• The Influence of Culture on Consumer Impulsive Buying Behavior

  • FileName: KacenLee_ImpulseBuyingJCP.pdf [read-online]
    • Abstract: havior that can help us to gain a better, more complete under ... havior relationships (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Kashima, 1992) are weaker in collectivist than individualist ...

Download the ebook

Copyright © 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Influence of Culture on Consumer
Jacqueline J. Kacen
Department of Business Administration
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaig n
Julie Anne Lee
Department of Marketing
University of Hawaii–Manoa
Impulse buying generates over $4 billion in annual sales volume in the United States. With the
growth of e-commerce and television shopping channels, consumers have easy access to im-
pulse purchasing opportunities, but little is known about this sudden, compelling, hedonically
complex purchasing behavior in non-Western cultures. Yet cultural factors moderate many as-
pects of consumer’s impulsive buying behavior, including self-identity, normative influences,
the suppression of emotion, and the postponement of instant gratification. From a multi-country
survey of consumers in Australia, United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia, our
analyses show that both regional level factors (individualism–collectivism) and individual cul-
tural difference factors (independent –interdependent self-concept) systematically influence
impulsive purchasing behavior.
Impulsive consumer buying behavior is a widely recognized thoughtful, deliberate consideration of all information and
phenomenon in the United States. It accounts for up to 80% of choice alternatives (Bayley & Nancorrow, 1998; Rook 1987;
all purchases in certain product categories (Abrahams, 1997; Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1990; Weinberg & Gottwald,
Smith, 1996), and it has been suggested that purchases of new 1982). This description is largely based on interviews and
products result more from impulse purchasing than from surveys of Westerners.
prior planning (Sfiligoj, 1996). A 1997 study found that an es- The growth of e-commerce and the increasing con-
timated $4.2 billion annual store volume was generated by sumer-orientation of many societies around the world offer
impulse sales of items such as candy and magazines expanding occasions for impulse purchasing, but little is
(Mogelonsky, 1998). Paco Underhill, author of Why We Buy: known about impulsive buying behavior in non-Western so-
The Science of Shopping (1999), affirms that many purchases cieties. Most of the research on impulse buying focuses on
are being made on the premises of stores themselves as cus- consumers in the United States. A few studies have looked at
tomers give in to their impulses. Furthermore, technologies consumers in Great Britain (Bayley & Nancarrow, 1998;
such as television shopping channels and the Internet expand Dittmar, Beattie, & Friese, 1995; McConatha, Lightner, &
consumers’ impulse purchasing opportunities, increasing Deaner, 1994), and South Africa (Abratt & Goodey, 1990)
both the accessibility to products and services and the ease and have found that United States consumers tend to be more
with which impulse purchases can be made. impulsive than comparable British and South African sam-
Impulsive buying behavior is a sudden, compelling, ples. However, none of these studies examined explicitly the
hedonically complex purchasing behavior in which the rapid- effect of cultural factors on impulse buying behavior.
ity of the impulse purchase decision process precludes A recent special issue of the Journal of Consumer Psy-
chology dealt with cultural issues demonstrating the growing
interest in cultural differences in consumer behavior and
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jacqueline J. Kacen, University of highlighted the importance of understanding the cultural con-
Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1206 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. text of consumer behavior in an increasing globalized mar-
Email: [email protected] u ketplace (Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000). We believe that
cultural factors significantly influence consumers’ impulsive ping environment and impulse buying behavior. In each of
buying behavior. Specifically, the theory of individualism these studies, pleasurable feelings led to increased unplanned
and collectivism holds important insights about consumer be- spending.
