Impulse Buying and Variety Seeking:

A Trait-Correlates Perspective

Piyush Sharma, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai, India

Roger Marshall, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

March 2009

Send correspondence to Piyush Sharma, Department of Management and Marketing,

Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong,

Phone: +852-2766-7367, Fax: +852-2765-0611 (Email: mspiyush@inet.polyu.edu.hk).

Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai 600 015, India, Phone:

+9144-4312-3126 ext 14 (E-mail: bwaj@greatlakes.edu.in). Roger Marshall, Department of

Marketing and Advertising, Faculty of Business, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland,

New Zealand, Phone: +649-921-9999 ext 5478 (Email: roger.marshall@aut.ac.nz).

1

ABSTRACT

Impulse buying and variety seeking are low-effort feelings-based behaviors, yet the

similarities and differences in their socio-psychological origin are under-explored. This article

addresses this gap with a conceptual framework incorporating several individual and situational

factors with a focus on three relevant consumer traits – consumer impulsiveness (CI), optimum

stimulation level (OSL), and self-monitoring (SM). Findings from a survey with retail shoppers

about their actual purchase decisions show that both CI and OSL have a positive association with

the level of impulse buying and variety seeking. However, CI is more strongly associated with

impulse buying and OSL with variety seeking. Moreover, SM relates negatively with impulse

buying and positively with variety seeking; it also moderates the influence of CI and OSL on

both the behaviors in opposite directions. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of this

research, its limitations and some directions for future research.

Keywords: Change-seeking, impulse buying, impulsiveness, optimum stimulation level,

self-monitoring, variety seeking

2

Impulse Buying and Variety Seeking

A Trait-Correlates Perspective

INTRODUCTION

Impulse buying is a major research issue among consumer behavior researchers not only

because of its complexities but also its wide-spread prevalence across a broad range of product

categories (Applebaum 1951; Baumeister 2002; Beatty and Ferrell 1998; Clover 1950; Kacen

and Lee 2002; Ramanathan and Menon 2006; Rook 1987; Vohs and Faber 2007; West 1951).

Similarly, variety seeking is an important determinant of consumer choice and receives much

attention in consumer behavior literature (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996; Inman 2001;

McAlister and Pessemier 1982; Ratner and Kahn 2002; Van Trijp, Hoyer and Inman 1996)

Prior research categorizes both these behaviors as hedonic purchase behaviors

associating with feelings and psychosocial motivations rather than thinking and functional

benefits (Baumgartner 2002); as examples of low-effort decision-making, associated more with

feelings rather than cognitive processing (Hoyer and Macinnis 2001, p. 265-269); and associated

with hedonic rather than utilitarian shopping motivations (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). Both

these behaviors also seem to have similar socio-psychological origins, as seen in their association

with similar individual traits such as consumer impulsiveness, variety seeking, sensation seeking,

and exploratory tendencies (Arnould, Price and Zinkhan 2004, p. 678-680).

Impulse buying relates positively with consumer impulsiveness (CI) trait (Puri 1996), and

variety seeking with optimum stimulation level (OSL) (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996). Both

these traits originate from similar personality traits such as impulsivity (Eysenck 1993) and

impulsive sensation seeking (Zuckerman 1993), yet there is no research exploring the influence

3

of CI on variety seeking or OSL on impulse buying. Moreover, despite evidence of contrasting

socio-normative influences on both these behaviors, for example, negative influence of self-

monitoring (SM) trait on impulse buying (Luo 2005) and positive on variety seeking (Ratner and

Kahn 2002) in private versus public consumption contexts, there is no research exploring the

moderating influence of SM on the association of CI and OSL with the level of impulse buying

and variety seeking. Hence, in the absence of a common conceptual framework, research on both

these behaviors remains largely independent of each other, across widely different empirical

settings, with little or no exchange of valuable concepts, constructs or methodologies.

This article addresses the above gap in the literature by developing a common conceptual

framework incorporating several individual and situational factors that influence both these

behaviors, with a focus on three relevant consumer traits - CI, OSL, and SM. The article also

describes several hypotheses about the similarities and differences in the association of these

three consumer traits with both the behaviors. Next, the article describes a survey-based study

with retail shoppers, which tests these hypotheses in a similar empirical setting. Finally, it

discusses the contribution of this research, its limitations and some directions for future research.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Several complementary models of purchase behavior are available in consumer research

such as utility-maximization, decision-making, behavioral-influence, hedonic, and meaning-

transfer perspectives (Arnould et al. 2004). However, impulse buying and variety seeking do not

conform to the so-called rational, economic or decision-making perspectives in consumer

behavior; and instead associate with complex hedonic psycho-social motivations and low-effort,

feeling-based decision-making (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Hoyer and Macinnis 2001).

4

Impulse buying is a sudden, compelling, hedonically complex purchase behavior in

which the rapidity of the impulse purchase decision precludes any thoughtful, deliberate

consideration of alternatives or future implications (Rook 1987). Hence, impulse buying relates

to high emotional activation, low cognitive control, and spontaneous behavior in the proximity of

an appealing object of attraction. On the other hand, variety seeking is a means of obtaining

stimulation in purchase behavior by alternating between familiar choice objects such as brands or

stores simply for the sake of change (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992), primarily a result of

boredom and attribute satiation (McAlister 1982), and a means for seeking one’s optimum

sensation level (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996). Hence, variety seeking does not display the

high emotional turmoil or rapid loss of self-control typically associated with impulse buying,

although they both provide consumers with excitement and novelty in their purchase

experiences, offer a change of pace and relief from boredom, which are typical characteristics of

exploratory purchase behaviors (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1992).

