Heitmann, Mark, & Herrmann, Andreas. (2009). Getting a feel for price affect: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of consumers' emotional responses to price information. Psychology & Marketing, 26(1), 39-66.

Pham, Michel Tuan. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of feelings in decision making. Journal of consumer research, 25(2), 144-159.

Pham, Michel Tuan. (2004). The logic of feeling. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 360-369. Pham, Michel Tuan. (2007). Emotion and rationality: A critical review and interpretation of empirical evidence.

Review of general psychology, 11(2), 155. Pham, Michel Tuan, Cohen, Joel B, Pracejus, John W, & Hughes, G David. (2001). Affect monitoring and the

primacy of feelings in judgment. Journal of consumer research, 28(2), 167-188. Podoshen, Jeffrey S, & Andrzejewski, Susan A. (2012). An examination of the relationships between

materialism, conspicuous consumption, impulse buying, and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(3), 319-334.

Podoshen, Jeffrey Steven. (2008). The African American consumer revisited: brand loyalty, word-of-mouth and the effects of the black experience. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(4), 211-222.

Pollara Survey. (2002). English-Language Book Buyers in British Columbia, Canada. http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1290797114127/1290797724067

Prelec, Drazen, & Loewenstein, George. (1998). The red and the black: Mental accounting of savings and debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4-28.

Price, Linda L, Feick, Lawrence F, & Guskey-Federouch, Audrey. (1988). Couponing behaviors of the market maven: profile of a super couponer. Advances in consumer research, 15(1), 354-359.

Priya, Dang Jha. (2004). A Review of Theoretical Perspectives Applied to Sales Promotion and a New Perspective based on Mental Accounting Theory: Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.

Puri, Radhika. (1996). Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness: A cost-benefit accessibility framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 87-113.

Raghubir, Priya, & Corfman, Kim. (1999). When do price promotions affect pretrial brand evaluations? Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 211-222.

Raghubir, Priya, Inman, J Jeffrey, & Grande, Hans. (2004). The three faces of consumer promotions. California Management Review, 46(4), 23-42.

Raghunathan, Rajagopal, Pham, Michel T, & Corfman, Kim P. (2006). Informational properties of anxiety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(4), 596-601.

79

Raju, PS, & Hastak, Manoj. (1980). Consumer response to deals: a discussion of theoretical perspectives. Advances in Consumer Research, 7(1), 296-301.

Ramanathan, Suresh, & Menon, Geeta. (2002). Hedonic Motives, Spontaneous Affect and Impulsive Behavior: working paper, Department of Marketing, Leonard B. Stern School of Business, New York University, New York 10012.

Ramanathan, Suresh, & Menon, Geeta. (2006). Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on impulsive behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 628-641.

Ramaswamy, Venkatram, & Srinivasan, Srini S. (1998). Coupon characteristics and redemption intentions: a segment-level analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 15(1), 59-80.

Richins, Marsha L. (1997). Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. Journal of consumer research, 24(2), 127-146.

Rook, Dennis W. (1987). The buying impulse. The Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199. Rook, Dennis W, & Fisher, Robert J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of

consumer research, 22(3), 305-313. Rook, Dennis W, & Gardner, Meryl P. (1993). In the mood: impulse buying’s affective antecedents. Research

in consumer behavior, 6(7), 1-28. Rook, Dennis W, & Hoch, Stephen J. (1985). Consuming impulses. Advances in consumer research, 12(1),

23-27. Ruvio, Ayalla A, & Belk, Russell W. (2013). The Routledge companion to identity and consumption: Routledge. Schindler, Robert M. (1989). The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses concerning the origins and

effects of smart-shopper feelings. Advances in consumer research, 16(1), 447-453. Schneider, Linda G, & Currim, Imran S. (1991). Consumer purchase behaviors associated with active and

passive deal-proneness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(3), 205-222. Schultz, Don E, & Robinson, William A. (1982). Sales promotion management: Crain Books Chicago. Schwarz, Norbert. (1990). Feelings as information: informational and motivational functions of affective states.

In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (pp. 527-562). New York: Guilford Press.

Schwarz, Norbert. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-440. Schwarz, Norbert, & Clore, Gerald L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In A. W. Kruglanski (Ed.),

Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Scott, Carol A. (1976). The effects of trial and incentives on repeat purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing

Research, 13(3), 263-269. Šeinauskienė, Beata, Maščinskienė, Jūratė, & Jucaitytė, Indrė. (2015). The Relationship of Happiness,

Impulse Buying and Brand Loyalty. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 687-693. Sevdalis, Nick, Harvey, Nigel, & Yip, Michelle. (2006). Regret triggers inaction inertia–but which regret and

how? British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(4), 839-853. Shafir, Eldar, Simonson, Itamar, & Tversky, Amos. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49(1-2), 11-36. Sharma, Piyush, Sivakumaran, Bharadhwaj, & Marshall, Roger. (2010). Impulse buying and variety seeking: A

trait-correlates perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 276-283. Shimp, Terence A. (1993). Promotion management and marketing communications. Shimp, Terence A, & Kavas, Alican. (1984). The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage. Journal of

consumer research, 11(3), 795-809. Shirai, Miyuri. (2009). Investigation of emotional responses to an unexpected price. Australasian Marketing

Journal (AMJ), 17(1), 2-8. Shiv, Baba, & Fedorikhin, Alexander. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in

consumer decision making. Journal of consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292. Shiv, Baba, & Fedorikhin, Alexander. (2002). Spontaneous versus controlled influences of stimulus-based

affect on choice behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 342-370. Shukla, Paurav, & Babin, Barry J. (2013). Effects of consumer psychographics and store characteristics in

influencing shopping value and store switching. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), 194-203.

