Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Project Report on
Submitted by
Rishav Saha (175SM024)
Submitted to
Dr. Ritanjali Majhi
School of Management,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal
ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019
1
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the Report of the P.G. Project Work entitled “How do
brands exploit impulsive buying” which is being submitted to the National
Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal in the partial fulfilment for the
completion of the course ‘Marketing Research’ in the department of ‘School of
Management’, is a bonafide report of the work carried out by me. The material
contained in this Report has not been submitted to any University or Institution
for the award of any degree.
Rishav Saha
School of Management
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my sincere gratitude to the course instructor Dr. Ritanjali Majhi, who
gave me this opportunity to work on this project. She guided me on the various
aspects of the project. Her valuable guidance and suggestions helped me in the
fulfilment of the project.
I extend thanks to my classmates who contributed and had a significant role to
play in the completion of this project.
Last but not the least I thank the almighty, relatives and friends for being with me
and supporting me through the entire journey of the project.
Rishav Saha
3
ABSTRACT
Impulsive buying behavior is the key to exploit the various brands in the e-shopping world.
But due to the psychological complexity of consumer buying decisions, firms are not able to
design new strategies for the e-tail customers compared to the retail customers in the organized
sector. The main focus of the study is on the brand exploitation through impulsive buying in
the e-tail portals. There are many known and unknown variables of impulsive buying in the
online portals, which affects the brand exploitation. Hence, the present study is limited to
identify the different internal and external factors that influences the impulsive buying of
customers in the e-tail shopping environment compared to the traditional retail shopping
traditions. There has been a considerable research done in the organized retail sectors to derive
the compulsive buying patterns through the self-congruence and impulsive buying tendency
that creates a competitive advantage for brand exploitation. But little research has been carried
on the e-tail portals. The study begins with identifying some fundamental research questions
after the detailed literature review, formation of standard hypothesis. Four major objectives
have been chosen to understand the relationship between impulsive buying and other factors,
to identify the dominant factors that influence the impulsive buying towards specific product.
A considerable research gap was identified between the impulsive buying trends in the
organized retail sectors and the e-tail portals. The present study used a qualitative and
quantitative approach using both primary and secondary sources of data. Factor Analysis were
applied for the primary data by applying an online survey with 11 close-ended questions. The
chi-square test was applied for the hypotheses. And the study concluded that no strong
relationship between buying frequency and gender, also there is significant difference in gender
for random buying of products. Age has no relation on random buying of products. In general,
people with no income or less income prefers to buy products in offers. The frequency of
buying does not depend on credit card holder. There is no relationship between gender and
buying a product based on purchase reviews and buying a product based on window display.
There is no significant relationship between age and buying product after a price drop but there
is significant relationship between age and buying with free items.
4
Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 6
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................. 11
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 11
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 11
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................... 12
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................. 12
RESEARCH GAP .............................................................................................................................. 13
RESEARCH METHODLOGY .......................................................................................................... 13
APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 13
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 13
SAMPLING ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Technique ................................................................................................................... 14
Defined Population ...................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Frame ........................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Unit................................................................................................................................ 14
Sampling Method ......................................................................................................................... 15
Sample Size ................................................................................................................................... 15
Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 32
FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 37
QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................. 38
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 41
5
INTRODUCTION
products as services differently (Nishant & etal, 2018). Impulsive buying is one of the
psychological factors that defines a company’s revenue potential. There are many
known and unknown variables which effects the brand loyalty. The companies take
revenue. From the past few years a lot of research has been conducted to ascertain
the impulsive buying behaviours from one brand to another brand, While e-shopping.