Baumgartner (2002) introduces a new three-dimensional typology of purchase behaviors

in which he categorizes impulse buying as a feeling-based, low purchase involvement and

spontaneous purchase behavior and variety seeking as a feeling-based, high involvement and

spontaneous exploratory behavior (Baumgartner 2002). However, the empirical evidence about

the association of purchase involvement with impulse buying is rather mixed; some believe that

impulse buying occurs only in low-value low-involvement product categories such as candies

and magazines (Kollat and Willett 1969), whereas recent studies demonstrate that it may indeed

be associated with high involvement purchase situations as well (Jones, Reynolds, Weun and

Beatty 2003). Variety seeking also associates with low involvement purchase situations (Van

Trijp et al. 1996) and is not always a spontaneous behavior (McAlister and Pessemier 1982).

5

In fact, Baumgartner (2002) calls for analyses of the relationships among scales

representing different forms of purchase behavior to yield useful insights into the structure of

purchase-related traits and also test the validity of his typology. In this research, the authors

respond to this call by examining CI, OSL, and SM, the traits associated with impulse buying

and variety seeking, two common purchase behaviors, using a common conceptual framework.

Trait Aspects of Impulse Buying and Variety Seeking

Most of the consumer traits that associate with impulse buying, including buying

impulsiveness (Rook and Fisher 1995), consumer impulsiveness (Puri 1996), shopping

enjoyment (Beatty and Ferrell 1998), impulse buying tendency (Beatty and Ferrell 1998) and

lack of self-control (Youn and Faber 2000); and those associated with variety seeking such as,

need for stimulation (Raju 1980) and optimum stimulation level (Baumgartner and Steenkamp

1996), seem to originate – in one form or the other – from a single personality trait called

impulsivity (Eysenck 1993) or impulsive sensation seeking (Zuckerman 1993).

Eysenck and Eysenck’s (1977) model of personality includes four specific dimensions of

impulsivity; impulsiveness, risk-taking, non-planning, and liveliness. Similarly, impulsiveness

and sensation seeking seem to have a significant overlap (Eysenck and Eysenck 1978). Some

consider impulsivity as an aspect of novelty seeking, calling it a biological tendency to respond

fast to novel stimuli (Cloninger, Przybeck and Svrakic 1991; Cloninger, Svrakic and Przybeck

1993); whereas others show four factors for trait impulsivity - lack of premeditation, sense of

urgency, lack of perseverance and sensation-seeking (Whiteside and Lynam 2001).

Zuckerman (1994) defines impulsive-sensation seeking (ImpSS) as the seeking of varied

novel, complex and intense sensations or experiences combined with a willingness to take

6

physical, social, legal and financial risks for such experiences. ImpSS associates with various so-

called non-rational behaviors; gambling and promotional games (McDaniel and Zuckerman

2003), binge eating and alcohol abuse (Kane, Loxton, Staiger and Dawe 2004), adventure sports

(Jack and Ronan 1998), lottery buying (Balabanis 2002), drug abuse (Robbins and Bryan 2004),

irresponsible sexual behavior and reckless driving (Zuckerman 2000).

CI and OSL (the traits associating with impulse buying and variety seeking respectively)

also relate with each other and with similar behavioral manifestations across various domains.

The link between these traits may also provide evidence for similar psychological origins for

both impulse buying and variety seeking. Hence, this study incorporates CI and OSL in a

common conceptual framework to study both these behaviors using a trait-correlates perspective.

Interpersonal Influences on Impulse Buying and Variety Seeking

Rook and Fisher (1995) show that consumers tend to have a greater impulsive urge to

buy, and a greater likelihood of doing so, when acting on impulse is socially appropriate and

rational. Others show that the nature of these normative influences on impulse buying behavior

may depend on the norms and values of the reference group such as parents versus peers (Luo

2005). For example, many parents try to instill a sense of responsibility in their children and

hence discourage impulse buying if they consider it as being wasteful and extravagant; whereas

peer group members may endorse impulse buying because it represents spontaneity and the

pursuit of hedonic goals irrespective of the possibility of their adverse long-term consequences.

However, like most other impulsive behaviors, impulse buying also appears to have negative

normative associations in general (Zuckerman 2000).

Research on variety seeking behavior shows that changing social situations require an

individual to select a variety of items appropriate to the demands of divergent contexts and

7

audiences (McAlister and Pessemier 1982). For example, a consumer shopping for clothes for

the new season may feel compelled to buy some clothes appropriate for formal occasions, some

for business meetings, and others for casual weekend outings with friends and family. Ariely and

Levav (2000) show that choosing something different from what others have chosen allows

consumers to assert their uniqueness and to get information about additional options as well.

Variety seeking is also greater when people make choices for others especially when they are

held accountable for their choices (Choi, Kim, Choi and Yi 2006). Moreover, Ratner and Kahn

(2002) show that individuals incorporate more variety in public than in private in order to make a

favorable impression on others, even if it meant choosing some of their non-favorite items.

Prior research identifies self-monitoring as an important trait in the context of socio-

normative influences on consumer behavior. Specifically, high self-monitors are more willing to

adapt their behavior in response to the expectations of their significant others, compared to low

self-monitors. For example, compared to low self-monitors, high self-monitors seek more variety

in public to depict themselves as more interesting and creative people (Ratner and Kahn 2002);

but also control their impulses due to their desire to appear rational and prudent (Luo 2005).

