abhinav 220

ABHINAV International Monthly Refereed Journal of Research in Management & Technology Special Issue ISSN – 2320-0073

220

A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF IMPULSIVITY AND CONFORMITY BEHAVIOR ON IMPULSE BUYING BEHAVIOR OF STUDENTS *Pooja Bhakuni **Dr. Nischay Upamannyu ***Amitabha Maheshwari Assistant Professor, Prestige Institute of Management, Gwalior, India

ABSTRACT All products can be purchased impulsively, and all consumers engage in impulse buying on occasion Impulse buying is an emerging phenomenon, which has been the focus of researchers from a variety of disciplines. In this paper, an extensive review of literature of impulsive buying has been done together with the two factors affecting it that is impulsivity and conformity. The paper has used factor analysis to identify the under laying factors of the two independent variable. Multiple regression analysis has been used to find out the impact of impulsivity and conformity on impulsive buying behavior. The result of the study reveals that people with high impulsivity are more likely to involve in impulsive buying behavior. Similar is the case of the effect of conformity which directly influences the likelihood that a consumer will experience an urge to buy impulsively. Gender has no effect on the impulsive buying. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Impulse buying has been defined as a spontaneous, immediate purchase (Rook & Fisher, 1995) without pre-shopping intentions either to buy a specific product category or to fulfill a specific buying task (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). Previous studies suggest that impulse buying is the tendency to buy on whim or an action with less rational decision making (Rook, 1987; Rook & Fisher, 1995; Wood, 1998). The most commonly accepted definition of impulse buying, provided by Rook (1987), is that Impulse buying occurs when a consumer experiences a sudden, often powerful and persistent urge to buy something immediately. Impulse buying behavior is an enigma in the marketing world, for here is a behavior which the literature and consumers both state is normatively wrong, yet which accounts for a substantial volume of the goods sold every year across a broad range of product categories (Bellenger et al., 1978; Cobb and Hoyer, 1986; Han et al., 1991; Kollat and Willet, 1967; Rook and Fisher, 1995; Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982).

Various psychological studies of impulsiveness characterize impulse behavior as a sign of immaturity and lacking behavioral control (Levy, 1976; Solnick et al., 1980) or as irrational, risky, and wasteful (Ainslie, 1975; Levy, 1976; Rook and Fisher, 1995; Solnick et al., 1980). Since impulse buyers are not actively looking for a certain product and don’t have prior plans or intention to make a purchase (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Weun, Jones, & Beatty, 1998), internal states and environmental/external factors can serve as cues to trigger their impulse behavior. Impulsivity traits in the literature are considered the best explanatory variables. Consumers with high impulsivity traits will have more impulse buying than those with low impulsivity traits (Dholakia, 2000; Puri, 1996). These kinds of consumers are weak-willed (Wood, 1998). Compared to low impulsivity consumers, high impulsivity consumers easily connect external information to internal emotion, incurring impulse buying. Therefore, this study assumes that high impulsivity consumers will have more online

Proceedings of National Conference on Trends in Management, Engineering & Technology


The research on conformity first appeared in social psychologist Ash’s research (1951). He proposed that conformity results from the influence of members of a society upon individuals within that society. Allen (1965) categorized conformity into public compliance and private acceptance.Public compliance means that people comply with the group in order to get rewards or avoid punishments and do not change their own thoughts. Private acceptance means that beliefs and behavior are influenced by the group; that is, they voluntarily accept the group’s attitudes, beliefs, values and expectations and change their thoughts to be compatible with the group (Mowen and Minor, 1998). LITERATURE REVIEW With the proliferation of e-commerce, there is growing evidence that online impulse buying is an emerging phenomenon, which has been the focus of researchers from a variety of disciplines. This study investigates consumer impulsivity traits and option framing effect on online consumer impulse buying intention. A 2(Impulsivity traits: high/low) x 2(option framing: +OF/-OF) x 2(cash refund promotion level: high/ low) x 2(product type: hedonic product/utilitarian product) online experiment was conducted. The experiment results demonstrated that subjects with high impulsivity traits, subtractive option framing are more likely to engage in impulse buying intention. Specifically, consistent with past online impulse buying research, price framing manifests as an environmental cue that directly influences the likelihood that a consumer will experience an urge to buy impulsively. In addition, the effects of consumer impulsivity traits and option framing on consumer impulse buying intention were moderated by cash refund promotion and product type. Hamid reza et.al (2012) in their paper reviewed the extensive literature of an impulse buying and examined this phenomenon, together with the factors

