Ijchm 10 2015 0608

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management
Consumers’ impulsive buying behavior of restaurant products in social commerce

Namho Chung, Hyo Geun Song, Hyunae Lee,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Namho Chung, Hyo Geun Song, Hyunae Lee, (2017) "Consumers’ impulsive buying behavior
of restaurant products in social commerce", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 Issue: 2, pp.709-731, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0608
Downloaded by I.K.Gujral Punjab Technical University At 21:31 20 March 2018 (PT)
Permanent link to this document:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0608
Downloaded on: 20 March 2018, At: 21:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 88 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2117 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Impact of store environment on impulse buying behavior", European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 47 Iss 10 pp. 1711-1732 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2011-0110">https://
doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-2011-0110</a>
(2017),"Generation Y’s positive and negative eWOM: use of social media and mobile technology",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 Iss 2 pp. 732-761 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0611">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0611</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:568066 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
Consumers’ impulsive buying Consumers’

impulsive
behavior of restaurant products buying
behavior
in social commerce
Namho Chung 709
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, South Korea Received 30 October 2015
Revised 29 February 2016
Hyo Geun Song 3 March 2016
10 May 2016
Department of Culinary Science and Food Service Management, 8 June 2016
Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea, and 10 June 2016
Accepted 11 June 2016
Hyunae Lee
Department of Hotel Management, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Purpose – First, this paper aims to investigate the impact of impulsiveness on two types of shopping value
(e.g. utilitarian and hedonic value) and the urge to buy restaurant products and services impulsively in social
commerce environments. Second, the study assesses the impact of situational factors (e.g. scarcity and
serendipity) on individuals’ shopping values.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 332 participants. By using PLS-graph 3.0,
structural equation modeling was conducted. Furthermore, a hierarchical regression model was conducted for
testing the mediating and moderating effects.
Findings – The results indicate that impulsiveness is a strong predictor for two types of shopping value
(hedonic and utilitarian) and the urge to buy impulsively. While the hedonic shopping value was found to have
a significant influence on the urge to buy impulsively, utilitarian value was not. Scarcity was moderator in the
relationships between impulsiveness and both types of shopping value, whereas serendipity was found to
moderate only the relationship between impulsiveness and the utilitarian shopping value.
Practical implications – The findings show that the marketing managers and application developers of
social commerce should place their focus on scarcity and serendipity to stimulate consumers in having a
hedonic shopping value so to have an urge to buy impulsively.
Originality/value – First, although most previous studies focused on only rational or planned consumption,
this study focused on irrational and unplanned consumption as well. Second, the authors assessed the role of
situational factors (scarcity and serendipity) occurring in social commerce and asserted that these factors moderate
the relationship between consumers’ shopping values and their urge to buy impulsively.
Keywords Social media, Serendipity, Scarcity, Social commerce, Impulsive buying behaviour,
Restaurant products
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Since the appearance of Groupon in 2008, social commerce has been a vital and recurrent International Journal of
subject in e-commerce (Jung, 2014). Anderson et al. (2011) announced that the global sales of Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 29 No. 2, 2017
pp. 709-731
© Emerald Publishing Limited
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean 0959-6119
Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2043345). DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2015-0608
IJCHM social commerce reached US$5bn in 2015 and forecasts that this total would increase steeply.
29,2 Social commerce can be defined as one sort of e-commerce that uses social networks, social
media and customer participation to facilitate the online purchase of services or products.
Social commerce can satisfy the needs of the present consumers.
The present consumers tend to place more value on an experimental and hedonic style of
consumption such as impulsive buying (Novak et al., 2003; Song et al., 2015). They are
710 inclined to enjoy shopping more than buying what they really need (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998).
This pattern is commonly occurred in social commerce environments (Song et al., 2015), as
social commerce offers convenient searching (or exploring), buying and paying (Hansen and
Olsen, 2006), and several stimulators of impulsive buying such as a scarcity message (Song
et al., 2015).
An important aspect of social commerce is unreasonable behaviour caused by impulsive

emotion. The impulsive buying behaviour is usually viewed negatively, as it is an irrational
action rather than a planned purchase. Nonetheless, impulsive behaviour has benefits, such
as bringing a feeling of satisfaction, whereas a rationally planned purchase can be perceived
as a duty (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998).
Another theoretical perspective that can assist our comprehension of the influence
processes in social commerce is the situational factor. Situational factors in social commerce
are serendipity (e.g. surprising discoveries) and scarcity (e.g. limited quantity or time). When
customers find unexpectedly products or services on a website, their emotional affection can
be elicited by serendipitous information from discovered information (Toms, 2000). This
social commerce system allows customers to discover useful information that fits their
preferences (Zhang et al., 2012). When the product information discovered during navigation
is different from the information found in a planned search, it can cause impulsive buying
behaviour (Zhang et al., 2012). The other factor is scarcity message, which alerts consumers
that there is a limited quantity of a product (Lynn, 1989), eliciting impulsive behaviour. For
example, Groupons are valid only for a designated length of time (Sik and Hwan, 2014), so
they provoke impulsive buying behaviour.
Due to the limited space and time for restaurant products, they are normally in smaller
quantity than other products. Social commerce offers coupons for a wide range of products
and services related to fashion, cultural performance, cosmetic products and services, tour
products and restaurant products. According to Zhang et al. (2013), restaurant products
comprise 44.1 per cent of sales, and restaurant products surpassed the minimum deal
requirement before the deadline. Therefore, comprehension of social commerce is important
because social commerce is a crucial distribution channel for restaurant products.
In this situation, several research papers on social commerce have investigated the factors
that affect consumers’ impulsive buying behaviour in restaurant environment (Hansen and
Olsen, 2006). However, although impulsive buying behaviour has a hedonic feature, most of
the previous research has focused on rational (or utilitarian) factors such as convenience
(Hansen and Olsen, 2006). Little research has been conducted on situational factors (e.g.
serendipity and scarcity message) of social commerce inducing consumers’ impulsive
buying behaviour. Therefore, social commerce users who are more sensitive to scarcity
messages tend to buy restaurant products more often. Based on the theoretical prescriptions
from the impulsive buying behaviour and situational factors, this study has the following
objectives.
This study investigates the impact of impulsiveness on two types of shopping value (e.g.
utilitarian and hedonic value) and the urge to buy restaurant products and services
impulsively in social commerce environments. We then assess the impact of situational
factors (e.g. scarcity and serendipity) on shopping values.
Understanding the dynamics of impulsive buying behaviour in social commerce is Consumers’
important for both theoretical and practical reasons. Such research can enrich the social impulsive
commerce literature by addressing an unexplored area: the processes that shape potential
users’ purchases in social commerce. Additionally, this study scrutinizes moderating factors
buying
that affect impulsive buying behaviour and the variations in the impact of these processes behavior
across serendipity and scarcity. For practitioners, this research can help operators of social
commerce identify the effects of serendipity and scarcity message, and help them to develop
some methods for their application. 711
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Impulsive buying
Consumers’ decision-making has traditionally been regarded as rational or reasonable. They