havior that can help us to gain a better, more complete under- Cognitive, clinical, social, developmental, and consumer
standing of the impulsive buying phenomenon. Consistent psychologists have studied the general trait of impulsiveness
with this interest in cultural differences, this article examines and impulse control (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978; Eysenck,
the effect of regional level (individualist–collectivist) and in- Pearson, Easting, & Allsopp, 1985; Helmers, Young, & Pihl,
dividual difference level (independent–interdependent 1995; Hilgard, 1962; Logue & Chavarro, 1992; Logue, King,
self-concept) cultural factors on consumers’ impulsive buy- Cavarro, & Volpe, 1990; Mischel, 1961; Puri, 1996;
ing behavior. Utilizing a multi-country sample of over a thou- Rawlings, Boldero, & Wiseman, 1995; Rook & Fisher, 1995;
sand consumers from both Western and Eastern cultures, we Weun et al., 1998). Trait impulsiveness is characterized by
investigate how culture systematically moderates impulse unreflective actions (Eysenck et al., 1985) and is significantly
buying behavior. This is especially important as shopping is a correlated with thrill-seeking (Weun et al., 1998), and the
major leisure activity in many East Asian countries (Wong & psychological need to maintain a relatively high level of stim-
Ahuvia, 1998), including Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. ulation (Gerbing, Ahadi, & Patton, 1987). Rook and Fisher
(1995) recently developed a nine-item measure of trait buy-
ing impulsiveness that was significantly correlated with im-
IMPULSE BUYING pulse buying behavior. In addition, they found that
consumers’ normative evaluation of the appropriateness of
Impulse buying is defined as “an unplanned purchase” that is engaging in impulse buying in a particular situation moder-
characterized by “(1) relatively rapid decision-making, and ates an individual’s trait impulsiveness. Specifically, when
(2) a subjective bias in favor of immediate possession” (Rook consumers believe that impulse purchasing is socially accept-
& Gardner, 1993, p. 3; see also Rook, 1987; Rook & Hoch, able, they act on their impulsive tendencies, but when it is so-
1985). It is described as more arousing, less deliberate, and cially unacceptable these tendencies may be thwarted.
more irresistible buying behavior compared to planned pur- The literature on compulsive shopping (Elliot, 1994),
chasing behavior. Highly impulsive buyers are likely to be self-gifts (Mick, DeMoss, & Faber, 1992), and impulse pur-
unreflective in their thinking, to be emotionally attracted to chases (Dittmar et al., 1995) highlights the role of perceived
the object, and to desire immediate gratification (Hoch & social image and the expression of self-identity in the pur-
Loewenstein, 1991; Thompson et al., 1990). These consum- chase decision. Dittmar et al. (1995) hypothesized that im-
ers often pay little attention to potential negative conse- pulse purchases were more likely to be items that symbolize
quences that may result from their actions (Hoch & the preferred or ideal self and as such should be affected by
Loewenstein, 1991; Rook, 1987; see also O’Guinn & Faber, social categories such as gender. They argued that women
1989). value their possessions for emotional and relationship-ori-
Previous research conducted in the United States and ented reasons, whereas men value their possessions for func-
Great Britain (individualist cultures) has shown that many tional and instrumental reasons. The results of the study
factors influence impulsive buying behavior: the consumer’s supported their hypothesis: Men reported more personal (in-
mood or emotional state (Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & dependent) identity reasons for their purchases whereas
Nesdale, 1994; Rook, 1987; Rook & Gardner, 1993: Wein- women reported more social (relational) identity reasons.
berg & Gottwald, 1982), trait buying impulsiveness (Puri, An individual’s impulsive behavior tendencies have also
1996; Rook & Fisher, 1995; Weun, Jones, & Beatty, 1998), been related to demographic characteristics such as a con-
normative evaluation of the appropriateness of engaging in sumer’s age. Based on a national sample of adults in the
impulse buying (Rook & Fisher, 1995), self-identity (Dittmar United States, Wood (1998) found an inverse relationship be-
et al., 1995), and demographic factors, such as age (e.g., tween age and impulse buying overall. However, the relation-
Bellenger, Robertson, & Hirschman, 1978; Wood, 1998). ship is non-monotonic — between the ages of 18 and 39
Several studies demonstrate the effect of consumers’ impulse buying increases slightly and thereafter declines.