Thus, the self-monitoring trait seems to explain the contrasting interpersonal influences on

impulse buying and variety seeking; hence the authors incorporate it in their common conceptual

framework for both these behaviors.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Building from the above theoretical background, this research introduces a common

conceptual framework consisting of several individual and situational variables influencing

impulse buying and variety seeking to enable a deeper exploration of both these behaviors

(Figure 1). However, this article focuses only on a small part (represented by the dashed line

8

boundary) consisting of three important consumer traits (CI, OSL, and SM) to be able to

explicate and demonstrate their inter-relationships and influences on both these behaviors. Next

this article develops several hypotheses using these three relevant trait constructs.

-------------------------------------- Figure 1 here

--------------------------------------

Consumer Impulsiveness (CI) and Optimal Stimulation Level (OSL)

Eysenck (1993) proposes a general arousal theory that an individual’s level of

impulsiveness is inversely proportional to level of arousal, such that high impulsives are

chronically lower in arousal compared to low impulsives. On the other hand, individuals with

high OSL are also chronically lower in their arousal level making them indulge in sensation

seeking activities to achieve their desired (optimum) stimulation level (Raju 1980; Steenkamp

and Baumgartner 1992). In fact, individuals with low arousal levels are more careless, impatient,

risk-taking, sensation-seeking and pleasure seeking (Dickman 2000).

Impulse buying is a highly stimulating, emotionally charged experience (Rook 1987),

hence this research expects a positive association between OSL and level of impulse buying.

Similarly, variety seeking involves trying new experiences just for the sake of change and not

necessarily for any rational benefits. In other words, there could be a certain level of exploration

such as risk-taking or novelty-seeking involved in impulse buying, and a level of impulsiveness

or spontaneity associating with variety seeking. Therefore, individuals with low (high) arousal

levels are more (less) likely to indulge in impulse buying and variety seeking behaviors, because

it would provide the extra stimulation that high OSL individuals need in order to reach their

OSL. On the other hand, the low OSL individuals would not be able to tolerate any increase in

their already high arousal levels, and hence experience less impulse buying or variety seeking.

9

Impulsive-sensation seeking (ImpSS) is a broad personality trait consisting of two

dimensions, impulsiveness and sensation-seeking (Zuckerman 1993), and the influence of these

two components is likely to be different on impulse buying and variety seeking. Impulsiveness

should be a greater driver of impulse buying compared to variety seeking because it is associated

with loss of self-control, premeditation and perseverance, all the integral elements of impulse

buying behavior. Similarly, this research expects OSL to have a greater impact on variety

seeking compared to impulse buying, because it is usually associated with change seeking, risk

taking and novelty seeking behaviors which are all essential elements of variety seeking.

H1: Consumer impulsiveness relates positively to both impulse buying and variety seeking,

and this relationship is stronger for impulse buying than variety seeking.

H2: Optimum stimulation level relates positively to both impulse buying and variety

seeking, and this relationship is stronger for variety seeking than impulse buying.

Influence of Self-Monitoring (SM)

Self-monitoring is the tendency to modify or adapt one’s behavior in response to others’

presence or behavior (Becherer and Richard 1978). Several researchers demonstrate that SM is

one of the important variables that moderate the relative influence of traits and/or situations

(Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel 1989; Darley and Lim 1992; Hogg, Cox and Keeling 2000). High

self-monitors are willing to adapt their behavior to enact clearly defined roles appropriate to

different situations. Low self-monitors are less willing to put on a show to please those around

them, preferring instead to be true to their own attitudes and values across different situations.

These different orientations lead low and high self-monitors to show different behaviors in

various consumer behavior contexts. For example, high self-monitors seek more variety in public

to depict themselves as more interesting and creative people (Ratner and Kahn 2002).

10

High self-monitors may also have a desire to appear rational when they feel that their

decisions may come under scrutiny by others because they may consider themselves as more

accountable for their decision under such circumstances (Lerner and Tetlock 1999). Consumers

often perceive impulse buying as being normatively wrong; resulting in post-purchase negative

affect, guilt, and unfavorable evaluation of purchase decision (Dittmar and Drury 2000; Rook

1987; Trocchia and Janda 2002). Consumers concerned about their self-image are less likely to

give in to their impulses. High self-monitors may have greater motivation compared to low self-

monitors to control their impulses due to their desire to appear rational and prudent (Luo 2005).

H3: Self-monitoring relates negatively with impulse buying and positively with variety

seeking.

Moderating Role of Self-Monitoring

Among low self-monitoring consumer traits influence behavior whereas among high self-

monitors situational factors are likely to relate more with behavior (Becherer and Richard 1978;

Ratner and Kahn 2002). This outcome may be even more pertinent in the case of impulse buying

because of its negative normative associations (Rook 1987). Hence, a high self-monitor is more

likely to adapt or regulate impulsive buying behavior compared to a low self-monitor.

Highly impulsive individuals are likely to resist their impulses to a greater extent if they

are also high self-monitors, whereas they may not be able to control their natural impulsive urges

and be influenced by their natural impulsive tendencies if they are low self-monitors. Hence, at

lower levels of impulsiveness, high self-monitors are likely to exhibit less impulsive behaviors in

comparison to low self-monitors because their desire to appear more rational in the eyes of

others may prompt them to be even less impulsive than they normally are.

11

H4: Self-monitoring has a negative moderating influence on the association between trait

impulsiveness and impulse buying behavior.

High and low self-monitors also behave differently in confrontation with a decision about

how much variety to seek in public. High self-monitors may seek more variety than low self-

monitors to indicate to others that they are interesting and creative people (Ratner and Kahn

2002). This desire to appear interesting may be stronger than the desire to make a justifiable or

rational decision (Lerner and Tetlock 1999). Hence, individuals with higher OSL are likely to

seek greater variety if they are high self-monitors, compared to low self-monitors with similar

OSL scores. Similarly, even at lower levels of OSL, high self-monitors are likely to seek greater

variety compared to low self-monitors because their desire to appear more positively in the eyes

of others may make them overcome the influence of lower levels of OSL.