with the impulsive purchasing nature of the customers in India. Due to this, so many
brands miserably fail to exploit customers losing the market share drastically. Hence
the present study makes an attempt to explore the various internal and external factors
that influence the impulsive buying of customers in online shopping. The basic
objective of this study is to classify the different brands that exploits the customers on
The study focus on impulsive buying behaviours of customers that causes brand
exploitation. The present study is limited to identify the different factors that influences
This study also makes an attempt to classify the bands that exploits the impulsive
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Desai .P .S (2016) explored the impulsive buying as a dependent variable and factors
like window display, Proximity, Price, Promotional offer, Hedonic feelings, Having
method. The researcher found that Chocolates (77%), Apparels (65%) and food (52%)
are mostly purchased impulsively from organized retail stores in Gujarat. This is an
there is no clear evidence of the same product purchases in the online shopping
trends. Hence, there is a research gap between the retail and the e-tail impulsive
buying behaviours. Anant .J .B et. al (2016) worked on the similar study and argued
that there is a significant positive relationship between the impulsive buying tendency
and impulsive buying behaviour. The relationship between impulsive buying tendency
and self-control was found to be inversely significant. The results also derived a
significant relationship between impulsive buying tendency and the two personality
that self-congruence could lead to negative behaviours (i.e. impulsive and obsessive
of how brand attachment operates between self-congruence and the two negative
behaviours. Heping.H et. al (2018) found some out breaking conclusions about
compulsive buying with high-prevalence in China that may be associated with face
consciousness. The new online compulsive buying drivers in China include observed
perceptions of local presence and found that the local presence increase when
products are presented in a vivid and interactive manner in a web store. Perceptions
7
of local presence increased the urge to buy impulsively through increased product
affect. Researchers also concluded that the product risk does not inhibit the urge to
buy impulsively. Shakeel .A.S & Shabeer .A.N (2018) examined the effect of intrinsic
attributes on impulsive buying behaviour among young customers and found that
Fayaz .A.N (2017) argued that intrinsic factors significantly influence the impulsive
buying decision. Lin .X (2018) built a hierarchical model based on 17 motivations and
observed that online group buyers were mainly driven by utilitarian motivations. Self-
actualization was the ultimate factor motivating online group buyer behaviour. Anant
.J.B & Anshul .V (2014) found that extraversion and conscientiousness significantly
positively affects impulsive buying, but individualism found unrelated. Gender did not
shopping enjoyment tendency and impulsive tendency affect impulsive buying. Anant
related to the availability of money, time and credit card that affected impulsive buying
behaviour (IBB). Economic well-being positively impacted IBB, while age had negative
affected IBB. Arne .F & Maria .M (2013) were the first to use the amount spent
e-store navigation are significant stimuli of shopping enjoyment and also shopping
.H (2016) came out with the two outstanding findings. First, the urge to buy differs from
impulse buying and significantly predicts impulse buying behaviour. Secondly, peers’
8
impulsive desire to purchase. Sinje .V et. al (2015) compared compulsive buyers and
controls with respect to impulsivity measures and hoarding. Researchers identified the
.C et. al (2018) further indicated that urge to buy impulsively is determined by affective
trust in the recommender and affection toward the recommended product which are
Ing-Long .W et. al (2016) observed that the online impulse purchasing is an important
part of online shopping. The study proposed a model with three issues, flow, website
quality and trust that determined the individual psychological state of online shoppers.
Kelseanna .H.H et. al (2019) applied the Episodic Future thinking (EFT) on the online
grocery shopping and observed that the obese customers purchased the groceries
with fewer calories compared to the normal household buyers. Tommy .K .H .C et. al
(2017) built a conceptual framework to explain the interrelationships between the three
Louis .Y.S et. al (2016) applied the two-factor theory to identify hygiene and motivation
factors that activated online impulse buying. Motivation factors were sales promotion
stimuli and hygiene factors were the design factors. Chia .C .C & Jun .Y.Y (2018)
investigated the impulse buying behaviours on mobile auction and concluded that the
.E .G et. al (2017) argued that the compulsive buying is thought to serve as a means
of alleviating negative effect. Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) was predictive and was
considered as the risk factor for negative emotional arousal. David .D et. al (2014)
found that there was no significant relationship between the online compulsive buying
9
and internet addiction even though the users were suffering from alcohol and tobacco
use disorders. And online compulsive buyers spent significantly more money and more
time in online shopping. Researchers concluded that online compulsive buying was a
distinctive behavioural disorder with loss of control, with overall financial and time-
consuming impacts. Richard .J. L et. al (2017) came out with three important findings.