moods and affective states on impulsive buying behavior. This is consistent with Bellenger et al. (1978) who found that
Rook and Gardner (1993) found that consumers’ positive shoppers under 35 were more prone to impulse buying com-
moods were more conducive to impulsive buying than nega- pared to those over 35 years old. Research on trait impulsive-
tive moods, although impulse buying occurred under both ness indicates that younger individuals score higher on
types of moods. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) also found that a measures of impulsivity compared to older people (Eysenck
consumer’s positive mood was associated with the urge to et al., 1985; Helmers et al., 1995; Rawlings et al., 1995) and
buy impulsively, while the impulse buyers in Weinberg and demonstrate less self-control than adults (Logue & Chavarro,
Gottwald’s (1982) study were more “emotionalized” than 1992). Because impulsiveness is linked to emotional arousal,
nonbuyers. Donovan et al. (1994) discovered a positive asso- this finding concerning the relationship between age and im-
ciation between consumers’ feelings of pleasure in the shop- pulsiveness is consistent with studies of emotions and emo-
tional control. Research shows that older individuals group is dependent on members’ ability to manage their
demonstrate greater regulation of emotional expression than emotions. In short, culture is likely to impact an individual’s
do younger adults (Lawton, Kleban, Rajogopal, & Dean, emotional experiences by determining the appropriate ex-
1992; McConatha et al., 1994; Siegel, 1985). These findings pression of one’s feelings (McConatha, 1993). Culture influ-
suggest that as consumers age, they learn to control their im- ences both “feeling rules,” how an individual interprets the
pulsive buying tendencies. environment, and “display rules,” which emotions are ex-
Interestingly, the factors that have been linked to impulse pressed and how they are expressed (Ekman, 1972). For in-
purchasing are also likely to be influenced by culture. The stance, people from Asian (collectivist) cultures have been
theory of individualism and collectivism offers several in- found to control negative emotions and only display positive
sights into many of the variables that have been linked to im- emotions to acquaintances (Gudykunst, 1993). Given that im-
pulsive buying behavior, including self-identity, normative pulsiveness is related to sensation-seeking and emotional
influences, the suppression of emotion, and postponement of arousal (Rook, 1987; Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982), it is
instant gratification (see Triandis, 1995 for a review). In the likely that people in collectivist cultures learn to control their
next section, we discuss this theory and demonstrate that it is impulsive tendencies more than people from individualist
well suited to the study of impulse buying. cultures. In fact, children in collectivist cultures are social-
ized to control their impulses at an early age (Ho, 1994).
In individualist cultures, people often ignore the potential
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM negative consequences of their impulsive buying behavior
(see Rook, 1987), preferring to focus on the positive conse-
Triandis (1995) defined collectivism as a social pattern that quences of their actions and on their own feelings and goals.
consists of individuals who see themselves as an integral part This may not be true for people from collectivist cultures,
of one or more collectives or in-groups, such as family and who are more likely to focus on the potential negative conse-
co-workers. People who are more collectivist are often moti- quences of their behavior and the effect of their actions on
vated by norms and duties imposed by the in-group, give pri- in-group members (Triandis, 1995). The greater likelihood
ority to the goals of the in-group, and try to emphasize their that people in collectivist cultures will consider the negative
connectedness with the in-group. He defines individualism as consequences of their actions makes the suppression of the
a social pattern that consists of individuals who see them- impulse trait-behavior relationship more probable.
selves as autonomous and independent. People who are more These differences between individualists and collectivists
individualist are motivated by their own preferences, needs, are best explained by examining the tenants on which the cul-
and rights, give priority to their personal goals, and empha- tural patterns of individualism and collectivism are based. As
size a rational analysis of their relationships with others Kim, Triandis, Kagiycibasi, Choi, and Yoon (1994) explained
(Triandis, 1994). These social patterns are expected to influ- Western individualist societies are based on the tenant of liber-
ence impulsive purchasing behavior through their affect on a alism. In these societies individuals are encouraged to be ratio-
person’s self-identity, responsiveness to normative influ- nal and are given individual rights to define their own goals
ences, and the need (or lack of need) to suppress internal be- and choose freely. Conversely, East Asian collectivist societ-
liefs in order to act appropriately. ies are based on Confucianism, which promotes common
The tendency to focus on group preferences and group har- goals and social harmony over individual interests. Within
mony in collectivist cultures leads to an ability to repress in- each society these differences are reinforced at the cultural
ternal (personal) attributes in certain settings. Accordingly, level through social institutions such as schools, workplaces,
people in collectivist cultures often shift their behavior de- and families, so that even very ambitious (i.e., more individu-
pending on the context or what is “right” for the situation. alist) people who grow up in China are likely to be better at
Among collectivists a person is generally seen as more ma- controlling their impulses and emotions than very family-fo-
ture when s/he puts personal feelings aside and acts in a so- cused (i.e., more collectivist) people from the United States. In
cially appropriate manner rather than in a way consistent with collectivist societies individuals are encouraged to suppress
personal attitudes and beliefs (Triandis, 1995). Conse- their own hedonic desires in favor of group interests and goals.
quently, it has been found that attitude-intention (Bagozzi, From this we conclude the following:
Wonge, Abe, & Bergami, 2000; Lee, 2000) and attitude-be-
havior relationships (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Kashima, H1a: The relationship between trait buying impulsiveness
1992) are weaker in collectivist than individualist cultures. and impulsive buying behavior will be stronger
This pattern is likely to carry over to the impulse trait-behav- among people from individualist cultures compared
ior relationship. to people from collectivist cultures.