H5: Self-monitoring has a positive moderating influence on the association between

optimum stimulation level and variety seeking behavior.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

This study uses the mall-intercept approach to survey shoppers during a four-week period

as they came out after shopping at a large shopping mall. It includes 760 initial contacts and out

of these 321 (42%) shoppers agreed to participate; a response rate within the range of 37-48%

reported in prior research using a similar approach (Beatty and Ferrell 1998; Rook and Fisher

1995). No significant difference exists in the demographics (age, gender and occupation) of the

participants in this study and those who refused to participate, thus limiting the possibility of

sampling bias due to self-selection. Elimination of responses with excessive missing values

12

resulted in a final sample of 309 (39% response rate), with more females (63%) than males

(37%) and the average age at 31 years (30 year for females and 32 years for males).

In this study, as a part of their final year project a group of three undergraduate students

intercepted and interviewed actual shoppers about their recent purchases and the extent of

impulse buying and variety seeking in their purchase decisions. This procedure is quite different

from prior studies which used imaginary purchase scenarios with student respondents (e.g., Rook

and Fisher 1995) and hence, provides a more realistic assessment of the actual purchase behavior

of retail shoppers (Beatty and Ferrell 1998). The questionnaire began with the three trait-scales

followed by questions to classify the purchases as “planned”, “unplanned”, “reminder” or “pure

impulse”. The authors pre-tested this questionnaire for two days in the designated mall one week

in advance with themselves acting as supervisors and graduate students as surveyors. They faced

no major problems and addressed some minor queries by the survey team on the spot.

A large shopping mall was chosen because of its high traffic, wide assortment of product

categories sold, and high degree of in-store browsing (Beatty and Ferrell 1998). The authors

collected data over a four-week period (from mid-Nov to mid-Dec), rotating the locations of the

interviews, the times of day and the days of the week to make the final sample representative of

the population of shoppers at this mall during this time-period (Bush and Hair 1985). The

members of the survey team approached shoppers as they came out after completing their

shopping and asked if they would participate in a shopping study. All the participants entered a

lucky draw with sizable gift certificates as prizes redeemable at stores in the same mall.

Measurement of Variables

This study measured its three independent variables (CI, OSL, and SM) using the well-

established Consumer Impulsiveness (CIS) scale (Puri 1996), the Change-Seeking Index (CSI)

13

scale (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1995) and the Self-Monitoring Scale (Lennox and Wolfe

1984; O'Cass 2000) respectively, all with seven-point Likert-type response formats (ranging

from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Shoppers made purchases before completing the trait-scales and deriving the levels of

impulse buying and variety seeking rather than asking them directly helped reduce the demand

effects to some extent. Finally, the authors recorded several control variables such as gender,

age, occupation, shopping list, and total amount of money spent and included as covariates in

data analysis to account for any possible confounding effects of these variables.

Many shoppers experience impulse buying and variety seeking for more than one item

during a shopping trip whereas others do not experience these. Hence aggregating all the

purchase decisions during a shopping trip may be more appropriate in such situations rather than

trying to assess the level of impulse buying (Beatty and Ferrell 1998) or variety seeking (Van

Trijp et al. 1996) in each purchase decision individually. This study uses a similar approach to

measure both its dependent variables (i.e., level of impulse buying and variety seeking).

The procedure began by recording all the purchases made by each shopper. Using Beatty

and Ferrell’s (1998) approach, the shoppers described each of these purchases as planned or

unplanned. To eliminate the reminder-type items, the researchers asked the participants: “When

you saw this item, were you reminded that you were out of this item and needed it?” Only those

purchases qualified as pure impulse purchases which were unplanned and not listed as reminder

purchases. Finally, the authors use the number of pure impulse purchases by the total number of

items bought as the measure for the level of impulse buying for each shopper.

Next, using Van Trijp et al.’s (1996) approach, the researchers asked the participants if

they had switched from their regular brand or flavor for each of their purchases. For all such

14

instances of a switch, the researchers next asked them if they had switched because of any

specific reason such as a discount or without any reason just for a change (pure variety seeking).

Only those purchases with no specific reason for switching qualified as variety seeking

purchases. Finally, the authors use the number of variety seeking purchases divided by the total

number of purchases as the measure for the level of variety seeking for each shopper.

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The analyses include confirmatory factor analysis and internal consistency reliability with

AMOS 6.0 to test the psychometric properties of all the scales (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The

measurement model with three factors corresponding with the three scales shows a good fit (χ2 =

136.57, df = 51, χ2/df = 2.68, SRMR = .062, RMSEA = .043, CFI = .96, NFI = .94) with all the

fit-indices better than the cut-off values (RMSEA < .06, SRMR < .08, CFI > .95) recommended

by Hu and Bentler (1999) and (1 < χ2/df < 5) suggested by Wheaton et al. (1977).

The parameter estimates (λ) range from .68 to .83, and are all significantly different from

zero at the 5% level, suggesting a high degree of convergent validity; and none of the confidence

intervals of the correlation coefficients for each pair of scales (Φ estimates) includes 1.0, thus

supporting the discriminant validity of the three scales (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). An

additional test of discriminant validity involves constraining the estimated correlation parameter

among the three factors to 1.0 and then performing a chi-square difference test on the values

obtained in the constrained and unconstrained models. The χ2 value for the unconstrained model

(136.57) is significantly lower than the constrained model (614.36, df = 54), showing that the

different factors are not perfectly correlated (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).