80

Silverstein, Michael, Silverstein, Michael J, & Butman, John. (2006). Treasure hunt: inside the mind of the new global consumer: Penguin.

Simonson, Itamar. (1992). The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 105-118.

Slovic, Paul, Finucane, Melissa, Peters, Ellen, & MacGregor, Donald G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-economics, 31(4), 329-342.

Sneath, Julie Z, Lacey, Russell, & Kennett-Hensel, Pamela A. (2009). Coping with a natural disaster: Losses, emotions, and impulsive and compulsive buying. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 45-60.

Sojka, Jane Z, & Giese, Joan L. (1997). Thinking and/or feeling: an examination of interaction between processing styles. Advances in Consumer Research, 24(1), 438-442.

Stern, Hawkins. (1962). The significance of impulse buying today. The Journal of Marketing, 26(2), 59-62. Stewart, David W., & Furse, David H. (1986). Effective television advertising: A study of 1000 commercials:

Lexington Books Lexington, MA. Storbeck, Justin, Robinson, Michael D, & McCourt, Mark E. (2006). Semantic processing precedes affect

retrieval: The neurological case for cognitive primacy in visual processing. Review of General Psychology, 10(1), 41.

Strahilevitz, Michal Ann, & Myers, John. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 434.

Strang, RA. (1983). Sales promotion research: contributions and issues. Paper presented at the AMA/MSI/PMAA Sales Promotion Workshop, Babson College.

Suri, Rajneesh, Manchanda, Rajesh V, & Kohli, Chiranjeev S. (2002). Comparing fixed price and discounted price strategies: the role of affect on evaluations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(3), 160-173.

Talukdar, Debabrata, Gauri, Dinesh K, & Grewal, Dhruv. (2010). An empirical analysis of the extreme cherry picking behavior of consumers in the frequently purchased goods market. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 336-354.

Tat, Peter K, & Bejou, David. (1994). Examining black consumer motives for coupon usage. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(2), 29-36.

Tendai, Mariri, & Crispen, Chipunza. (2009). In-store shopping environment and impulsive buying. African Journal of Marketing Management, 1(4), 102-108.

Tesser, A. , & Martin, L. (1996). The psychology of evaluation. In A. W. Kruglanski, & Higgins, E. T. (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. (pp. 948). New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.

Thaler, Richard. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing science, 4(3), 199-214. Tsiros, Michael. (2009). Releasing the regret lock: Consumer response to new alternatives after a sale.

Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1039-1059. Tsiros, Michael, & Hardesty, David M. (2010). Ending a price promotion: retracting it in one step or phasing it

out gradually. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 49-64. Uncles, Mark D, Dowling, Grahame R, & Hammond, Kathy. (2003). Customer loyalty and customer loyalty

programs. Journal of consumer marketing, 20(4), 294-316. Urbany, Joel E, Bearden, William O, & Weilbaker, Dan C. (1988). The effect of plausible and exaggerated

reference prices on consumer perceptions and price search. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 95-110.

Van Trijp, Hans CM, Hoyer, Wayne D, & Inman, J Jeffrey. (1996). Why switch? Product category: level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 281-292.

Verplanken, Bas, & Herabadi, Astrid. (2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of personality, 15(S1), S71-S83.

Verplanken, Bas, Herabadi, Astrid G, Perry, Judith A, & Silvera, David H. (2005). Consumer style and health: The role of impulsive buying in unhealthy eating. Psychology & Health, 20(4), 429-441.

Verplanken, Bas, & Sato, Ayana. (2011). The psychology of impulse buying: An integrative self-regulation approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(2), 197-210.

81

Vohs, Kathleen D, & Faber, Ronald J. (2007). Spent resources: Self‐regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547.

Wakefield, Kirk L, & Barnes, James H. (1997). Retailing hedonic consumption: a model of sales promotion of a leisure service. Journal of Retailing, 72(4), 409-427.

Watson, David, & Tellegen, Auke. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological bulletin, 98(2), 219.

Weinberg, Peter, & Gottwald, Wolfgang. (1982). Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions. Journal of Business research, 10(1), 43-57.

Weun, Seungoog, Jones, Michael A, & Beatty, Sharon E. (1998). Development and validation of the impulse buying tendency scale. Psychological reports, 82(3c), 1123-1133.

Wilkie, W.L. (1994). Consumer Behavior. New York, NY. : John Wiley & Sons. Williams, Jerry, & Dardis, Rachel. (1972). Shopping behavior for soft goods and marketing strategies. Journal

of Retailing, 48(3), 32. Winer, Russell S. (1986). A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased products. Journal

of consumer research, 13(2), 250-256. Xiao, Sarah Hong, & Nicholson, Michael. (2012). A Multidisciplinary Cognitive Behavioural Framework of

Impulse Buying: A Systematic Review of the Literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 333-356.

Yoo, Changjo, Park, Jonghee, & MacInnis, Deborah J. (1998). Effects of store characteristics and in-store emotional experiences on store attitude. Journal of Business Research, 42(3), 253-263.

Youn, Seounmi, & Faber, Ronald J. (2000). Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues. Advances in consumer research, 27(1), 179-185.

Yu, Chunling, & Bastin, Mike. (2010). Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in transitional economies: A symbiosis in the Mainland China marketplace. Journal of Brand Management, 18(2), 105-114.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. The Journal of marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

Zentes, Joachim, Morschett, Dirk, & Schramm-Klein, Hanna. (2007). Strategic retail management. Germany: Springer.

Zhou, Lianxi, & Wong, Amy. (2004). Consumer impulse buying and in-store stimuli in Chinese supermarkets. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 37-53.

82

Appendix

This appendix presents few examples of promotional situations used in this research.

83