Collectivist cultures also emphasize the control and mod-
eration of one’s emotions more so than individualistic cul- Several researchers have emphasized the importance of
tures (Potter, 1988; Russell & Yik, 1996; Tsai & Levenson, examining the influence of culture at the individual level as
1997). For instance, the maintenance of harmony within the well as at the national level (e.g., Kim et al., 1994; Schwartz,
1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995; Triandis, 1994, 1995). Ac- to impulse buying behavior among both individualists and
cording to Triandis (1994), “All of us carry both individualist collectivists. Given the lack of research into impulse buying
and collectivist tendencies; the difference is that in some cul- in non-Western societies, one of the objectives of our re-
tures the probability that individualist selves, attitudes, search is to determine in what ways impulsive buying behav-
norms, values, and behaviors will be sampled or used is ior differs across cultural contexts.
higher than in others” (p. 42). Consequently, people from col- Finally, the moderating influence of age is expected to af-
lectivist cultures should be more likely to rely on a more inter- fect the impulsive buying behavior of people from collectivist
dependent self-concept and people from individualist cultures earlier than those from individualist cultures. Given
cultures should be more likely to rely on a more independent that adults in individualist cultures have demonstrated a slight
self-concept in any given situation. Singelis (1995) defined increase in impulsive buying into their late 30’s (Wood,
an interdependent self-concept as one emphasizing “(a) ex- 1998), we do not anticipate a decline in impulsive buying be-
ternal, public features such as statuses, roles, and relation- havior for college-aged individualists. Conversely, because
ships, (b) belonging and fitting in, (c) occupying one’s proper people in collectivist cultures learn at an earlier age to control
place and engaging in appropriate action, and (d) being indi- their emotions and behavior, we expect age to negatively im-
rect in communication and ‘reading others’ minds,’” and an pact impulse buying once collectivists reach college age.
independent self-concept as one emphasizing “(a) internal
abilities, thoughts, and feelings; (b) being unique and ex- H3: Age will negatively impact impulse buying to a
pressing the self; (c) realizing internal attributes and promot- greater extent for collectivists compared to individu-
ing one’s own goals; and (d) being direct in communication” alists, in their early adult years.
(p. 581).
We expect that measuring self-concept at the individual
level across cultures should produce parallel although not METHOD
identical results to the cultural (i.e., regional) level analysis.
Although a person’s self-concept reveals the parts of culture Overview
that have been internalized by that individual, it does not fully
explain differences that may be due to the influence of social Two studies were conducted to measure the influence of cul-
institutions, which emphasize the suppression of hedonic de- ture on consumers’ impulsive buying behavior. The prelimi-
sires in favor of group interests and goals. Thus, at the indi- nary study concentrates on a parsimonious explanation of im-
vidual level across societies, we expect to find a similar pulsive buying behavior: The basic hypothesis is that
pattern of trait-behavior relationships, although the differen- consumers with a personality trait of impulsiveness will make
tial effect of culture should be somewhat weaker than at the more frequent impulsive purchases, but that this relationship
regional–national level. will be more moderate in collectivist cultures. The main study
examines this effect but also controls for the effect of affec-
H1b: The relationship between trait buying impulsiveness tive states and age variables on impulsive buying behavior to
and impulsive buying behavior will be stronger for in- better understand this complex buying behavior within differ-
dividuals classified as having a more independent (in- ent cultural contexts.