Finally, the squared multiple correlations (r2) for all the scale items are above .45,

suggesting that the measures are reliable, as shown in table 1. The construct reliabilities ranges

15

from 0.72 (OSL), and 0.74 (CI) to 0.77 (SM), all higher than .60; and the average variance

extracted ranges from .69 to .74, all greater than .50; hence all the constructs appear to be

reliable (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).

---------------------------------- Table 1 here

----------------------------------

Next, the authors calculated the average scores for the levels of impulse buying and

variety seeking in the purchase decisions. The scores for impulse buying ranged from 0 (for

those who did not buy a single item on pure impulse) to 1 (for those who bought all their items

purely on impulse), with an average of 0.18 and standard deviation of 0.14. Similarly, the scores

for variety seeking varied from 0 (for those who did not seek variety for any item) to 1 (for those

who sought variety for all the items), with an average of 0.21 and standard deviation of 0.18.

Out of the 309 participants, 141 (46%) experienced impulse buying, 138 (45%) sought

variety in their purchases, and only 55 (18%) experienced both these. Thus, 85 (27%)

participants did not experience either impulse buying or variety seeking (scored 0 for both

behaviors). However, the analyses include these participants because they represent the lowest

levels of impulse buying and variety seeking; and thus help test the influence of the three

consumer traits on different levels of both the behaviors. Table 2 shows the correlations among

the three trait scores. As expected, OSL and CI correlate significantly with each other (r = .24, p

< .01), whereas SM does not correlate with either OSL (r = -.02, p > .89) or CI (r = -.04, p > .78).

---------------------------------- Table 2 here

----------------------------------

To test all the hypotheses it is necessary to compare the regression coefficients of CI,

OSL, SM and their interaction terms for impulse buying and variety seeking. Hence, the authors

16

test two separate multiple regression models, one for impulse buying and the other for variety

seeking, with the mean-centered scores for the three consumer traits and the two interaction

terms (CI X SM and OSL X SM) as independent variables, and the proportions of items

purchased on impulse and for seeking variety are the dependent variables. Table 3 shows the

output for both the regression models.

---------------------------------- Table 3 here

---------------------------------- For both the behaviors, the regression models represents a good fit with significant R2

adj

values for impulse buying (R2adj = .24, F (5,304) = 16.32, p < .001) as well as variety seeking

(R2adj = .22, F (5,304) = 14.13, p < .001). None of the covariates has any significant effect on

either dependent variable. Hence, neither the customers’ gender, age, and occupation nor the

presence or absence of a shopping list and the total amount of money spent on shopping had any

influence on the findings reported in this article.

CI relates positively with both impulse buying (β = .32, p < .001) and variety seeking (β

= .18, p < .05), and the regression coefficient for impulse buying seems higher than variety

seeking. Similarly, OSL is positively associated with both impulse buying (β = .20, p < .05) and

variety seeking (β = .31, p < .001), and the regression coefficient for variety seeking seems

higher than impulse buying. To test the statistical significance of the differences for the

regression coefficients of CI and OSL between the two behaviors, this study uses a dummy

variable called category (CAT), coded 1 for impulse buying and 0 for variety seeking; and

creates interaction terms by multiplying the mean-centered scores for the variables CI and OSL

with this dummy variable CAT (CAT X CI and CAT X OSL). Next, the analyses include these

17

two interaction terms and the average scores for the three trait variables as predictors in a single

regression model for both impulse buying and variety seeking.

The findings show that the regression coefficients for both the two interaction terms are

significant and in expected direction. First, the interaction term CAT X CI is significant and

positive (β = + .21, p < .01), showing that the regression coefficient for CI is significantly higher

for impulse buying compared to variety seeking; thus supporting hypothesis 1. Second, the

interaction term CAT X OSL is also significant and negative (β = -.19, p < .01), showing that the

regression coefficient for OSL is significantly lower for impulse buying compared to variety

seeking; thus supporting hypothesis 2.

Next, the independent regression models for the two behaviors show that SM associates

negatively with impulse buying (β = -.24, p < .01) and positively with variety seeking (β = .18, p

< .05); thus supporting hypothesis 3. Finally, the standardized beta coefficient for the interaction

term CI X SM is significant and negative for impulse buying (β = -.19, p < .05), providing

support to hypothesis 4 by showing that CI associates more negatively with impulse buying for

high versus low self-monitors. Finally, the interaction term OSL X SM is significant and positive

for variety seeking (β = .25, p < .01), showing that OSL associates more positively with variety

seeking for high versus low self-monitors, thus supporting hypothesis 5.

DISCUSSION

The results support the basic premise underlying this research. Both impulse buying and

variety seeking have similar psychological origins but different socio-normative influences.

Specifically, the traits driving these behaviors (impulsiveness and OSL) relate positively with

each other and are two components of trait impulsivity or impulsive sensation seeking in

psychology literature (Zuckerman 2007; Zuckerman, Schultz and Hopkins 1967). The present

18

study demonstrates a behavioral correlation between these two traits as well, in the context of

impulse buying and variety seeking behaviors.

Consumers with high scores on CI and OSL are likely to indulge in a greater degree of

impulse buying as well as variety seeking in comparison to those with low scores on these two

traits. This finding occurs because the traits driving these behaviors (impulsiveness and

sensation-seeking) relate positively with each other and appear to be two components of trait

impulsivity. CI has a stronger influence on impulse buying than on variety seeking. Similarly,

OSL has a stronger influence on variety seeking than impulse buying. Thus, both these behaviors

seem to have similar psychological origins but differ in the intensity of possible motivational

triggers. In other words, CI seems to be a stronger trigger for impulse buying than variety

seeking and vice versa for OSL (or, change seeking tendency).