identify and screen products or services and then evaluate and compare them before
selecting the most suitable ones (Häubl and Trifts, 2000). However, the proliferation of
information technologies (ITs) and online platforms (or channels) have stimulated impulsive
purchasing behaviour by increasing consumers’ access to products and services (Chen et al.,
2016; Kacen and Lee, 2002) and making the process of purchase and payment much easier.
Impulsive buying behaviour has been considered in different ways by researchers. In the
early stage of research, it was regarded as similar to unplanned purchase (Stern, 1962), but
later an unplanned action was recognized as different from an unplanned purchase
(Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982). Beatty and Ferrell (1998) considered impulsive buying
behaviour as a behaviour shown prior to an actual purchase and an action of buying a
product without planned action, but earn one’s impulsive emotion. Therefore, to reach a
deeper understanding of impulsive buying behaviour, this study examined impulsiveness
and the urge to buy impulsively.
Impulsiveness is defined as “consumer’s tendency to buy spontaneously, unreflectively,
immediately and kinetically” (Peck and Childers, 2006). According to Wells et al. (2011),
many scholars have paid considerable attention to a customer’s impulsiveness or impulse
buying trait, both in the traditional retail and online shopping context. Although various
traits influence the online shopping context, impulsiveness is a crucial variable that
increases the intention to purchase online (Zhang et al., 2006).
Meanwhile, the urge to buy impulsively is one of the types of irrational desire and can be
manifested as an intention to purchase impulsively. The urge to buy impulsively is defined as
“the state of desire that is experienced upon encountering an object in the environment”
(Beatty and Ferrell, 1998, p. 172). When consumers buy a product, they do not think about
whether they need it. Rather, it will result in immediate purchase to satisfy the buying duty,
which leads to impulsive buying behaviour (Verhagen and van Dolen, 2011). Impulsive
buying behaviour is connected with a sudden purchase, accompanied by strong feelings of
joy and excitement (Rook, 1987). The urge to buy impulsively blocks people from searching
for alternatives, and it leads customers to exhibit impulsive buying behaviour (Lee et al.,
2009).
In previous studies, impulsiveness was found to have a positive influence on the urge to
buy impulsively (Wells et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2006). In other words, the higher a
consumer’s impulsiveness, the more likely he or she is to buy impulsively (Rook and Fisher,
1995).
The urge to buy leads to having impulsive buying behaviour (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). Of
course, not all urges to buy are linked to impulsive buying behaviour. Nonetheless, the urge
to buy impulsively is an emotional medium for having impulsive buying behaviour
(Verhagen and van Dolen, 2011).
IJCHM 2.2 Restaurant products and services in social commerce
29,2 Social commerce has several attributes that tempt people to buy products and services. Song
et al. (2015) found that serendipity and scarcity increase the desire to buy impulsively in a
social commerce environment.
Serendipity occurs when an individual navigates the internet, not when he or she puts
words or sentences into a search engine. Thus, serendipitous information helps consumers to
712 find new items by chance, bringing happiness and satisfaction (Bellotti et al., 2008; Zhang
et al., 2012). Most social commerce has categorized the items according to the attributes and
trendily arranged specific products or services on the main page of websites or applications.
Scarcity messages convey a message of a limited time and quantity of products and
services. For decades, marketers have used scarcity messages to drive sales. Most social
commerce has limited the time and quantity of products. Therefore, psychological theories,
such as commodity theory (Brock, 1968), and psychological reactance theory (Brehm and
Brehm, 1981) have been developed to explain why people tend to want to purchase the items
that might not be available for long.
Social commerce is an important distribution channel for many products and services,
from clothes to online learning. Among these products, restaurant discount coupons and
vouchers are among the most popular (Martell, 2012 cited in Kim et al., 2013). Restaurant
discount coupons provide both consumers and restaurants with several advantages.
Consumers get discount and can obtain information about restaurants before going (Kim
et al., 2013). Restaurants are able to attract consumers with reduced promotional costs
(Stambor, 2011).
These two attributes of social commerce attract visitors to restaurants. Restaurants have
products with short shelf life and storage requirements. Perishable items that go to waste
have contributed to the large drop in profits (Glanz et al., 2007). Therefore, the faster the
restaurants sell their foods, the larger the profit margin. Moreover, through social commerce,
numerous restaurants sell special and inexpensive coupons that only can be used on
weekdays. This enables restaurants to avoid perishability by attracting more weekday
consumers with lower prices (Kim et al., 2013), mitigating the damage of slow season and
increasing daily revenues.
2.3 Shopping value

Shopping precedes purchase. Shopping value is an evaluation that consumers make (Babin
et al., 1994). Consumers see shopping value as a way to acquire what they need (utilitarian)
or a way to elicit positive emotion such as enjoyment (hedonic). Upon closer scrutiny of
utilitarian and hedonic shopping values, the former is the pursuit of effective methods and
performing shopping task rationally to satisfy needs (Babin et al., 1994). Consumers who
seek utilitarian value search for shopping information and engage in rational purchase
behaviour (Batra and Ahtola, 1991). Unlike utilitarian shopping value, hedonic shopping
value is an experiential, emotional and irrational value. Consumers who seek hedonic
shopping value have greater interest in enjoyment, fun and positive emotions (Babin et al.,
1994). In this sense, utilitarian and hedonic shopping values determine purchasing
behaviour. In online shopping, users tend to regard utilitarian shopping value as preferable
to hedonic shopping value to elicit customer satisfaction and trust (Kim and Oh, 2011). Unlike
prior planned and reasonable consuming behaviour, however, consumers who exhibit
purchasing behaviour in a new system such as social commerce often shop for fun (Shukla
and Babin, 2013). Therefore, this research considers both utilitarian and hedonic shopping
values.
2.4 Process theory Consumers’
Process theory explains the temporal sequence between input (independent variables) and impulsive
output (dependent variables) (Tsoukas, 1989; Van de Ven and Huber, 1990). Originally, buying
researchers developed this input-process-output framework to explain team performance
(Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1984). Recently, with ITs, this framework has been used to behavior
explain what induces people to use IT (Jung et al., 2015; Sarker and Wells, 2003). This study
investigates the process from the consumer’s impulsiveness to their urge to buy impulsively 713
through the shopping values.
Impulsiveness is the consumer’s tendency to buy impulsively (Peck and Childers, 2006).
The urge to buy impulsively is defined as the desire that people experience when they
encounter an object in the environment (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). Therefore, impulsiveness
has its roots in personality (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001) and is a predictor of desire
(Caligiuri, 2000). It can therefore be assumed that impulsiveness affects the urge to buy
impulsively, and researchers have proven this relationship (Wells et al., 2011; Xiang et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2006). Therefore, according to process theory, impulsiveness can be
regarded as an input factor, and the urge to buy impulsively as an output factor.
Meanwhile, shopping value precedes purchase and is an evaluation that consumers make
while shopping (Babin et al., 1994). In this study, shopping values are the utilitarian or
hedonic values of social commerce. To be more specific, utilitarian shopping value shows
that social commerce provides consumers with frictionless and efficient shopping
opportunities (Wagner and Rudolph, 2010). Hedonic shopping value is a joyful experience
(Babin and Attaway, 2000). Consumers’ tendency may influence their perception of social
commerce. Therefore, these positive values, which consumers perceive that social commerce
has, will be influenced by their tendency. Furthermore, these shopping values facilitate the
urge to buy impulsively.
Therefore, drawing from process theory, this study sets the impulsiveness
(input)-shopping values (process) – urge to buy impulsively (output) research model.
2.5 Scarcity
Commodity theory (Brock, 1968), the theory of need for uniqueness (Fromkin, 1968),
psychological reactance theory (Brehm and Brehm, 1981) and naive economic theory (Lynn,
1992) have been posited to explain the impact of scarcity. These theories postulate that
scarcity enhances the value of products and services. According to these theories, consumers
tend to have much stronger needs for unique or scarce products and services. Lynn (1991,
p. 3) explained this phenomenon as “a pervasive aspect of human life and is a fundamental
precondition of economic behaviour”.
Scarcity messages are useful in encouraging impulsive buying behaviour (Lynn, 1989).
Sales practitioners use phrases such as “one minute left” or “limited release” to put
psychological pressure on consumers. In social commerce, the scarcity message has
attracted the consumers to buy products and services which will not be available for long
(Figure 1).
The limits in social commerce take the forms of time and quantity (Rice and Keller, 2009).
Limited time restricts the duration of purchasing specific products and services, whereas
limited quantity sets a number of quantity of purchasable products and services. The main
screen of social commerce website or application shows the message or information about
limited time and limited quantity of products and services (Figure 1).
Among the products and services in social commerce, restaurant products and services in
social commerce have limits on time and quantity because of their limited space and
IJCHM perishability. Therefore, it is assumed that restaurant products and services in social
29,2 commerce would easily evoke a consumer’s desire to purchase (Song et al., 2015).
A scarcity message can be app- or Web-related, as a scarcity message can induce
consumers to touch or click the restaurant. Thus, this study assumes that a scarcity message
enhances the impact of consumers’ impulsiveness on shopping values which is believed that
social commerce has.
714
2.6 Serendipitous information
There are two ways to acquire information online: search and discovery. People input
specific words or a sentence into a search engine to search for information. When people find
interesting information by chance, they “discover” that information. With the popularization
of smartphone providing a convenient shopping environment, the importance of discovering
information has been focused by marketing practitioners and by developers of applications