221

affecting it. In this regard, the model of factors affecting the impulse buying behavior by the literature of the developed subject and questionnaire and structural equations model and also PLS software ,had been measured. The results suggest that when customers go to purchase, the level of self-esteem, irritability (impulsivity), the product type and promotional tools have a significant impact on the impulse buying behavior, and the impact of gender, Shopping environment, and seller tips and guidance , individualism and the price were not approved. Wu-Chung Wu and Tzung-Cheng Huan (2010) explored the effects of purchasing situations (time pressure, economic pressure) and personal characteristics (impulse, conformity, gender) on students’ impulse buying behavior. The study employed a two-way factor 2 (time pressure) x 2 (economic pressure) experiment design by two scenarios in Paris, France and Prague, Czech Republic, resulting in eight manipulation treatments. This research found that respondents with high time pressure (limited time) or low economic pressure (larger budget) are significantly more likely to engage in impulse buying behavior. This study also found that female respondents’ impulsivity and conformity are higher than that of male respondents. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY •

To design, develop and standardize measures for evaluating Impulsivity, conformity and impulse buying behavior.

•

To identify the underlying factors of impulsivity, conformity and impulsive buying behavior

•

To evaluate the effect of gender on impulsive buying behavior.

•

To establish the cause and effect relationship between independent variables and dependent variable.

•

To open research.

new areas for

further



HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY

•

Reliability test was applied to evaluate reliability of measures used for evaluating impulsivity, conformity and impulsive buying behaviour.

•

Factor analysis was used to identify the underlying factors of impulsivity, conformity and impulsive buying behaviour.

•

Multiple Regression was applied to evaluate the cause and effect relationship between independent variables on the dependent variable that is impulsive buying behaviour.

•

T test was applied to evaluate the effect of gender on impulsive buying behaviour.

H01: There is no cause and effect relationship between impulsivity, confirmity on impulsive buying behaviour H02: There is no effect of gender on impulsive buying behaviour. RESEARCH METHEDOLOGY The study was causal in nature with survey method being used for data collection. Population of the current study was students of the age group 18 to 24 of Gwalior region. An individual student was treated as the element of the study. The sample size was 100 respondents and non probability convenience sampling was used for the study.

222

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS •

The responses were collected on a likert scale of 1 to 5 for all the variables. content validity was established by a panel of judges.

Reliability Measure: The Cronbach alpha method was applied to calculate the reliability coefficients of all items in the questionnaire. The reliability of all the variables is given below.

Reliability of impulsive buying behaviour Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .772 .770 The reliability value of .7 or more is considered good enough. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of impulsive buying behaviour

N of Items 15

is .772 which is higher than the standard value; therefore the questionnaire can be treated as reliable for the study.

Reliability of impulsivity Cronbach's Alpha .821

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .820

The reliability value of .7 or more is considered good enough. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of impulsivity is .821 which is

N of Items 10

higher than the standard value, therefore the questionnaire can be treated as reliable for the study.

Reliability of conformity Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .703 .705

N of Items 6



The reliability value of .7 or more is considered good enough. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of conformity is .703 which is higher than the standard value, therefore the questionnaire can be treated as reliable in the study. KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Impulsive Buying Behaviour: A Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of

223

sampling adequacy indicated KMO value of .563 which indicated that the sample size was good enough for the study.KMO values above .5 are considered to be good enough to consider the data as normally distributed and therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis.

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .563 Approx. Chi-Square 463.125 Bartlett's Test Df 105 of Sphericity Sig. .000 Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses from respondents for impulsive buying behavior was an identity matrix. It was

evaluated through Chi-square test having Chi-square value of 463.125 which is significant at 0.000 level of significance, indicating data was normally distributed and was suitable for factor analysis.

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF IMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOUR S.no Factor name 1 Hedonic needs

Total 3.498

2

2.120

3

Marketing cues Brand image

4

Discounts

1.577

5

Impulse buying 1.352

1.780

Variance Item converged 23.320 Peer effect Extra money Promotional activities Advertisement Mood change No cost effect On spot purchase 14.136 Store environment Special discounts 11.869 Packaging Fun shopping Popularity of product 10.156 Regret purchasing Good offer 9.013 Unplanned purchase

Discussion of Emerged Factors •

Hedonic needs (3.498): This factor emerged as the most important determinant of Impulsive buying behaviour with a total variance of 23.320. Seven measures (Peer effect, Extra money, Promotional activities, Advertisement, Mood change, No cost effect, on spot purchase) converged into one factor.

Loading Value .806 .743 .737 .660 .582 .574 .515 .884 .667 .784 .630 .626 .881 .440 .924

•

Marketing cues (2.120): This factor emerged as the second most important determinant of Impulsive buying behaviour with a total variance of 14.136. Two measures (environment and discounts) converged into one factor.

•

Brand Image (1.780): This factor emerged as the third most important determinant of Impulsive buying behaviour with a total variance of



behaviour with a total variance of 9.013. Unplanned purchase has emerged as the single most important factor.