online shopping was associated with higher rates of in-store shopping. Thirdly,
Attitudes and perceptions played a major role in the shopping decision. Silvia .B et. al
(2017) concluded that the pre-shopping tendency influenced the impulse buying
directly and higher levels of urge to buy impulsively lead to higher levels of impulse
buying. Jangchung .V. C et. al (2016) researched on the Facebook users by studying
their C2C recommendations with a “buy and sell” framework to empirically investigate
the effect of the information quality of the advertisement, the trait of the impulsiveness
and the number of “likes” it receives on Consumers’ urge to buy impulsively. Ying .P.L
(2012) found the higher the consumer product involvement, the higher product
knowledge and impulse buying behaviour. Beata .S et. al (2015) observed that there
was no relationship of happiness with the impulsive buying and brand loyalty. Yoseph
.D.P et. al (2016) argued that as the individuals who are financially dependent when
pass the transition to become fully financially independent, there exists a negative
issues decline. And the urge to buy the unnecessary goods are controlled through the
self-regulation. From the above literature review, it is evident that there is little research
10
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Many e-tail giants have begun to compete with various internet marketing strategies
migrating from retailing business. The companies fail to understand the reasons
behind the declining sales of their brands making other rival brands to win the
to identify the unknown factors that influences the consumers to buy those brands.
Hence, the study tries to understand the correlation of impulsive buying with the brand
exploitation.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Researches try to define and understand the various concepts of impulsive buying,
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
2) To examine the impact of various demographic variables like Gender, Age, Income,
3) To analyse the impact of external factors like price reduction, offers on urge for
impulsive buying.
4) To investigate the impact of situational factors like having credit card and
11
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
R1 – What are the factors that affect impulsive buying behaviour of consumers?
R3 – What are the external factors, which causes consumers for making impulsive
buying decision?
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
4. There is a significant relationship between gender and offer given for buying a
product.
window display.
9. There is a significant relationship between age and buying product after a price
drop.
10. There is a significant relationship between age and buying with freebies.
12
RESEARCH GAP
Impulsive buying behaviour leads to unplanned shopping. It becomes difficult for the
branded companies to predict their future market potential. When the customers
buying behaviour is uncertain. Hence, the researcher’s need to analyse and find out
RESEARCH METHODLOGY
APPROACH
The present study uses a qualitative and quantitative approach to study the various
internal and external factors of impulsive buying of the customers and relating these
factors to the specific brands. A descriptive study is conducted for this problem.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The study is primarily based on the secondary data through literature review in the
The primary data is collected through a structure questionnaire and processed through
the SPSS.
Chi-Square Test and Factor Analysis is applied for the primary data.
13
SAMPLING
Sampling Technique
relatively small number of items from a relatively large population of such items in
order to draw statistically valid inferences about the characteristics of the entire
population. Since the research involves data collection from a wide spread
sampling is, in probability sampling the chance of selecting each event is same while
that is not the case while you are dealing with non-probability sampling.
Defined Population
Men and Women of age ranging from 18 and above who have shopped at different e-
shopping websites like flipkart, amazon, snapdeal and other branded e-tail portals with
Sampling Frame
Online buyers were chosen including, students from institutions, employees from
different corporate sectors, and individuals from households who shop regularly
through online e-tail portals from semi-urban and urban locations of India, to conduct
the survey online with a structured questionnaire containing eleven closed ended
Sampling Unit
14
Sampling Method
Non-probability convenience sampling method was used – where any buyer making
some purchase from the past few months. Non-probability samples that are
unrestricted are called ‘convenience samples’. They are the inexpensive and easiest
to conduct. Here subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility and
proximity to the researcher. As the name suggest convenience, the researcher have
the freedom to choose whomever they find. It is generally used in early stages of
exploratory research. When we are seeking any sort of guidance, we can use this
sampling. In this research, the population is too large that it is impossible to include
every individual.