and websites (Zhang et al., 2012).
Serendipity is a part of the Web browsing experience (Mislove et al., 2006). Thus,
information which is discovered by coincidence and related to consumer’s interest is called
“serendipitous information” (Toms, 2000). Previous studies have focused on both the
utilitarian (Clegg and Mendonça, 2010; Kim et al., 2013) and hedonic facets (André et al., 2009;
Clegg and Mendonça, 2010; McCay-Peet and Toms, 2011) of serendipity. The former studies
asserted that serendipity enhances a consumer’s experience (Kim et al., 2013), and the latter
studies have claimed that serendipitous information gives consumers happiness and
satisfaction (Bellotti et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2012) by enabling them to find new items.
In social commerce, serendipity has been regarded as a crucial facilitator of purchase. As
information about restaurant products and services is offered to consumers based on their
locations, consumers can find information about restaurants by clicking or touching their
location or even just by accessing the social commerce. Thus, social commerce consumers
can easily find restaurants by coincidence (Song et al., 2015).
3. Hypotheses development
Impulsive buying behaviour is relevant to understanding social commerce purchasing
behaviours because, according to studies by Chung et al. (2015), impulsive buying behaviour
is frequently discovered in social commerce and has a profound effect on social commerce.
The literature on impulsive buying behaviour provides a theoretical basis and an empirical
foundation for studying alternative influence processes and their effects.
In applying impulsive buying behaviour to social commerce, we expand the dependent
variable in impulsive buying behaviour to include impulsiveness and the urge to buy
impulsively.
This is justifiable because the research on impulsive buying behaviour views buying
behaviour as a broad construct consisting of three related components: tendency, urge and
Figure 1.
Example of scarcity
message in
serendipitous situation
in social commerce
behaviour (Wells et al., 2011). However, according to a large body of research, after Consumers’
consumers feel the urge to buy, they engage in impulsive buying behaviour, and thus they impulsive
measured the urge to buy impulsively instead of having impulsive buying behaviour
(Parboteeah et al., 2009; Wells et al., 2011) like the relationship between intention and
buying
behaviour in the technology acceptance model. This study follows suit. behavior
The proposed model is shown in Figure 2. This model examines the effect of
impulsiveness on utilitarian and hedonic shopping values in social commerce and also
examines the relationship between impulsiveness and the having urge to buy impulsively. 715
We chose the concept under which impulsiveness triggers impulsive buying behaviour
following prior research (Wells et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2006). In addition, this investigates
the relationship of shopping value and the urge to buy impulsively. Impulsive buying
behaviour is a shopping behaviour among restaurant consumers in social commerce, and we
suggest using a framework that shopping value would have an impact on his or her urge to
buy impulsively. Moreover, it looks at scarcity and serendipitous information to see how
these variables moderate the relationships between impulsiveness and shopping values in
social commerce.
3.1 The impacts of consumer impulsiveness

Consumers who engage in online shopping demonstrate different purchasing tendencies.
One of such behaviour is impulsiveness. Impulsiveness or impulsivity is the spontaneity
with which a consumer is likely to make an unplanned purchase (Chien-Huang and Chuang,
2005). To understand customers’ impulsiveness, prior studies have often concentrated on
their psychological traits (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Rook and Hoch, 1985). There was a
familiar topic related to impulsiveness suggesting that a buyer’s impulsiveness is emotional.
For this reason, buyers who have high impulsivity tend to enjoy a hedonic event in shopping
environments and are more inclined to increase their urge and actual purchases (Beatty and
Ferrell, 1998). Consumers who have high impulsiveness, however, have not only hedonic
Scarcity
H4-1(+) H4-2(+)
Hedonic
shopping value
H1-1(+) H3-1(+)
H2(+) Urge to buy