11.869. Three measures (Packaging, fun shopping and popularity) converged into one factor. •

•

Discounts (1.577): This factor emerged as the fourth most important determinant of Impulsive buying behaviour with a total variance of 10.156. Two measures (no regrets and offers) converged into one factor. In store display (1.352): This factor emerged as the fifth most important determinant of Impulsive buying

KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Impulsivity: A Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy indicated KMO value of .656 which indicated that the sample size was good enough for the study. KMO values above .5 are considered to be good enough to consider the data as normally distributed and therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis.

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Approx. Chi-Square Bartlett's Test of df Sphericity Sig. Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses from respondents for impulsivity was an identity matrix. It was evaluated through

224

.656 341.793 45 .000

Chi-square test having Chi-square value of 341.793 which is significant at 0.000 level of significance, indicating data was normally distributed and was suitable for factor analysis.

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF IMPULSIVE BUYING BEHAVIOUR Serial Factor name no

Total

Variance

1

Personal factors

2

Psychological 2.522 factors

25.221

3

Situational factors

13.802

2.733

1.380

Item Converged Social needs Self esteem Spontaneous purchasing Irrational purchasing Impulsiveness Irritability Emotional attachment mood Situational factors Gratification

27.332


Personal factors (2.733): This factor emerged as the most important determinant of Impulsivity with a total variance of 27.332. Four measures (social need, self esteem, spontaneous purchasing and

Loading Value .917 .739 .644 .558 .886 .599 .583 .578 .747 .681

irrational purchasing) converged into one factor. •

Psychological factors (2.522): This factor emerged as the second most important determinant of Impulsivity with a total variance of 14.136. Four measures (impulsiveness, irritability, emotional



attachment and mood converged into one factor. •

swings)

Situational Factors (1.380): This factor emerged as the third most

225

important determinant of Impulsivity buying behavior with a total variance. Two measures (situational factors and gratification) converged into one factor.

Kmo And Bartlett’s Test Of Conformity KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Approx. Chi-Square Bartlett's Test of Df Sphericity Sig. A Kaiser Meyer Olkin measure of sampling adequacy indicated KMO value of .591 which indicated that the sample size was good enough for the study. KMO values above .5 are considered to be good enough to consider the data as normally distributed and therefore suitable for exploratory factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity which tested the null hypothesis that the item to correlation matrix based on the responses from respondents for conformity was an S.no Factor name 1 Group conformity

2

Group observation

•

identity matrix. It was evaluated through Chi-square test having Chi-square value of 123.456 which is significant at 0.000 level of significance, indicating data was normally distributed and was suitable for factor analysis. Principal Component Analysis Of Conformity: Principal component analysis was applied on conformity. Rotation converged on two factors namely group conformity and observation.

Total Variance Item converged 2.400 40.007 Agree to purchase group Group suggestions cooperate Groups views Hold same views 1.352 62.542 Group observation


.591 123.456 15 .000

Group conformity (2.400): This factor emerged as the most important determinant of Conformity with a total variance of 40.007. Five measures (agree to purchase group, group suggestions, cooperate, group views and same views) converged into one factor. Group observation (1.352): This factor emerged as the second most

Loading values .791 .774 .721 .678 .561 .917

important determinant of conformity with a total variance of 62.542.only one measure emerged in rotation that is group observation. Independent T –Test H0 1: There is no effect of gender on impulse buying behaviour The hypothesis was tested using‘t’ test to evaluate the difference of male and female in impulsive buying between male and female customers.



Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Equal variances assumed VAR00002 Equal variances not assumed

226

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig.

t

.119 .732 .551

df

.584

1.00384

1.82331

.551 71.392 .583

1.00384

1.82240

Levene’s test for equality of variance was evaluated through F Test value of .119 which is significant at 73.2%. Therefore, the hypothesis is not rejected which indicating equal variance among two groups is not true that indicating there is no difference between male and female customers. Since the variance among the responses of the two different groups of customers was found to be homogeneous Therefore T test assuming equal variance was applied to evaluate the difference in impulse buying behaviour by two different groups. The value of‘t’ was found to be

78

Sig. (2Mean Std. Error tailed) Difference Difference

.551 which is significant at .584 level of significance. the hypothesis is not rejected which indicating there is no equal variances not assumed between two groups. that indicating there is no difference between male and female in context of impulse buying. REGRESSION ANALYSIS Multiple Regression was applied between Impulsivity and conformity as the independent variable and impulsive buying as the dependent variable.