This research provides the first evidence of the moderating role of self-monitoring on

both these behaviors; high self-monitors are less likely to buy impulsively but more likely to

seek variety. While the finding of positive moderating role of self-monitoring on variety seeking

extends prior work in this area (e.g., Ratner and Kahn 2002), the finding that high self-monitors

indulge in less impulse buying extends the work on the negative normative associations of

impulse buying reported in prior research (e.g., Rook and Fisher 1995).

This study also supports Baumgartner’s (2002) typology of purchase behaviors in which

he categorizes impulse buying and variety seeking as feelings-based, spontaneous purchase

behaviors, by showing that both these behaviors relate positively with two traits (CI and OSL)

with similar psychological origins. It also extends his typology by showing that the differences in

the socio-normative associations of impulse buying and variety seeking (e.g., the influence of

self-monitoring trait) may explain the differences in their involvement levels.

19

Self-monitoring may also explain why some consumers are able to resist their impulsive

urges while others can not, thus providing an insight into the psychological process underlying

the role of cognitive evaluation and resistance strategies in controlling the impulsive urges

shown in prior research (Dholakia 2000). Thus, high self-monitors may develop more strategies

to resist their impulses compared to low self-monitors especially if they are highly impulsive as

well. They may also be more motivated than low self-monitors to evaluate their impulsive

behaviors, employ impulse resistance strategies more frequently and probably more effectively.

This study also represents possibly the first effort to investigate impulse buying and

variety seeking using a common conceptual framework in the same empirical context of retail

shopping. Thus, this study provides a realistic setting for the empirical validation of all the

hypotheses in this research by using direct measures for the level of impulse buying and variety

seeking in purchase decisions. This study also incorporates several control variables such as

gender, age, occupation, shopping list, and total amount of money spent, and uses these as

covariates, to account for any possible confounding influence of these variables. Finally, the

common conceptual framework here helps integrate information from prior research on impulse

buying and variety seeking areas to highlight their similarities and differences, and provides a

better understanding of the socio-psychological process underlying both these behaviors.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite its several contributions, this research also has a few limitations, which future

research may address. First, the article develops a conceptual framework with several individual

and situational variables but focuses on three relevant consumer traits for parsimony and greater

control in the empirical study with retail shoppers. Future research may include different

mediator or moderator variables such as browsing, attitude towards impulse purchase, money

20

and time availability, involvement level and affect, to explain greater variance and provide

further insights into both these behaviors using different methods.

This research collected data over a four-week period (from mid-November to mid-

December, which is the shopping season for Christmas and this may have affected the results.

This is an important issue and seasonality may have some effect on impulse buying and variety

seeking behaviors but it may not systematically influence the relationships studied in this

research. However, buying a gift on impulse may help the consumers reduce the negative

normative association with such a purchase decision (Rook and Fisher 1995).

Specifically, if buying a gift affected the level of impulse buying or variety seeking in

this research, it may have distorted the pattern of associations hypothesized in this study’s

framework with the data from the empirical study. Specifically, if gift-giving were the major

driver of impulse buying, then high (low) self-monitors would display higher (lower) impulse

buying; since they would want to appear "good" to others. In other words, the negative

normative effect of impulse buying would no longer hold. However, the authors agree that future

research should study the differences in the level of impulse buying and variety seeking based on

whether they made purchases for themselves, their family members or for others (e.g., gifts etc.).

Finally, recent research shows significant cross-cultural differences in consumer

impatience (Chen, Ng and Rao 2005), assumptions about choice and uniqueness (Kim and Drolet

2003), and level of impulsiveness (Kacen and Lee 2002). Hence, future research on impulse

buying and variety seeking behaviors may benefit by including cultural orientation as an

important variable.

21

REFERENCES

Anderson James C., Gerbing David W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin 1988; 103 (May): 411–423.

Applebaum William. Studying Consumer Behavior in Retail Stores. Journal of Marketing 1951;

16 (October): 32-40.

Ariely Dan, Levav Jonathan. Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled

and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research 2000; 27 (3): 279-290.

Arnould Eric, Price Linda, Zinkhan George M. Consumers. Chicago: Irwin/McGraw-Hill Press,

2004.

Bagozzi Richard P., Yi Youjae. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Sciences 1988; 16 (1): 74- 84.

Balabanis George. The Relationship between Lottery Ticket and Scratch-Card Buying

Behaviour: Personality and other Compulsive Behaviours. Journal of Consumer

Behaviour 2002; 2 (1): 7-22.

Baumeister Roy F. Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing and

consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2002; 28 (4): 670-676.

Baumgartner Hans. Toward a Personology of the Consumer. Journal of Consumer Research

2002; 29 (2): 286-292.

22

Baumgartner Hans, Steenkamp Jan-Benedict E. M. Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior:

Conceptualization and Measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing

1996; 13 (April): 121-137.

Bearden William O., Netemeyer Richard G., Teel Jesse E. Measurement of Consumer

Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influences. Journal of Consumer Research 1989; 15 (4):

473-481.

Beatty Sharon E., Ferrell Elizabeth M. Impulse Buying: Modeling its Precursors. Journal of

Retailing 1998; 74 (2): 169-191.

Becherer Richard C., Richard Lawrence M. Self-monitoring as a moderating variable in

consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 1978; 5: 159-162.