Impulsiveness
Impulsively
H1-2(+) H3-2(+)
Utilitarian
shopping value
H5-1(+) H5-2(+)
Serendipity
Figure 2.
Input Process Output Research model
IJCHM value but also utilitarian value. For example, when a customer encounters an item he or she
29,2 needs but does not plan to buy, the impulsive buyer may perceive the value of items and have
an intention to purchase. In other words, customers who have impulsiveness gratify their
utilitarian and hedonic shopping values.
In addition, impulsiveness is a tendency rooted in a consumer’s personality (Verplanken
and Herabadi, 2001). Individuals’ personality or tendency has been found to influence the
716 evaluation of ITs and systems (Cervone and Pervin, 2008; Yoo and Gretzel, 2011). Because a
consumer’s impulsive tendency facilitates purchasing behaviour, it can also be assumed to
affect the evaluation of the environments where purchasing behaviour occurs. In social
commerce, consumers who have a strong impulsive tendency perceive the value of social
commerce when they are shopping. Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1-1. The impulsiveness of social commerce consumers has a positive effect on hedonic
shopping value.
H1-2. The impulsiveness of social commerce consumers has a positive effect on
utilitarian shopping value.
Prior researchers have elucidated that consumers have different tendencies to be impulsive,
encouraging the assertion that impulsivity is a distinctive trait (Rook and Fisher, 1995).
Many studies propose a relationship between impulsiveness and the urge to buy impulsively
in an online shopping context (Parboteeah et al., 2009; Wells et al., 2011; Xiang et al., 2016).
The results of these studies show that impulsiveness has a positive impact on the urge to buy
impulsively. These results have a thread of connection with early studies of impulsive
buying behaviour (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. The impulsiveness of social commerce consumers has a positive effect on the urge to
buy impulsively.
3.2 The relationships between shopping value and the urge to buy impulsively
Shopping value is either utilitarian or hedonic (Babin et al., 1994). It is possible that hedonic
shopping value may improve the urge to buy impulsively in social commerce. Hedonic value
is important in shopping, and this value frequently arises within the restaurant industry
because of its emphasis on experiential and irrational facets. Buyers who pursue hedonic
shopping value pay more attention to joy, happiness or delight in shopping (Babin et al.,
1994). In the past, only hedonic shopping value was present in the online shopping
environment (Burke, 1997); however, in the present online shopping environment, there are
many things that enhance the hedonic value of users. If online shopping websites like social
commerce outlets provide customers with hedonic shopping value, the urge to buy
impulsively increases.
Even if hedonic shopping value affects consumers’ urge to buy impulsively, it is possible
that utilitarian shopping value also affects the urge to buy impulsively. For instance, the
more consumers consider functional and utilitarian value in shopping websites, the greater
the intention to purchase (or the urge to buy) in the online shopping environment (Ha and
Jang, 2010). Utilitarian shopping value, concerning practical and methodical value, may
make a consumer feel better about purchasing. Consumers who hold utilitarian and practical
value in internet shopping in high regard are apt to purchase products online because they
think online shopping offers more practical value, such as discounted prices and ease of
navigation (Sherry, 1990). As such, users of online shopping websites like social commerce
perceive the utilitarian value which is expected to argue in favor of the desire or urge to buy.
Hence, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3-1. In social commerce, consumers’ perceived hedonic shopping value has a positive Consumers’
impact on their urge to buy impulsively. impulsive
H3-2. In social commerce, consumers’ perceived utilitarian shopping value has a buying
positive impact on their urge to buy impulsively. behavior
3.3 The moderating effect of scarcity and serendipity
Scarcity can be explained as consumers’ recognition of the limited availability of a product or 717
service (Lynn, 1989). Prior studies regard purchase limitations as informational cues to the
consumer (Aggarwal et al., 2011; Lynn, 1992). Many social commerce sites such as Groupon
already use scarcity as a situational tool to increase the occurrence of impulsive buying
behaviour. As shown in Figure 3, two types of scarcity messages are used by the practice:
limited time (e.g. “Sale ends today”) and limited quantity (e.g. “Only 40 units available at this
price”). There may be situations in which consumers of social commerce do not have time to
search for alternatives because of time and quantity limitation. When a product is difficult to
buy, its value increases. As the increase in product value is recognized, consumers are more
eager to acquire it. In addition, when a product becomes rare, people will only want it more
(Brehm and Brehm, 1981). When consumers recognize that this limited product is available
to them, it fosters positive value. To recap, because being in a competitive environment with
limited resource is a strong stimulus, scarcity positively moderates the relationship between
impulsiveness and shopping values. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4-1. In social commerce, scarcity moderates the relationship between impulsiveness
and utilitarian shopping value.
H4-2. In social commerce, scarcity moderates the relationship between impulsiveness
and hedonic shopping value.
When users discover serendipitous information, these information may seem very attractive
and even surprising to them. These emotions will affect their experience, as they will believe
that it has shopping value. As serendipitous information comes through unexpected
discovery, impulsive action is more likely to be performed than a planned search. In social
commerce, product recommendations based on restaurant patrons’ preference and location
are constantly offered. This system enables users to discover information without having to
search for it. Serendipity involves unexpected finding and worth (Foster and Ford, 2003). It
also involves an unusual or surprise recommendation (Zhang et al., 2012). As serendipity is
Hedonic
shopping value
R 2 = 0.105
0.324*** 0.314***
Urge to buy
Impulsiveness 0.541*** Impulsively
R 2 = 0.554
0.113+ 0.089
Utilitarian
shopping value
R 2 = 0.013 Figure 3.
Path estimates by PLS
Notes: +P < 0.1; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001 analysis
IJCHM an unexpected situation, it can yield unplanned and impromptu consumers to perceive
29,2 shopping value differently from the way rational consumers do. Serendipitous information
will enhance users’ experience through the “Aha! moment” (McCay-Peet and Toms, 2011),
which will positively moderate the relationship between impulsiveness and shopping values.
Hence, this work proposes the following hypotheses:
H5-1. In social commerce, serendipity moderates the relationship between
718 impulsiveness and utilitarian shopping value.
H5-2. In social commerce, serendipity moderates the relationship between
impulsiveness and hedonic shopping value.
4. Methods
4.1 Data collection
As the present study evaluates customers’ impulsive buying behaviour through social
commerce, to collect suitable data, a survey should be administered to people with experience
in social commerce. Therefore, we tried to select a sample by conducting an online survey
from August 20 to 22, 2014 with Embrain, the largest professional internet market research
firm in South Korea (market share ⫽ 36.7 per cent) which have more than one million Korean
panels.
The survey was administered and distributed to Korean internet users registered as a
panel through an e-mail containing information about the survey and an attached hyperlink
of the survey. We chose restaurant products and services which are available for purchase
through social commerce in the survey. In our survey, all kinds of restaurants (e.g. Korean,
Chinese, Japanese, eastern and western food, buffet, fast food, food delivery, coffee, alcohol
and non-alcohol beverage, bakery) were included. Respondents were asked about the last
purchase that they made at a restaurant through a social commerce site. As a result, 332
responses were collected. Collecting data by using an online survey has several advantages:
access to a population with internet experience, guaranteed anonymity, time benefits and
convenience for both researchers and respondents. Online surveys have been used in a
considerable number of studies on internet use (Van Selm and Jankowski, 2006).
Furthermore, online survey can exclude respondents who do not have previous
experience with social commerce. In this study, we used a screening question: “Have you ever
purchased restaurant coupons through social commerce for the past one year?” If a
respondent clicked “no,” the survey would end. As a result, the sample only consists of people
who had already purchased restaurant products and services through social commerce sites
in South Korea (e.g. WeMakePrice, Coupang, Ticket Monster, Shocking Deal, CJ O’ clock, G9,
One A Day, Mom’s 2day, Groupon Korea).
Moreover, online survey enables researchers to adopt quota sampling method by
determining a number of categories. The age groups were automatically distributed to match
the age proportions of internet users based on authorized census data from the Korean
Statistical Information Service (2013) (Table I).
Table II presents the demographic features of the samples. Female (52.1 per cent) were
slightly more than males (47.9 per cent). In total, 28.3 per cent of the respondents was aged
between 30 and 39 years. A second group included those aged between 20 and 29 years (25.0
per cent), followed by a group of those aged between 40 and 49 years (27.7 per cent) and aged
50 years and above (19.0 per cent). Married respondents (61.1 per cent) were more than single
ones (38.9 per cent); thus, it can be assumed that married people were more likely to have
previous experience of purchasing restaurant products and services through social
commerce sites. Furthermore, a significant percentage had at least diploma or bachelor’s Consumers’
degree (87.3 per cent). impulsive
In addition, respondents who checked invalid answers (e.g. clicking repeatedly same
number) or failed to answer a question can be automatically barred from the online survey or
buying
prevented from proceeding to the next question until the skipped question has been behavior
answered.
4.2 Measures
719
Measurement items were adopted from previous studies: Scarcity (Brock, 1968), Serendipity
(McCay-Peet and Toms, 2011), Impulsiveness and Urge to buy impulsively (Verhagen and
van Dolen 2011), Hedonic and Utilitarian shopping values (Babin et al., 1994; Griffin et al.,
2000; Jones et al., 2006). All measurement items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale
Sampling (n ⫽ 332)
Age Population (%) Sample (%)
20-29 22.6 25.0

30-39 26.8 28.3
40-49 28.2 27.7 Table I.
50 and above 22.4 19.0 Quota sampling
Total 100 100 process in terms of age
Characteristics Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 159 47.9
Female 173 52.1
Age
20-29 83 25.0
30-39 94 28.3
40-49 92 27.7
50 and above 63 19.0
Education
Middle and high school 42 12.7
University 254 76.5
Graduate school 36 10.8
Marital status
Single 203 61.1
Married 129 38.9
Income
Under 1.00m Won 29 8.7
1.00-1.99m Won 61 18.4
2.00-2.99m Won 77 23.2
3.00-3.99m Won 50 15.1
4.00-4.99m Won 63 19.0
More than 5m Won 52 15.7
Total 332 100
Table II.
Note: US$1 ⫽ 1,138.20 Korean Won as of 22 October 2015 Sample description
IJCHM (1 – strongly disagree, 7 – strongly agree). As a results, a total number of 22 measurement
29,2 items were yield, and they are presented in Table III: scarcity (four items), serendipity (four
items), impulsiveness (four items), hedonic shopping value (four items), utilitarian shopping
value (two items) and urge to buy impulsively (four items).
The survey questionnaire was developed in English and then translated into Korean by
researchers who were proficient in both languages. Then, researchers including a hospitality and
720 tourism professor who are fluent in both English and Korean compared the original version with
translated version. No material differences were discovered between two versions.
5. Analysis and results