Sample Size
The five researchers collected the primary data through an online survey by using
google forms by circulating the questionnaire link to their maximum email contacts.
The respondents were qualified buyers who had the online shopping experience from
a time period of 1 year and above with their willingness to participate in our research
as a valid respondent. The questionnaire was completed online within a time frame of
India.
The total sample size was 92 (No. of respondents who answered our online
questionnaire)
15
Analysis
The data was compiled, and analysis was performed with the help of google forms,
and then generating useful graphs in Microsoft Excel, Tableau, and SPSS. Hypothesis
testing was done using chi-square test in SPSS. Factor analysis was also done in
SPSS.
16
Gender * Buying Frequency Cross tabulation
Buying Frequency
Once in two
Everyday Monthly days Weekly Yearly Total
Gender Female 0 24 1 9 4 38
Male 3 42 1 4 4 54
Total 3 66 2 13 8 92
Hypothesis 1:
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.269a 4 .122
Likelihood Ratio 8.307 4 .081
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .83.
As the p-value is 0.122, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
17
Online Buying Preference
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Sometimes 26 28.3 28.3 30.4
Yes 64 69.6 69.6 100.0
Total 92 100.0 100.0
18
Crosstab
random buying
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 11 15 12 38
Male 15 27 12 54
Total 26 42 24 92
Hypothesis 2:
19
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.301a 2 .522
Likelihood Ratio 1.298 2 .523
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 9.91.
As the p-value is 0.522, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
20
Crosstab
random buying
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 22 40 22 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 2 2 2 6
Less than 20 Years 2 0 0 2
Total 26 42 24 92
Hypothesis 3:
Null Hypothesis: Younger people have more tendency towards random buying.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.651a 4 .227
Likelihood Ratio 5.639 4 .228
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .52.
As the p-value is 0.227, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
21
Hypothesis 4
Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between gender and offer given for
buying product.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is no relationship between gender and offer given for
buying product.
Crosstab
Count
Offers
Always Never Sometimes Total
Gender Female 14 0 24 38
Male 21 1 32 54
Total 35 1 56 92
22
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .784a 2 .676
Likelihood Ratio 1.146 2 .564
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .41.
As the p-value is 0.676, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
23
Crosstab
Offers
Always Never Sometimes Total
Income Between 30,000 to 50,000 3 0 3 6
per month
Between 50,000 to 100,000 3 1 3 7
per month
Less than 30,000 per month 5 0 7 12
More than 100,000 per 0 0 1 1
month
No Income 24 0 42 66
Total 35 1 56 92
Hypothesis 5
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.719a 8 .049
Likelihood Ratio 7.094 8 .527
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .01.
As the p-value is 0.049, less than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the
alternate hypothesis.
24
Credit Card * Buying Frequency Cross tabulation
Buying Frequency
Once in two
Everyday Monthly days Weekly Yearly Total
Credit Card No 3 39 2 9 4 57
Sometimes 0 11 0 2 3 16
Yes 0 16 0 2 1 19
Total 3 66 2 13 8 92
Hypothesis 6
Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between credit card holder and
frequency of buying.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.207a 8 .624
Likelihood Ratio 7.507 8 .483
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 11 cells (73.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .35.
As the p-value is 0.624, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
the alternate hypothesis.
25
Gender * Purchase reviews Cross tabulation
Purchase reviews
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 1 8 29 38
Male 6 6 42 54
Total 7 14 71 92
Hypothesis 7
26
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.563a 2 .168
Likelihood Ratio 3.846 2 .146
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.89.