dividualist) self-concept as compared to those classi- In these studies, surveys were administered to students and
fied as having a more interdependent (collectivist) non-students in highly individualist and highly collectivist
self-concept. countries purposefully selected from their positioning on
Hofstede’s (1991) ranking of individualism to include the
In addition, because control and moderation of one’s emo- United States (individualism score = 91) and Australia (90) as
tions is emphasized more strongly in collectivist cultures, highly individualistic countries and Singapore (20), Malaysia
consumers from these cultures are more likely to suppress the (26), and Hong Kong (25) as highly collectivist countries. In
emotional component of their impulse buying experience each study, cultural differences were compared at two levels
than those from individualist cultures. of analysis: cultural region (Western Individualist vs. Eastern
Collectivist) and individual level (independent vs. interde-
H2: The emotional factors of pleasure and arousal that pendent self-concept). Using both levels helps to address
characterize impulsive buying behavior will be more some of the more common criticisms associated with
positively related to impulsive buying behavior cross-cultural research. Although using cultural region as an
among individualists than among collectivists. indicator of individualism and collectivism offers the advan-
tage of capturing the more complex nature of the construct, it
However, pleasure and arousal may be universal compo- also includes the disadvantage of adding between-country
nents of spontaneous buying behavior, and ones shared by variance to the often problematic within-country variance
people in both individualist and collectivist cultures. If so, found in cross-cultural research. On the other hand, using
then feelings of pleasure and arousal will be positively related people’s self-concept as an indicator of their level of individ-
ualism and collectivism measures the within-country vari- factory level of reliability in each sample, using Nunnally’s
ances, recognizing that each person internalizes national and (1978) criteria of a > .70. The 12 interdependent items and 12
institutional influences to a greater or lesser extent, but it fails independent items were each averaged, and respondents were
to pick up the more complex nature of the construct. Using an trichotomized with a score of 1, 2, or 3 on each. The independ-
individual level measure of culture in addition to a regional or ent score was reversed and added to the interdependent score
national level measure adds confidence that the results are to produce a measure of independence-interdependence on a
due to the construct of culture regardless of its measurement scale of 2 to 6. Those respondents who scored a 2 or 3 were
(see Maheswaran & Shavitt, 2000; Schwartz, 1994; Singelis classified as independent (n = 217), those who scored a 5 or 6
& Brown, 1995; Triandis, 1994, 1995). were classified as interdependent (n = 207) and those who
scored 4 were classified as neither and removed from the
analysis at the individual self-concept level.
PRELIMINARY STUDY The personality trait of buying impulsiveness was initially
measured using Rook and Fisher’s (1995) nine trait-buy-
Participants and Measures ing-impulsiveness-scale items, measured on 5-point strongly
disagree-strongly agree scales. This scale achieved satisfac-
A survey was administered to 706 students and non-students tory levels of reliability (ranging from .79 to .92) in each of
in four countries, two individualistic countries (Australia and the country samples (Nunnally, 1978). However, it is possi-
United States) and two collectivist countries (Singapore and ble that the nine items measure slightly different constructs in
Malaysia). As part of a larger study, participants were asked different cultures and if so, the impulse model may fit poorly
to complete a questionnaire concerning a recent impulsive (see Marsh & Byrne, 1993). All nine of the trait impulsive-
purchase, defined in this questionnaire as, “one in which you ness items were factor analyzed across cultural regions and
experience a sudden unexpected urge to buy something that reduced to a sub-scale of four items1 that were most consis-
you cannot resist. Impulse purchases occur while a person is tent across different cultures (for details see Appendix A).
in the store and involve rapid decision making.” The survey Of course, we predict that people with higher trait buying
included questions on impulsive purchasing behavior, re- impulsivity will make more frequent impulse purchases, but
spondents’ independent and interdependent self-concept we also hypothesize that for consumers in individualist cul-
(Singelis, 1994), trait buying impulsiveness (Rook & Fisher, tures the trait-behavior relationship will be stronger than for
1995), and demographic items including the country in which consumers in collectivist cultures. To test this, a comparison
respondent currently lives, and whether this country is the one of correlations and their variation across cultural groupings
she or he has lived in most of his or her life. was conducted.
A single measure of impulsive buying behavior was used
for this preliminary study. The item, “How often do you buy
things on impulse?” was measured on a 4-point scale from 1 Results
(almost every day) to 4 (almost never). The summary statis-
tics for this item are reported in Table 1. As seen in the top portion of Table 2, the correlation between
Respondents were classified into cultural groupings based trait and behavioral impulsiveness equals 0.64 for individual-
both on their cultural region and their individual self-concept ist cultures and 0.40 for collectivists. Similarly, the correla-
score as follows. At the cultural region level, respondents tion between trait and behavioral impulsiveness equals 0.59
were classified into two groups based on their country of resi- for independent and 0.46 for interdependent self-concepts of
dence: individualist (Australia and United States) or collec- culture. All of these correlations are significantly positive at
tivist (Malaysia and Singapore). Those respondents who had the .001 level as expected.