5.1 Measurement model
A partial least square (PLS) regression analysis was conducted to test the proposed research
model. PLS has been described as useful for assessing complex framework such as multiple
mediators (Magnusson et al., 2013) and multiple relationships among the variables at once
(Hair et al., 2011). As this study has a complex research model, with eight hypotheses and two
mediating and moderating variables, it is appropriate to use the PLS graph for analysis. With
a PLS graph, the analyses consisted of three stages: exploratory factor analysis,
measurement model analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM).
Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to test the presence of common method
variance (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). If a single factor will emerge or one general factor
accounts for more than 50 per cent of the covariance among the variables in an unrotated
factor analysis, there is a potential threat of common methods bias in the data (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). The results showed that a total of six factors were yielded and their eigenvalues
are greater than 1. Furthermore, the largest and first factor accounted for 38.76 per cent.
Therefore, the data of this study are free from the concern of common method biases.
Then, constructs were validated by assessing whether composite reliability (greater than
0.7), Cronbach’s alpha (greater than 0.7) and average variance extracted (AVE) (greater than
0.5) exceeded their threshold value to establish composite reliability and discriminant/
convergent validity of each construct (Chin, 1998), and then SEM can be conducted for
assessing hypothesized relationships.
In the analysis, one of the measurement items of utilitarian shopping value (UV3)
detracting reliability and validity was eliminated; thus, utilitarian shopping value was
composed of two measurement items. As shown in Table III, the composite reliability,
Cronbach’s alphas and AVEs of each construct were found to exceed their threshold value.
Therefore, reliability and convergent validity were supported.
Furthermore, to assess whether all items of the present study have high loadings and
cross-loadings on their corresponding constructs, we examined the relationship between the
latent variables and their corresponding constructs. As shown in Table IV, all items have
high loadings and corresponding constructs.
Moreover, we assessed whether the square roots of the AVE of each construct are greater
than the correlation between that construct and other constructs. As shown in Table V, the
results showed that diagonal elements (square root of AVE of each construct) were greater
than the correlation between that construct and other constructs. Therefore, discriminant
validity was also supported.
As the results of the analysis indicated that all of the measurement items satisfied the
requirements for establishing reliability and discriminant/convergent validity, we conducted
structural model analysis.
Constructs Measurement items C.Ra ␣b AVEc
Scarcity (Brock, 1968) Perceived limited time and quantity of products and services to purchase in social commerce
When I do shopping in social commerce, I thought deadline 0.937 0.910 0.788
When I do shopping in social commerce, I worried about limited time
When I do shopping in social commerce, I concerned about limited quantity
When I do shopping in social commerce, I was anxious about sold out sign
Serendipity (McCay-Peet An experience that consumers find interesting products or services in social commerce by coincidence while navigate the social commerce
and Toms, 2011) I obtained unexpected insights when do the shopping in social commerce 0.905 0.859 0.703
I unexpectedly discovered by chance what I want to buy before when do the shopping in social commerce
I found things that surprised me when do the shopping in social commerce
I was able to see the ordinary in new ways when do the shopping in social commerce
Impulsiveness Consumer’s tendency to buy products and services spontaneously, unreflectively, immediately and kinetically through a social commerce (modified from
(Verhagen and van Peck and Childers, 2006)
Dolen, 2011) “Just do it” describes the way I buy things 0.939 0.913 0.793
I often buy things without thinking
“I see it, I buy it” describes me
“Buy now, think about it later” describes me
Hedonic shopping value The extent to which consumers perceive that they can have joyful experience in the shopping experience itself in social commerce (modified from Babin
(Babin et al., 1994; and Attaway, 2000)
Griffin et al., 2000; Jones Social commerce shopping was truly a joy 0.922 0.885 0.749
et al., 2006) In social commerce, I continued to shop not because I had to, but because I wanted to
Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable in social commerce
During the shopping in social commerce, I felt the time flies
Utilitarian shopping The extent to which consumers perceive that social commerce provides them with frictionless shopping opportunity (modified from Wagner and
value (Babin et al., 1994; Rudolph, 2010)
Griffin et al., 2000; Jones I accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping trip in social commerce 0.894 0.763 0.809
et al., 2006) While shopping in social commerce, I found just the item(s) I was looking for
Urge to buy impulsively The state of desire that is experienced upon encountering an object in a social commerce (modified from Beatty and Ferrell, 1998)
(Verhagen and van I experienced a number of sudden urges to buy things when do the shopping in social commerce 0.920 0.884 0.743
Dolen, 2011) I saw a number of things I wanted to buy even though they were no on my shopping list when do the
shopping in social commerce
I experienced strong urges to make unplanned purchases when do the shopping in social commerce
When I do the shopping in social commerce, I felt a sudden urge to buy something
a b c
Notes: Composite reliability; Cronbach’s alpha; average variance extracted
reliability
721
factor analysis and

and confirmatory
Measurement items
Table III.
behavior
buying
impulsive
Consumers’
IJCHM Constructs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
29,2
(1) Scarcity
SC1 0.794** 0.405** 0.248** 0.380** 0.320** 0.389**
SC2 0.924** 0.436** 0.291** 0.384** 0.290** 0.448**
SC3 0.905** 0.479** 0.264** 0.379** 0.288** 0.453**
SC4 0.921** 0.473** 0.315** 0.421** 0.298** 0.472**
722
(2) Serendipity
SR1 0.423** 0.834** 0.194** 0.535** 0.492** 0.461**
SR2 0.438** 0.863** 0.140* 0.484** 0.489** 0.448**
SR3 0.442** 0.837** 0.226** 0.499** 0.428** 0.464**
SR4 0.392** 0.820** 0.270** 0.516** 0.419** 0.453**
(3) Impulsiveness
IM1 0.274** 0.258** 0.904** 0.344** 0.139* 0.613**
IM2 0.279** 0.169** 0.920** 0.284** 0.089 0.614**
IM3 0.290** 0.269** 0.840** 0.272** 0.106 0.542**
IM4 0.285** 0.170** 0.897** 0.239** 0.057 0.549**
(4) Hedonic shopping value

HV1 0.389** 0.633** 0.186** 0.813** 0.664** 0.447**
HV2 0.339** 0.485** 0.284** 0.848** 0.423** 0.469**
HV3 0.367** 0.471** 0.314** 0.898** 0.517** 0.478**
HV4 0.432** 0.518** 0.324** 0.899** 0.508** 0.484**
(5) Utilitarian shopping value

UV1 0.321** 0.518** 0.120* 0.575** 0.915** 0.342**
UV2 0.283** 0.464** 0.078 0.515** 0.883** 0.258**
(6) Urge to buy impulsively

UR1 0.434** 0.444** 0.542** 0.399** 0.273** 0.837**
UR2 0.341** 0.446** 0.632** 0.503** 0.274** 0.846**
UR3 0.453** 0.468** 0.571** 0.487** 0.296** 0.893**
Table IV. UR4 0.499** 0.520** 0.491** 0.474** 0.320** 0.870**
Cross-loadings for
items Note: The diagonal letters in italics are the cross-loading of each construct
Constructs Mean SDa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
(1) Scarcity 4.62 1.25 0.888

(2) Serendipity 4.89 0.93 0.505** 0.838
(3) Impulsiveness 3.77 1.28 0.316** 0.246** 0.891
(4) Hedonic shopping value 4.77 0.97 0.439** 0.604** 0.319** 0.865
(5) Utilitarian shopping value 4.93 0.92 0.335** 0.542** 0.108* 0.602** 0.899
(6) Urge to buy impulsively 4.46 1.09 0.500** 0.544** 0.648** 0.541** 0.335** 0.862
Table V.
a
Correlations among Notes: Standard error; diagonal elements represented Table V are the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) which
constructs are required to be greater than the corresponding off-diagonal elements to satisfy discriminant validity; *p ⬍ 0.05, ** p ⬍ 0.01
5.2 Structural model

To assess the main hypotheses (H1-1 to H3-2), SEM was conducted. The size of the
bootstrapping sample was 500. Table VI and Figure 3 show the results of SEM.
Impulsiveness was found to have both direct and indirect (through hedonic shopping
value) effects on the urge to buy impulsively. These results are similar to those of previous
studies (Hansen and Olsen, 2006). Furthermore, impulsiveness affects both shopping values. Consumers’
This result demonstrates that the stronger a consumer’s impulsive tendency, the higher the impulsive
level of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values of social commerce that he or she perceives.
Moreover, the hedonic shopping value was found to be important in the social commerce
buying
environment. In other words, the impact of impulsiveness on hedonic shopping value of behavior
social commerce was found to be stronger than on utilitarian shopping value. Furthermore,
only hedonic shopping value played a mediating role in the relationship between consumers’
impulsiveness and their urge to buy impulsively. This means that impulsive consumers tend 723
to enjoy shopping in social commerce, which evokes their urge to buy restaurant products or
services impulsively. Thus, H1-1, H1-2, H2 and H3-1 were established, but H3-2 was not.
5.3 Moderating effects

To assess the moderating roles of situational variables (e.g. scarcity and serendipity), we
conducted hierarchical moderated regression analyses by following Cohen and Cohen (1983).
All variables used for the moderating effects test were mean-centered to reduce the
possibility of multicollinearity and multiplied together (Aiken and West, 1991). Then,
we tested the full model by adding interaction terms to the main model. Table VII shows the
Hypotheses Path Estimates t-value Results
H1-1 Impulsiveness ¡ Hedonic shopping value 0.324 5.095 Supported