Bush Alan J., Hair Joseph F. Jr. An assessment of the mall intercept as a data collection method.

Journal of Marketing Research 1985; 22 (May): 158–167.

Chen Haipeng (Allan), Ng Sharon, Rao Akshay R. Cultural Differences in Consumer

Impatience. Journal of Marketing Research 2005; 42 (3): 291-301.

Choi Jinhee, Kim B. Kyu, Choi Incheol, Yi Youjae. Variety-Seeking Tendency in Choice for

Others: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Causes. Journal of Consumer Research 2006; 32

(4): 590-595.

Cloninger C.R., Przybeck T.R., Svrakic D.M. The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: US

normative data. Psychological Reports 1991; 69: 1047-1057.

23

Cloninger C.R., Svrakic D.M., Przybeck T.R. A psychobiological model of temperament and

character. Archives of General Psychiatry 1993; 50: 975-900.

Clover Vernon T. Relative importance of impulse buying in retail stores. Journal of Marketing

1950; 25 (July): 66-70.

Darley William K., Lim Jeen-Su. The Effect of Consumers' Emotional Reactions on Behavioral

Intention: The Moderating Role of Personal Relevance and Self-Monitoring. Psychology

& Marketing 1992; 9 (4): 329-346.

Dhar Ravi, Wertenbroch Klaus. Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods.

Journal of Marketing Research 2000; 37 (February): 60-71.

Dholakia Utpal M. Temptation and Resistance: An Integrated Model of Consumption Impulse

Formation and Enactment. Psychology & Marketing 2000; 17 (11): 955-982.

Dickman Scott J. Impulsivity, Arousal and Attention. Personality and Individual Differences

2000; 28: 563-581.

Dittmar Helga, Drury John. Self-image – is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison between

“ordinary” and “excessive” consumers. Journal of Economic Psychology 2000; 21: 109-

142.

Eysenck Hans Jürgen. The nature of impulsivity. In: William G. McCown, Judith L. Johnson,

Myrna B. Shure eds. The impulsive client: Theory, research and treatment. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association, 1993. pp. 57-70.

24

Eysenck Sybil B. G., Eysenck Hans Jürgen. The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system

of personality description. The British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 1977; 16:

57-68.

Eysenck Sybil B. G., Eysenck Hans Jürgen. Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position

in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports 1978; 43:

1247-1255.

Hogg Margaret K., Cox Alastair J., Keeling Kathy. The Impact of Self-monitoring on Image

Congruence and Product/brand Evaluation. European Journal of Marketing 2000; 34

(5/6): 641-666.

Holbrook Morris B., Hirschman Elizabeth C. The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:

Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research 1982; 9

(September): 132-140.

Hoyer Wayne D., Macinnis Deborah J. Consumer Behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.

Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999; 6 (1):

1-55.

Inman Jeffrey J. The Role of Sensory-Specific Variety in Attribute-Level Variety Seeking.

Journal of Consumer Research 2001; 28 (June): 105-120.

Jack S. J., Ronan Kevin R. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports participants.

Personality and Individual Differences 1998; 25 (6): 1063-1083.

25

Jones Michael A., Reynolds Kristy E., Weun Seungoog, Beatty Sharon E. The product-specific

nature of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research 2003; 56: 505-511.

Kacen Jacqueline J., Lee Julie Anne. The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying

behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2002; 12 (2): 163-176.

Kane Tamsin A., Loxton Natalie J., Staiger Petra K., Dawe Sharon. Does the tendency to act

impulsively underlie binge eating and alcohol use problems? An empirical investigation.

Personality and Individual Differences 2004; 36 (1): 83-94.

Kim Heejung S, Drolet Aimee. Choice and self-expression: A cultural analysis of variety-

seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003; 85 (2): 373-382.

Kollat David T., Willett R. P. Is impulse purchasing really a useful concept for marketing

decisions? Journal of Marketing 1969; 33 (January): 79-83.

Lennox Richard D., Wolfe Raymond N. Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 1984; 46: 1349-1364.

Lerner Jennifer S., Tetlock Philip E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological

Bulletin 1999; 125: 255-275.

Luo Xueming. How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing? Journal of

Consumer Psychology 2005; 15 (4): 288-294.

McAlister Leigh. A Dynamic Attribute Satiation Model of Variety seeking Behavior. Journal of

Consumer Research 1982; 9 (September): 141-150.

26

McAlister Leigh, Pessemier Edgar. Variety-seeking Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Review.

Journal of Consumer Research 1982; 9 (3): 311-322.

McDaniel Stephen R., Zuckerman Marvin. The relationship of impulsive sensation seeking and

gender to interest and participation in gambling activities. Personality and Individual

Differences 2003; 35 (6): 1385-1400.

O'Cass Aron. A Psychometric Evaluation of a Revised Version of the Lennox and Wolfe

Revised Self-Monitoring Scale. Psychology & Marketing 2000; 17 (5): 397-419.

Puri Radhika. Measuring and Modifying Consumer Impulsiveness: A Cost-benefit Accessibility

Framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1996; 5 (2): 87-113.

Raju Puthankurissi S. Optimal stimulation level: Its relationships to personality, demographics

and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 1980; 7 (December): 272-282.

Ramanathan Suresh, Menon Geeta. Time-Varying Effects of Chronic Hedonic Goals on

Impulsive Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 2006; 43 (4): 628-641.

Ratner Rebecca K., Kahn Barbara E. The impact of private versus public consumption on

variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 2002; 29: 246-257.

Robbins Reuben N., Bryan Angela. Relationships Between Future Orientation, Impulsive

Sensation Seeking, and Risk Behavior Among Adjudicated Adolescents. Journal of

Adolescent Research 2004; 19 (4): 428-445.