As the p-value is 0.168, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
27
Gender * Window display Cross tabulation
Window display
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 11 7 20 38
Male 11 15 28 54
Total 22 22 48 92
Hypothesis 8
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.505a 2 .471
Likelihood Ratio 1.520 2 .468
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 9.09.
As the p-value is 0.471, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
28
Age * Price Drop Cross tabulation
Price Drop
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 12 25 47 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 0 2 4 6
Less than 20 Years 1 0 1 2
Total 13 27 52 92
Hypothesis 9
Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between age and buying product
29
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.424a 4 .490
Likelihood Ratio 4.123 4 .390
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .28.
As the p-value is 0.490, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
30
Age * Free items Cross tabulation
Free items
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 8 31 45 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 2 3 1 6
Less than 20 Years 1 1 0 2
Total 11 35 46 92
Hypothesis 10
Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between age and buying with free
items.
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.007a 4 .041
Likelihood Ratio 7.637 4 .106
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .24.
As the p-value is 0.041, less than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the
alternate hypothesis.
31
Factor Analysis
As the KMO Value is near to 0.6, we assume the sample was adequate for the study
32
Factor Matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
Online Buying Preference .056 .021 .621 .224 -.029 -.121
Buying Frequency .027 -.214 .404 -.162 .262 .274
Shopping mall display & .355 .216 .183 -.147 .063 -.190
buying
Offers .049 .332 -.046 -.078 .340 .145
Free items .069 .410 -.219 .010 .072 -.049
Purchase reviews .325 .637 -.106 .548 -.013 .143
Price Drop .319 .225 -.108 -.060 .124 .211
Window display .389 .310 -.124 -.420 .018 -.134
Family/Friend possession .676 .144 .393 -.020 -.251 .000
Credit Card .311 .100 -.147 -.099 -.041 -.310
random buying .392 .035 .075 -.298 .094 .169
Gender .024 -.015 -.120 -.018 -.233 .216
Age .529 -.441 -.176 .182 -.154 .129
Marital Status -.449 .449 .222 .124 .094 -.055
Income .420 -.458 -.100 .312 .440 -.191
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
33
From the above factor analysis,
Factor 1 – Age, Random Buying, Credit Card, Family/Friend Possession, Price Drop,
Factor 6 – Gender.
34
35
FINDINGS
There is no relationship between gender and offer given for buying product.
purchase reviews.
on window display.
price drop.
There is significant relationship between age and buying with free items.
36
CONCLUSION
The respondents gave responses to the question, which were asked, in the surveys
done by the means of questionnaire via google form. The responses were then
analysed by the means of graphs in Microsoft Excel and Tableau. The hypothesis
testing was done by the means of chi-square test and the null hypothesis was then
rejected by accepting the alternative hypothesis. Also factor analysis shows there are
We have not seen strong relationship between buying frequency and gender. There
is a significant difference in gender for random buying of products. Age has no relation
offer given for buying any product. In general, people with no income or less income
prefers to buy products in offers. The frequency of buying does not depend on credit
card holder. There is no relationship between gender and buying a product based on
significant relationship between age and buying product after a price drop but there is
37
QUESTIONNAIRE
This survey is conducted for our marketing research project in order to find out how
Yes
No
Sometimes
Everyday
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
3. Do you buy any product if you see it being displayed in shopping mall? *
Yes
No
Sometimes
Always
Sometimes
Never
Yes
No
Sometimes
38
6. Do you consider past buyers reviews is important for making any purchase
decision. *
Yes
No
Sometimes
Yes
No
Sometimes
8. Do you feel window display of your liked product makes you like it more. *
Yes
No
Sometimes
Yes
No
Sometimes
Yes
No
Sometimes
Yes
No
39
Sometimes
Female
Male
Other
Between 20 - 30 Years
Between 30 - 40 Years
Unmarried
Married
No Income
40
REFERENCES
Anant .J .B, Anshul .V & Saumya Dixit (2016). Impulsive buying tendency: Measuring
important relationships with a new perspective and an indigenous scale. IIMB Management
Review, vol.28, pp 186-199.