H1-2 Impulsiveness ¡ Utilitarian shopping value 0.113 1.733 Supported
H2 Impulsiveness ¡ Urge to buy impulsively 0.541 12.782 Supported
H3-1 Hedonic shopping value ¡ Urge to buy impulsively 0.314 4.844 Supported
H3-2 Utilitarian shopping value ¡ Urge to buy impulsively 0.089 1.448 Rejected
R2
Hedonic shopping value 0.105 (10.5%) Table VI.
Utilitarian shopping value 0.013 (1.3%) Standardized
Urge to buy impulsively 0.554 (55.4%) structural estimates
and tests of the
Note: H1-2 was supported at the significant level ⬍0.1 hypotheses
Dependent variables
Hedonic shopping value Utilitarian shopping value
Items Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Independent variable
Impulsiveness 0.319*** 0.153*** 0.120** 0.108* ⫺0.046 ⫺0.079
Moderating variables
Scarcity 0.140** 0.187*** 0.095⫹ 0.124*
Serendipity 0.495*** 0.493*** 0.505*** 0.529***
Interaction
Impulsiveness ⫻ scarcity 0.201*** 0.129*
Impulsiveness ⫻ serendipity ⫺0.016 0.121*
R2 0.102 0.409 0.435 0.012 0.301 0.35
Adjusted R2 0.099 0.404 0.435 0.009 0.294 0.34
F-value 37.484*** 75.809*** 51.978*** 3.928* 47.000*** 35.133***
⌬ R2 – 0.307 0.034 – 0.289 0.05 Table VII.
Moderating effects
⫹
Notes: p⬍0.1; * p⬍0.05; ** p⬍0.01; *** p⬍0.001 tests
IJCHM 6 6
29,2 5.5 5.5
5 5
724 4.5 4.5
4 4
Low High Low High
Impulsiveness Impulsiveness
Low scarcity High scarcity Low serendipity High serendipity
(a)
6 6
5.5 5.5
5 5
4.5 4.5
4 4
Low High Low High
Impulsiveness Impulsiveness
Low scarcity High scarcity Low serendipity High serendipity
(b)
Figure 4.
Plot of interaction Notes: (a) Interaction effects on hedonic shopping value; (b) interactions effects
effects on utilitarian shopping value
results of the moderating effects, and Figure 4 offers an understanding of the pattern of
interaction effects.
As shown in Table VII and Figure 4, scarcity was found to moderate the effects of
impulsiveness on both hedonic (Impulsiveness ⫻ Scarcity: ␤ ⫽ 0.201) and utilitarian shopping
value (Impulsiveness ⫻ Scarcity: ␤ ⫽ 0.129). In other words, the more scarcity messages an
individual received, the stronger the influence of impulsiveness on hedonic and utilitarian
shopping values became. Especially when an individual did not have enough scarcity messages,
the utilitarian shopping value was found to decrease, even though he or she had a high level of
impulsiveness (first chart in the bottom row of Figure 4). Therefore, it can be assumed that a
scarcity message enhances impulsive consumers’ perception of utilitarian and hedonic shopping
values by providing an opportunity for frictionless shopping and for enjoying shopping in a
social commerce environment. H4-1 and H4-2 were supported.
However, serendipity was found to moderate only the relationship between impulsiveness
and utilitarian shopping value (Impulsiveness ⫻ Serendipity: ␤ ⫽ 0.121). In other words, the
more serendipity a shopper found, the stronger the influence of impulsiveness on utilitarian
shopping value. Therefore, H5-2 was supported, but H5-1 was not.
5.4 Mediating effects

For better understanding of the mediation effects of shopping value, we conducted a
regression analysis following Baron and Kenny (1986). Baron and Kenny’s method has been
regarded as the most accurate way to assess the mediation effect, which postulates that a Consumers’
mediator is required to affect the direction or strength of the relation between independent impulsive
and dependent variables. We followed Baron and Kenny’s three steps of analysis:
buying
(1) assessing the impact of independent variable on mediator (Step 1); behavior
(2) the impact of independent variable on dependent variable (Step 2); and
(3) the impact of independent variable and mediator on dependent variable (Step 3).
725
Table VIII shows the results of the mediating effects. Step 1 revealed that impulsiveness has
a significant influence on both mediators (hedonic and utilitarian shopping values). Step 2
revealed that impulsiveness affects the urge to buy impulsively. Finally, Steps 3-1 and 3-2
revealed that, even when mediators were controlled, impulsiveness had a significant
influence on the urge to buy impulsively. Therefore, the impulsiveness effect on the urge to
buy impulsively is partially mediated by both hedonic and utilitarian shopping values.
6. Discussion and conclusions

The results represented that impulsiveness has a direct and indirect (through hedonic
shopping value) influences on the urge to buy impulsively. In addition, impulsiveness was
found to influence both types of shopping value. In other words, consumers’ impulsiveness
can satisfy shopping value in social commerce environments. These results are similar to
Rook’s (1987) insistence that consumers tend to feel better after making an impulsive
purchase and to Hansen and Olsen’s (2006) study, which showed that the impact of impulsive
buying tendency affects impulsive buying behaviour. Furthermore, impulsiveness was
found to be the strongest predictor of the urge to buy impulsively. This result supports the
findings of previous researchers (Caligiuri, 2000; Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001) who
asserted that impulsiveness is based on individuals’ personality, and that personality would
influence one’s desire. In social commerce, consumers with a strong impulsive tendency are
more likely to feel the urge to buy restaurant products and services impulsively in social
commerce. This result is similar to that of previous studies (Wells et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,
2006) which concluded that impulsiveness is a strong predictor of the urge to buy
impulsively.
Scarcity was found to moderate the effects of impulsiveness on both hedonic and
utilitarian shopping values. In other words, when an individual receives a scarcity message
about a specific restaurant in the social commerce environment, his or her impulsiveness is
likely to let him or her regard purchasing that restaurant as an effective way to perform
shopping tasks (utilitarian) or to stimulate fun and enjoyment (hedonic). The result showed
that, when an individual received fewer scarcity messages, the utilitarian shopping value
Standardized Standardized
Step Independent variables Mediators coefficient error R2 Comments
Step 1 Impulsiveness Hedonic shopping value 0.319*** 0.040 0.102 –