Rook Dennis W. The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research 1987; 14 (September):

189-199.

27

Rook Dennis W., Fisher Robert J. Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal

of Consumer Research 1995; 22 (December): 305-313.

Steenkamp Jan-Benedict E. M., Baumgartner Hans. The Role of Optimum Stimulation Level in

Exploratory Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 1992; 19 (December):

434-448.

Steenkamp Jan-Benedict E. M., Baumgartner Hans. Development and cross-cultural validation

of a short form of CSI as a measure of optimum stimulation level. International Journal of

Research in Marketing 1995; 12: 97-104.

Trocchia Philip J., Janda Swinder. An investigation of product purchase and subsequent non-

consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2002; 19: 188-204.

Van Trijp Hans C. M., Hoyer Wayne D., Inman J. Jeffrey. Why Switch? Product Category-Level

Explanations for True Variety seeking Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 1996; 38

(Summer): 281-292.

Vohs Kathleen D., Faber Ronald J. Spent Resources: Self-Regulatory Resource Availability

Affects Impulse Buying. Journal of Consumer Research 2007; 33 (4): 537-547.

West John C. Results of two years of study into impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing 1951; 15

(January): 362-363.

Wheaton B., Muthen B., Alwin D. F., Summers G. F. Assessing reliability and stability in panel

models. In: Heise D. R. ed. Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

pp. 84-136.

28

Whiteside Stephen. P., Lynam Donald R. The Five Factor Model and impulsivity: using a

structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual

Differences 2001; 30 (4): 669-689.

Youn Seounmi, Faber Ronald J. Impulse buying: Its relation to personality traits and cues.

Advances in Consumer Research 2000; 27: 179-185.

Zuckerman Marvin. Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity: A Marriage of Traits Made in Biology.

In: William G. McCown, Judith L. Johnson, Myrna B. Shure eds. The impulsive client:

Theory, research and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,

1993. pp. 71-92.

Zuckerman Marvin. Are you a risk taker? Do you drink and drive, gamble, or sleep with

strangers? It's not just a behavior. It's a personality. Psychology Today 2000 (Nov/Dec).

Zuckerman Marvin. Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington DC: American

Psychological Association, 2007.

Zuckerman Marvin, Schultz Duane P., Hopkins T. Robert. Sensation seeking and volunteering

for sensory deprivation and hypnosis experiments. Journal of Consulting Psychology

1967; 31 (4): 358-363.

29

Figure 1 – Conceptual Framework

OptimumStimulationLevel

Level of impulse buying

and variety seeking in purchase decisions

Self-Monitoring

Consumer Impulsiveness

H2 (+)

H5 (+)

H3 (-)

H4 (-)

H1 (-)

Individual factors Demographics

(Age, Gender, Income), Self-regulatory Focus

(Promotion vs. Prevention), Shopping Enjoyment,

Novelty Seeking, Risk Taking,

Sensation Seeking, Cultural Orientation etc.

Situational factors Purchase Involvement,

In-store Browsing, Marketing Stimuli

Store Layout, Purchase Motivation

(Hedonic vs. Utilitarian), Constraints (Time, Money),

Inter-personal Context (Public vs. Private, Self vs. Others),

Affect (Positive vs. Negative) etc.

30

Table 1: Trait Scales Summary

Scale Items1 Factor

loadings (λ)

Item-total correlations

(α)

Mean (M)

Standard deviation

(SD) Optimum Stimulation Level To what extent do you agree that the following statements describe you? 1. I like to experience novelty and change in daily routine 2. I am continually seeking new ideas and experiences 3. I like continually changing activities 4. When things get boring, I like to try something different

.77

.73

.70

.68

.58

.54

.52

.46

.72

4.03 4.17 4.09 3.94 4.06

1.53 1.27 1.33 1.43 1.38

Consumer Impulsiveness To what extent do you agree that the following words describe you? 1. Impulsive 2. Careless 3. Easily tempted

.79 .76 .70

.58 .56 .51 .74

3.87 3.98 4.14 4.00

1.62 1.83 1.67 1.72

Self-monitoring To what extent do you agree that the following statements describe you? 1. In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that

something else is called for 2. I can control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I

wish to give them 3. When I feel that the image I am portraying isn’t working, I can readily change

it to something that does 4. I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any

situations I find myself in 5. Once I know what the situation calls for, it’s easy for me to regulate my

actions accordingly

.83

.82

.79

.74

.71

.64

.62

.58

.55

.52

.77

3.92

3.88

4.04

4.13

4.24

4.04

1.36

1.34

1.23

1.39

1.35

1.33

1 Measured using seven-point Likert-type response format (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree)

31

Table 2: Correlation Matrix

Consumer Traits 1 2 3 1. Consumer Impulsiveness (CI) 1.00 2. Optimum Stimulation Level (OSL) .24* 1.00 3. Self-monitoring (SM) -.02 -.04 1.00

* p < .01, two tailed

Table 3: Multiple Regression Output

Dependent Variable

Independent Variables

Std. Beta Coefficients t-values Adj. R2 F-values

Level of impulse buying

CI OSL SM CI X SM OSL X SM

+ .32***

+ .20*

- .24**

- .19*

- .18*

5.46

2.36

- 2.91

- 2.32

- 2.13

.24 16.32***

Level of variety seeking

CI OSL SM CI X SM OSL X SM

+ .18 *

+ .31***

+ .18*

+ .29**

+ .25**

2.01

5.15

2.40

4.07

3.18

.22 14.13***

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, all two-tailed