not lived in their country for most of their life were excluded As hypothesized, the buying impulsiveness trait was more
from the sample at this level of analysis. The resulting sam- strongly associated with impulse buying behavior for the in-
ples comprised 245 respondents from the individualist region dividualist than for the collectivist groups. Fisher’s z-trans-
(n = 131 from Australia and n = 114 from the United States) formations revealed that the correlations differed
and 344 respondents from the collectivist region (n = 160 significantly in the expected direction at both the cultural re-
from Malaysia and n = 184 from Singapore). The cultural gion (z = 3.87, p < .001) and the individual self-concept (z =
classification procedure developed by Triandis (1995) was 1.93, p < .05) levels of analysis (see Table 2). As expected, the
used to group participants at the individual level of culture. effect was more distinct at the regional level than at the indi-
Respondents indicated their level of agreement with 12 inde- vidual level of measurement of culture. Notably, the results
pendence and 12 interdependence self-concept statements
found in Singelis (1994) on 9-point strongly dis-
agree-strongly agree scales. These two self-concept scales 1
‘Just do it’ describes the way I buy things; (2) ‘I see it, I buy it’ describes
have been used frequently in cross-cultural research with me; (3) ‘Buy now, think about it later’ describes me; and (4) I often buy things
consistent results and in this study each scale received a satis- without thinking.
showed stronger support for our hypothesis at both levels of by making an impulse purchase. Our finding is consistent
analysis when we compared the partial correlations after con- with other research that indicates the attitude-behavior rela-
trolling for variances (cultural region, z = 6.27, p < .001; indi- tionship is weaker in collectivist than in individualist cultures
vidual difference, z = 4.40, p < .001). (Kashima et al., 1992). This evidence suggests that culture
does moderate the impulse trait-behavior relationship.
Although this finding highlights a significant difference
Discussion between consumers in Western versus Eastern cultures, it is
important to examine other variables that may also differen-
The results from our preliminary investigation indicate a tially affect the impulsive buying behavior of individualists
stronger relationship between trait buying impulsiveness and compared to collectivists. The impulse buying literature sug-
impulsive buying behavior for individualists compared to gests that consumers’ emotional states and their age influence
collectivists, which suggests that collectivists are less driven their impulsive buying behavior, yet the theory of individual-
than individualists to act on their trait buying impulsiveness ism and collectivism would predict a less important role for
Description of Measures and Summary Statistics for Scales
Individualist Region (n = 230) Collectivist Region (n = 318)
Description of Measures M SD M SD
Preliminary Study
Impulsive buying behavior (4-point)* 2.03 0.72 2.09 0.52
Trait buying impulsive sub-scale (5-point)** 2.53 0.97 2.59 0.81
“Just do it” describes the way I buy things 2.90 1.17 3.03 1.06
“I see it, I buy it” describes me 2.42 1.13 2.57 1.02
“Buy now, think about it later” describes me 2.34 1.12 2.37 1.03
I often buy things without thinking 2.46 1.11 2.36 0.94
Caucasian (n = 167) Asian (n = 233)
Main Study
Impulsive buying behavior (number of times in last 4.68 4.51 3.29 2.89
Trait buying impulsiveness sub-scale (7-point) 4.23 1.57 4.12 1.30
When I go shopping, I buy things that I had not in- 4.18 1.87 4.17 1.59
tended to purchase ***
I am a person who makes unplanned purchases** * 4.38 1.92 3.98 1.68
When I see something that really interests me, I buy it 3.66 1.98 3.98 1.82
without considering the consequences*** *
I avoid buying things that are not on my shopping list 4.70 1.63 4.35 1.65
Arousal scale (8-point semantic differential scales) 5.49 1.04 5.07 0.96
Stimulated–relaxed (r) 5.63 1.64 4.78 1.85
Calm–excited 5.41 1.76 5.22 1.67
Frenzied–sluggish (r) 5.01 1.16 4.76 1.10
Unaroused–aroused 5.91 1.23 5.55 1.12
Pleasure scale (8-point semantic differential scales) 6.26 0.91 5.75 0.94
Happy–unhappy (r) 6.49 1.09 5.98 1.32
Annoyed–pleased 6.38 1.22 5.86 1.28
Unsatisfied–satisfied 6.39 1.16 5.91 1.21
Contented–melancholic (r) 5.81 1.33 5.24 1.20
Note. Items with an (r) are negatively worded and are scored inversely. Items with one asterisk are measured as 1) almost every day, 2) often, 3) sometimes, 4)
never. Items with two asterisks are measured as 1) strongly disagree, 2) disagree, 3) neither, 4) agree, 5) strongly agree. Items with three asterisks are measured as
1) very rarely, 4) sometimes, 7) very often. Items with four as

Use: 0.0188