Knowledge that Transforms

Impulse buying generates over $4 billion in annual sales volume in the United States. With the growth of e‐commerce and television shopping channels, consumers have easy access to impulse purchasing opportunities, but little is known about this sudden, compelling, hedonically complex purchasing behavior in non‐Western cultures. Yet cultural factors moderate many aspects of consumer's impulsive buying behavior, including self‐identity, normative influences, the suppression of emotion, and the postponement of instant gratification. From a multi‐country survey of consumers in Australia, United States, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia, our analyses show that both regional level factors (individualism–collectivism) and individual cultural difference factors (independent –interdependent self‐concept) systematically influence impulsive purchasing behavior.

The need to evolve the visual depictions of our consumer behavior models is addressed. Previous models are criticized for being constructions that fail to build on prior theory, and lack parsimony, comprehensiveness, coherence, and flexibility. More revolutionary movement in consumer behavior modelling is encouraged and an integrative Stimulus–Organism–Response framework is presented for consideration.

The growth of e‐commerce and its attendant new technology features has increased interactivity in consumer information processing and decision‐making processes. The pull and push of information can be both more personalized and more commonly used. The ease of pushing information may lead to interruptions in consumer information processing that are more pronounced than those experienced in non‐Internet environments. Our study investigated the impact of interruption frequency, timing, and content and the moderating effects of consumer knowledge, control, and goal type on time spent on the decision task as well as satisfaction with the decision process and the choice. Our results show that the right configuration of interruptions may lead to increased online viewing time, whereas ill‐designed interruptions may be detrimental.

Structural alignability refers to the readiness with which the attributes of one brand can be mapped on to those of another brand. Across three experiments, we show that as alignability in comparative advertising decreases, advertising‐induced target brand evaluations also decrease. This effect is explained by the extent to which assumptions about attribute comparisons are needed. We further show that the effect of alignability on evaluation is moderated by the need for cognitive closure, an individual difference variable that influences preferences for easy comparison and less ambiguity. Although prior research has treated alignability as a dichotomous variable (present or absent), the research presented here suggests that there are different types of (non)alignability comparisons.

I propose that different relations among basic components of self‐regulation produce distinct types of decision value: (a) Outcome value is produced when the consequences of a decision are relevant to the regulatory orientation of the decision maker, (b) value from fit is produced when goal pursuit means suit the regulatory orientation of the decision maker, and (c) value from proper means is produced when goal pursuit means are in agreement with established rules and normative principles. I use the regulatory focus distinction between promotion focus concerns with aspirations and accomplishments and prevention focus concerns with safety and responsibilities (Higgins, 1997, 1998) to illustrate outcome value and value from fit. Justification of a decision is used to illustrate value from proper means. I propose that decision makers are unlikely to distinguish among their experiences of these 3 types of value, and thus value from fit and value from proper means can be transferred to outcome value. I present evidence of such value transfer and consider its implications for value to the customer. I also reconsider sunk costs and the endowment effect in light of there being value beyond outcome value.

We report 2 studies that served to clarify the role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction response. In the 1st study, we examined the role of consumption emotions within the expectancy‐disconfirmation model of consumer satisfaction and investigated whether consumption emotions are a result of product performance or disconfirmation. The findings show that both positive and negative emotions are primarily a function of product performance and influence satisfaction even when the effects of expectations, performance, and disconfirmation are controlled. In the 2nd study, we proposed and tested an alternative framework for understanding the role of consumption emotions in the satisfaction response for situations in which consumers use more of an experiential perspective to anticipate and experience consumption. According to this model, consumers form affective expectations about how consumption of the product will make them feel, experience positive or negative emotions as a result of these expectations and product consumption, and evaluate the discrepancy between experienced and anticipated emotions. All 3 variables, then, impact satisfaction. The results empirically support many of the relations in the new model of the experiential satisfaction response but also raise several interesting avenues for future research.