H01: There is no cause and effect relationship between impulsivity, conformity and impulse buying behavior. Model dimension1 1

Model Summaryb R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate a .797 .634 .625 4.91530

Note: a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00004, VAR00003, b. Dependent Variable: VAR00002 Y= a+bx+cx

(independent variable)

Y= 20.811+.706x+.429x

Model summary table indicates that impulsivity and conformity as independent variable have 62.5% effect on impulse buying behavior as indicated by adjusted R square value .625.

Where, y= impulsive buying b (dependent variable) X=impulsivity and conformity

ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 3228.851 2 1614.426 66.822 .000a 1 Residual 1860.336 77 24.160 Total 5089.188 79 Note: a. Predictors: (Constant), VAR00004, VAR00003, b. Dependent Variable: VAR00002



The goodness fit of the model was tested using ANOVA and the F-value was found to be 66.822 which is significant at the

227

0.000% level of significance, indicating that the model is showing good faith.

Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 20.811 2.858 7.281 .000 1 impulsivity .706 .112 .623 6.313 .000 conformity .429 .191 .221 2.241 .028 Note: a. Dependent Variable: VAR00002 The contribution of individual independent variable was evaluated through computation of β value for the independent variable Impulsivity was 0.623 with the T-Test value of 6.323 which was significant at 0.000, indicating that Impulsivity contribute significantly to Impulse buying behavior. The contribution of individual independent variable was evaluated through computation of β value for the independent variable conformity was 0.221 with the T-test value of 2.241 which was significant at 0.000, indicating that conformity contribute significantly to Impulse buying behavior. Therefore, the Null Hypothesis was rejected, indicating that there is a strong positive cause and effect relationship between Impussiviyt, Confirmity on Impulse buying behavior. LIMITATIONS The study was conducted in Gwalior region only which makes the study very narrow as the sample size was only 80. So the study could be further conducted by increasing the sample size and in other cities as well. The study was conducted on the students only it could further be conducted on others as well. Gender was the only demographic variable considered. The study could be done by using other variables as age, education, occupation as well. CONCLUSION The results of the study reveal that impulsivity and conformity have a cause and effect relationship with impulsive buying behavior. The T-test results also show that there is also a difference

between the responses of the male and female customers. the results of the study conform with the earlier studies that higher is the impulsivity greater is the impulsive buying behaviour.Rook and Fisher’s (1995) The study also indicates that impulsivity and conformity are higher in females than males. The study results conform to d’Astous’ (1990) findings that females display the tendency of impulse buying and are more likely to be the impulsive consumers. The study results on conformity are similar to those of Becker (1986), Eagly and Carli’s (1981) findings. In other words, compared to men, women tend to change their attitudes easily and exhibit higher conformity traits. REFERENCES 1. Allen VL 1965. Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology: 133-175. New York: Academic Press. 2. Asch SE 1951. Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment. In Guetzkow, H. (Eds.), Groups, Leadership and Men. PA: Carnegie Press 3. Bellenger, D.N., Robertson, D.H. and Hirschman, E.C. (1978), `Ìmpulse buying varies by product'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 18, pp. 1518. 4. Beatty, S.E. & Ferrell, M.E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its



precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74 (2), 169-191. 5. Cobb, C.J. and Hoyer, W.D. (1986), ``Planned versus impulse purchase behavior'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 384-409. 6. Dholakia, U. M. (2000). Temptation and resistance: An integrated model of 19 consumption Impulse formation and enactment. Psychology & Marketing, 17(11), 955-982. 7. Hamid Reza Hadjali, Meysam Salimi, Masoumeh Sadat Ardestani. "Exploring main factors affecting on impulse buying behaviors", Journal of American Science ;8(1):245-251]. (ISSN: 1545-1003). 8. Han, Y.K., Morgan, G.A., Kotsiopulos, A. and Kang-Park, J. (1991), `Ìmpulse buying behavior of apparel purchasers'', Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 15-21. 9. Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1967), ``Consumer impulse purchasing behavior'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, February, pp. 2131. 10. Mowen JC, Minor M 1998. Consumer Behavior (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 11. Puri, R. (1996). Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness: A

228

cost-benefit accessibility framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(2), 87- 113. 12. Rook, D. W. (1987). The Buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199. 13. Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305-313. 14. Solnick, J.V., Kannenberg, C.H., Eckerman, D.A. and Waller, M.B. (1980), `Àn experimental analysis of impulsivity and impulse control in humans'', Learning and Motivation, Vol. 11, pp. 61-77 15. Wood, M. (1998). Socio-economic status, delay of gratification, and impulse buying. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 295-320. 16. Weinberg, P. and Gottwald, W. (1982), `Ìmpulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10, pp. 4357. 17. W. Wu-Chung and H. Tzung-Cheng (2010), "The effect of purchasing situation and conformity behavior on young students’ impulse buying", African Journal of Business Management Vol. 4(16), pp. 35303540