Anant .J .B & Anshul .V (2015). Does urge to buy impulsively differ from impulsive buying
behavior? Assessing the impact of situational factors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol.22, pp 145-157.
Anant .J .B & Anshul .V (2014). Intrinsic factors affecting impulsive buying behavior-
Evidence from India. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21(4), pp 537-549.
Arne .F & Maria .M (2013). The role of atmospheric cues in online impulse-buying behavior.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 12 (6), pp 425-439.
Arnold .J, Yuksel .E & Lyndon Simkin (2017). Self-Congruence, brand attachment and
compulsive buying. Journal of Business Research, Retrived from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296317302874
Beata .S, Jurate .M & Indre .J (2015). The Relationship of Happiness, Impulse Buying and
Brand Loyalty. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 213, pp 687-693.
Catherine .E .G, Margo .C .W, Angela .D .W & Keely .A .M (2017). “I fear, therefore, I
shop!” exploring anxiety sensitivity in relation to compulsive buying. Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 104, pp 37-42.
Charlotte .V, Tibert .V & Willemjin .V .D (2017). Role of local presence in online impulse
buying. Information & Management, Vol. 54 (8), pp 1038-1048.
Chia .C .C & Jun Y .Y (2018). What drives impulse buying behaviors in a mobile auction?
The perspective of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telematics and Informatics, Vol.
35 (5), pp 1249-1262.
David .D, Pauline .G & Michel .L (2014). Characteristics of online compulsive buying in
Parisian Students. Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 39 (12), pp 1827-1830.
Heping .H, Monika .K .K & Nancy .M Ridgway (2018). Compulsive buying in China:
Measurement, prevalence, and online drivers. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 91, pp 28-
39.
Ing .L.W, Kuei-Wan .C & Mai-Lun .C (2016). Defining key drivers of online impulse
purchasing: A perspective of both impulse shoppers and system users. International Journal
of Information Management, Vol.36 (3), pp 284-296.
41
Jengchung .V .C, Bo-chiuan .S & Andree .E .W (2016). Facebook C2C social commerce: A
study of online impulse buying. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp 57-69.
Kelseanna .H .H, Jennifer .S, Sara O’D & Leonard .H .E (2019). Episodic future thinking and
grocery shopping online. Appetite, Vol.133, pp 1-9.
Li-Ting .H (2016). Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying. Journal of
Business Research. Vol. 69(6), pp 2277-2283.
Louis Y.S.L, Sheng .W.L & Li-Yi .H (2016). Motivation for online impulse buying: A two-
factor theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 (5), pp
759-772.
Richard .J .L, Ipek .N .S, Patricia .L .M & Susan .L .H (2017). Relationships between the
online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis, California residents. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 100, pp 40-52.
Shakeel .A .S & Fayaz A .N (2017). Role of intrinsic factors in impulsive buying decision:
An empirical study of young consumers. Arab Economics and Business Journal, Vol.12(1),
pp 29-43.
Silvia .B, Maria .G .C & Benedetta .G (2017). A structural equation model of impulse buying
behavior in grocery retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp 164-
171.
Sinje .V, Antje .H, Richard .P & Alexander .L.G (2015). Impulsivity in consumers with high
compulsive buying propensity. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders,
Vol.7, pp 54-64.
Tommy .K .H .C, Christy M .K .C & Zach .W .Y .L (2017). The state of online impulse-
buying research: A literature analysis. Information & Management, Vol. 54 (2), pp 204-217.
Yanhong .C, Yaobin .L, Bin .W & Zhao .P (2018). How do product recommendations affect
impulse buying? An empirical study on WeChat Social Commerce. Information &
Management, Retrived from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.09.002
42