Utilitarian shopping value 0.108* 0.039 0.012
Step 2 Impulsiveness Urge to buy impulsively 0.648*** 0.036 0.420 –
Step 3-1 Impulsiveness Urge to buy impulsively 0.530*** 0.033 0.544 Partial mediation
Hedonic shopping value 0.371*** 0.044 – Table VIII.
Step 3-2 Impulsiveness Urge to buy impulsively 0.619*** 0.034 0.492 Partial mediation Mediation analysis
Utilitarian shopping value 0.268*** 0.047 – following the Baron
and Kenny (1986)s
Notes: * p ⬍ 0.05; *** p ⬍ 0.001 approach
IJCHM was found to decrease, even though he or she had a high level of impulsiveness. These results
29,2 can be explained by psychological theories such as commodity theory (Brock, 1968), a theory
of need for uniqueness (Fromkin, 1968), reactance theory (Brehm and Brehm, 1981) and naive
economic theory (Lynn, 1992). Furthermore, in the context of hedonic shopping value, the
latter result is partially similar to Song et al.’s (2015) study, which showed a strong
relationship between scarcity and the consumer’s perceived enjoyment.
726 Serendipity was found to play a moderating role in the relationship between
impulsiveness and hedonic shopping value. In other words, when an individual received
serendipitous information about a restaurant in social commerce environments, his or her
impulsiveness was likely to let him or her regard purchasing from that restaurant as a
stimulator of fun. This result is somewhat similar to Zhang et al.’s (2012) argument and to the
study by Song et al. (2015), which present the relationships between serendipity and
happiness or enjoyment.
Based on these results, this study has the following theoretical implications. First, this
study has focused on both rational and irrational consumption processes in the social
commerce environment by adopting two types of shopping value (utilitarian and hedonic).
Most of the literature on social commerce has focused on rational or planned consumption
behaviour (Hajli, 2013; Shin, 2013); however, irrational and unplanned consumption also can
take place in the social commerce environment, due to the simplicity and convenience of
exploring, searching and paying. Therefore, it is worthwhile to broaden the perspective of
shopping value from utilitarian to hedonic value.
Second, we adopted two situational factors (scarcity and serendipity) in social commerce
environments to assess their moderating roles in the relationships between impulsiveness
and shopping value. Although scarcity and serendipity are the signature strengths inducing
consumers to buy impulsively in social commerce, little research has been conducted on the
effects of these factors in social commerce. Moreover, as “Impulsiveness is defined by
problems with timing” (Rubia et al., 2009), it is meaningful to investigate their roles.
Furthermore, these factors can be adopted on online duty-free shops, blogs and social media
where purchasing behaviour occurs.
Furthermore, this study also provides practical implications. First, this study can instill in
the minds of marketing managers and website or application developers of social commerce
the importance of hedonic shopping value, scarcity and serendipity in social commerce
environments. In a social commerce website or application, only texts and images on screen
can inform consumers about limited quantity and time in purchasing restaurant products
and services. Thus, it is important to design and arrange the texts or images to show scarcity
message clearly at a glance. In addition, it is important to extend the methods of sending
scarcity message such as setting an application alarm and sending e-mails. In the context of
serendipity, broadening the range of restaurant and developing consumption-based
recommendation systems are needed to allow consumers to find the products and services
that interest them.
Second, as hedonic shopping value was found to be instrumental to urge to buy
impulsively while utilitarian shopping value was not, application and website of social
commerce should be designed to stimulate customers’ hedonic shopping value. The present
social commerce has put emphasis on discounted price; however, to induce customer’s
impulsive buying behaviour, it is important to make customers feel the fun of shopping. For
instance, gamified discount events, advertisement with fad words, vivid photos of
restaurants and foods can be helpful. This enables customers to be fully immersed in the
shopping, to feel the time flies and to purchase products and services impulsively.
However, this study has several limitations. The first limitation is that utilitarian Consumers’
shopping value was measured by only two measurement items, as one of the measurement impulsive
items detracting reliability and validity was eliminated. Therefore, measurement items of
utilitarian shopping value should be redeemed in future studies. To be more specific,
buying
measurement items related to frictionless shopping and shopping efficacy can be used to behavior
measure utilitarian shopping value.
The second limitation is that although we used the two situational factors of serendipity
and scarcity, other factors might influence consumers’ urge to buy restaurant products in 727
social commerce. These factors can be food-related (e.g. pictures or types of restaurant),
company- or brand-related (e.g. recognized company or brand) and social commerce
system-related (e.g. convenience). Future studies should focus on other factors that induce
consumers to buy impulsively in social commerce.
Finally, although process theory was used to explain the causal sequence, impulsiveness
(input) – shopping values (process) – urge to buy impulsively (output), the theory covering
both this sequence and two moderators (serendipity and scarcity) was not. Therefore, further
studies should use or extend overarching theories that could explain the roles of
impulsiveness, shopping value, serendipity and scarcity in social commerce.
References
Aggarwal, P., Jun, S.Y. and Huh, J.H. (2011), “Scarcity messages”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 19-30.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Anderson, M., Sims, J., Price, J. and Brusa, J. (2011), Turning “Like” to “Buy” Social Media Emerges as
A Commerce Channel, Booz & Company, available at: http://boletines.prisadigital.com/Like_to_
Buy.pdf (accessed 29 February 2016).
André, P., Teevan, J. and Dumais, S. T. (2009), October). “Discovery is never by chance: designing for
(un) serendipity”, Proceedings of The Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition,
ACM, New York, NY, pp. 305-314.
Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share
of customer”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of consumer research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Baron, R.M. and Kenney, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1991), “Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-170.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, E.M. (1998), “Impulse buying: modeling its precursors”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 161-167.
Bellotti, V., Begole, B., Chi, E.H., Ducheneaut, N., Fang, J., Isaacs, E., King, T., Newman, M.W.,
Partridge, K. and Price, B. (2008), “Activity-based serendipitous recommendations with the
Magitti mobile leisure guide”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, ACM, New York, NY, p. 1157.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (1981), Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Brock, T.C. (1968), “Implications of commodity theory for value change”, in Greenwald, A.G.,
Brock, T.C. and Ostrom, T.M. (Eds), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 243-275.
IJCHM Burke, R.R. (1997), “Do you see what I see? The future of virtual shopping”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 352-360.
29,2
Caligiuri, P.M. (2000), “The big five personality characteristics as predictors of expatriate’s desire to
terminate the assignment and supervisor-rated performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53
No. 1, pp. 67-88.
Cervone, D. and Pervin, L.A. (2008), Personality: Theory and Research, 10th ed., Hoboken, John Wiley
728 and Sons, NJ.
Chen, J.V., Su, B.C. and Widjaja, A.E. (2016), “Facebook C2C social commerce: a study of online impulse
buying”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp. 57-69.
Chien-Huang, L. and Chuang, S.C. (2005), “The effect of individual differences on adolescents’ impulsive
buying behavior”, Adolescence, Vol. 40 No. 159, pp. 551-558.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ,
pp. 295-336.
Clegg, S.R. and Mendonça, S. (2010), “On serendipity and organizing”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 319-330.
Chung, N., Song, H.G. and Koo, C. (2015), “A theoretical model of impulsive buying behaviour in tourism
social commerce”, available at: http://3ws1wk1wkqsk36zmd6ocne81.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/
files/2015/02/Chung-Song-and-Koo.pdf (assessed 29 Feburary 2016).
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Foster, A. and Ford, N. (2003), “Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study”, Journal of
Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 321-340.
Fromkin, H.L. (1968), “Affective and valuational consequences of self-perceived uniqueness
deprivation”, Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio.
Glanz, K., Resnicow, K., Seymour, J., Hoy, K., Stewart, H., Lyons, M. and Goldberg, J. (2007), “How major
restaurant chains plan their menus: the role of profit, demand, and health”, American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 383-388.
Griffin, M., Babin, B.J. and Modianos, D. (2000), “Shopping values of Russian consumers: the impact of
habituation in a developing economy”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Ha, J. and Jang, S. (2010), “Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the role of
familiarity in Korean restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 2-13.
Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Organizational Behaviour,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-342.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hajli, M. (2013), “A research framework for social commerce adoption”, Information Management &
Computer Security, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 144-154.
Hansen, K. and Olsen, S.O. (2006), “Impulsive buying behaviour-the role of impulse buying
tendencies and convenience orientation”, Proceedings of ANZMAC 2007 Conference,
University of Otago, Dunedin, Vol. 5, 3 December 2007, pp. 2199-2206.
Häubl, G. and Trifts, V. (2000), “Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects
of interactive decision aids”, Marketing science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value-
investigating differential effects on retailor outcomes”, Journal of business research, Vol. 59 No. 9,
pp. 974-981.
Jung, L.S. (2014), “A research on the relationship of web-site usability and social commerce”, Workshop Consumers’
on Business, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 15-18.
impulsive
Jung, T., Chung, N. and Leue, M.C. (2015), “The determinants of recommendations to use augmented
reality technologies: the case of a Korean theme park”, Tourism Management, Vol. 49, pp. 75-86.
buying
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behaviour”,
behavior
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Kim, B. and Oh, J. (2011), “The difference of determinants of acceptance and continuance of mobile data 729
services: a value perspective”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 1798-1804.
Kim, S.B., Sun, K.A. and Kim, D.Y. (2013), “The influence of consumer value-based factors on
attitude-behavioral intention in social commerce: the differences between high-and
low-technology experience groups”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2,
pp. 108-125.
Korean Statistical Information Service (2013), “Korean resident population statistics”, available at:
www.kosis.kr/ (accessed 29 February 2016).
Lee, M., Kim, Y. and Fairhurst, A. (2009), “Shopping value in online auctions: their antecedents and
outcomes”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 75-82.
Lynn, M. (1989), “Scarcity effects on desirability: mediated by assumed expensiveness?”, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 257-274.
Lynn, M. (1991), “Scarcity effects on value: a quantitative review of the commodity theory literature”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Lynn, M. (1992), “Scarcity’s enhancement of desirability: the role of naive economic theories”, Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 67-78.
McCay-Peet, L. and Toms, E.G. (2011), “The serendipity quotient”, Proceedings of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance (Vol. 14), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Magnusson, P., Westjohn, S.A., Semenov, A.V., Randrianasolo, A.A. and Zdravkovic, S. (2013), “The
role of cultural intelligence in marketing adaptation and export performance”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 44-61.
Martell, N. (2012), “Your guide to Groupon: is this online couponing site really good for your business?
Find out Restaurant Management”, available at: www.rmgtmagazine.com/marketing/
yourguide-groupon (assessed 29 February 2016).
Mislove, A., Gummadi, K.P. and Druschel, P. (2006), “Exploiting social networks for internet search”,
Proceedings of 5th Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets06), Irvine, CA,
November, pp. 79-84.
Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L. and Duhachek, A. (2003), “The influence of goal-directed and experiential
activities on online flow experiences”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Parboteeah, D.V., Valacich, J.S. and Wells, J.D. (2009), “The influence of website characteristics on a
consumer’s urge to buy impulsively”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 60-78.
Peck, J. and Childers, T.L. (2006), “If I touch it I have to have it: individual and environmental influences
on impulse purchasing”, Journal of business research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 765-769.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Rice, S. and Keller, D. (2009), “Automation reliance under time pressure”, International Journal of
Cognitive Technology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 36-45.
Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
IJCHM Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulsive buying behaviour”, Journal of
consumer research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
29,2
Rook, D.W. and Hoch, S.J. (1985), “Consuming impulses”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 23-27.
Rubia, K., Halari, R., Christakou, A. and Taylor, E. (2009), “Impulsiveness as a timing disturbance:
neurocognitive abnormalities in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder during temporal
730 processes and normalization with methylphenidate”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 364 No. 1525, pp. 1919-1931.
Sarker, S. and Wells, J.D. (2003), “Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 35-40.
Sherry, J.F. Jr (1990), “A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern American flea market”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 13-30.

Shin, D. (2013), “User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust”, Behaviour & Information
Technology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 52-67.
Shukla, P. and Babin, B.J. (2013), “Effects of consumer psychographics and store characteristics in
influencing shopping value and store switching”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 194-203.
Sik, Y. and Hwan, S. (2014), “Differences of revisit intention according to customers’ experiences on
social commerce discount deals”, e-Business Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 51-67.
Song, H.G., Chung, N. and Koo, C. (2015), “Impulsive buying behaviour of restaurant products in social
commerce: a role of serendipity and scarcity message”, Proceedings from PACIS 2015: The 19th
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Singapore, 6-9 July.
Stambor, Z. (2011), “Social networks serve as the water cooler for web purchases, especially electronics”,
9 August, available at: www.internetretailer.com/(2011),/08/09/social-networks-serve-water-
coolerweb-purchases (accessed 29 February 2016).
Stern, H. (1962), “The significance of impulse buying today”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 59-62.
Toms, E.G. (2000), “Serendipitous information retrieval”, DELOS Workshop: Information Seeking,
Searching and Querying in Digital Libraries, December, available at: www.ercim.eu/publication/
wsproceedings/DelNoe01/3_Toms.pdf (assessed 29 February 2016).
Tsoukas, H. (1989), “The validity of idiographic research explanations”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 551-561.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Huber, G.P. (1990), “Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes
of organizational change”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 213-219.
Van Selm, M. and Jankowski, N.W. (2006), “Conducting online surveys”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 435-456.
Verhagen, T. and van Dolen, W. (2011), “The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online
impulse buying: a model and empirical application”, Information & Management, Vol. 48 No. 8,
pp. 320-327.
Verplanken, B. and Herabadi, A. (2001), “Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: feeling and
no thinking”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. S71-S83.
Wagner, T. and Rudolph, T. (2010), “Towards a hierarchical theory of shopping motivation”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 415-429.
Weinberg, P. and Gottwald, W. (1982), “Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Wells, J.D., Parboteeah, V. and Valacich, J.S. (2011), “Online impulse buying: understanding the
interplay between consumer impulsiveness and website quality”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-56.
Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M.K. and Zhao, D. (2016), “Exploring consumers’ impulse buying behaviour on Consumers’
social commerce platform: the role of parasocial interaction”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
impulsive
Yoo, K.H. and Gretzel, U. (2011), “Influence of personality on travel-related consumer-generated media
buying
creation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 609-621. behavior
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R., and Koh, C.E. (2006), “The role of impulsiveness in a TAM based online
purchasing behaviour model”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 54-68. 731
Zhang, Y.C., Séaghdha, D.Ó, Quercia, D. and Jambor, T. (2012), “Auralist: introducing serendipity into
music recommendation”, Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Web Search
and Data Mining, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 13-22.
Zhang, Z., Zhang, Z., Wang, F., Law, R. and Li, D. (2013), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of online
group buying in the restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,

Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 237-245.
Further reading
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Chan, Y.Y. and Ngai, E.W. (2011), “Conceptualising electronic word of mouth activity: an
input-process-output perspective”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 488-516.
Chang, E. and Tseng, Y. (2013), “Research note: e-store image, perceived value and perceived risk”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 864-870.
Chung, N., Koo, C. and Kim, J.K. (2014), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for using a booth
recommender system service on exhibition attendees’ unplanned visit behaviour”, Computers in
Human Behaviour, Vol. 30, pp. 59-68.
Cialdini, R.B. (2009), Influence: Science and Practice (Vol. 4), Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Gupta, S. and Kim, H. (2010), “Value-driven Internet shopping: the mental accounting theory
perspective”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 13-35.
Kim, H. and Kankanhalli, A. (2009), “Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: a status quo bias perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 597-582.
Koski, N. (2004), “Impulse buying on the internet: encouraging and discouraging factors”, Frontiers of
E-business Research, Vol. 4, pp. 23-35.
Lee, E. (2011), “The effects of internet fashion consumer’s impulse buying tendency on positive and
negative purchasing behaviours”, Fashion & Textile Research Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 511-522.
Corresponding author
Hyunae Lee can be contacted at: halee8601@khu.ac.kr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This article has been cited by:
1. AkramUmair, Umair Akram, HuiPeng, Peng Hui, Kaleem KhanMuhammad, Muhammad Kaleem
Khan, TanveerYasir, Yasir Tanveer, MehmoodKhalid, Khalid Mehmood, AhmadWasim, Wasim
Ahmad. 2018. How website quality affects online impulse buying. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics 30:1, 235-256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. RehmanFazal ur, Fazal ur Rehman, Bin Md YusoffRosman, Rosman Bin Md Yusoff, Bin
Mohamed ZabriShafie, Shafie Bin Mohamed Zabri, Binti IsmailFadillah, Fadillah Binti Ismail.
2017. Determinants of personal factors in influencing the buying behavior of consumers in sales
promotion: a case of fashion industry. Young Consumers 18:4, 408-424. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]

Ijchm 10 2015 0608

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ijchm 10 2015 0608

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management

Consumers’ impulsive buying behavior of restaurant products in social commerce

Permanent link to this document:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Consumers’ impulsive buying Consumers’

An important aspect of social commerce is unreasonable behaviour caused by impulsive

Consumers’ decision-making has traditionally been regarded as rational or reasonable. They

2.3 Shopping value

information has been focused by marketing practitioners and by developers of applications

3.1 The impacts of consumer impulsiveness

H2(+) Urge to buy

20-29 22.6 25.0

Characteristics Frequency (%)

5. Analysis and results

Constructs Measurement items C.Ra ␣b AVEc

factor analysis and

(4) Hedonic shopping value

(5) Utilitarian shopping value

(6) Urge to buy impulsively

Constructs Mean SDa (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) Scarcity 4.62 1.25 0.888

5.2 Structural model

5.3 Moderating effects

Hypotheses Path Estimates t-value Results

H1-1 Impulsiveness ¡ Hedonic shopping value 0.324 5.095 Supported

29,2 5.5 5.5

724 4.5 4.5

5.4 Mediating effects

6. Discussion and conclusions

Step 1 Impulsiveness Hedonic shopping value 0.319*** 0.040 0.102 –

Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 13-30.

group buying in the restaurant industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi