Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 745748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Impulse buying and variety seeking: Similarities and differences

Girish Punj
Department of Marketing, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road, Storrs, CT 06269-9013, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Impulse buying and variety seeking seem to emerge from similar personality traits, yet the similarities and differences in the manifestation of these behaviors have not been fully explored. Despite the common origin, research on the two constructs has diverged as denitions of the phenomena have become more elaborate. Previous research on the two constructs shows that they are classiable as low-effort, feeling-based behaviors with hedonic undertones. A middle-range theory that provides a more comprehensive depiction of how variety seeking and impulse buying are theoretically related is necessary. One way toward such a theory is the addition of a fourth hidden socio-normative dimension to the three-dimensional typology of purchase behaviors that Baumgartner (2002) proposes. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 1 April 2009 Received in revised form 1 July 2009 Accepted 1 January 2010 Available online 21 August 2010 Keywords: Impulse buying Variety seeking Impulsiveness Sensation seeking Self-construal Self-monitoring Self-regulation Behavior typology

Impulse buying and variety seeking seem to emerge from similar personality traits such as impulsivity (Eysenck, 1993) and impulsive sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1993), yet the similarities and differences in the manifestation of these behaviors have not been fully explored. Hence, Sharma et al. (2010) should be commended for proposing a conceptual framework that links individual traits to impulse buying and variety seeking. The objective of bringing together the literature on two important purchase behaviors into an integrated model is laudable, because despite the common origin, research on the two constructs has diverged as denitions of the phenomena have become more elaborate. Sharma et al. (2010) identify three important trait correlates of impulse buying and variety seeking, namely, consumer impulsiveness, optimum stimulation level, and self-monitoring. By so doing, they establish an important empirical connection between these two behaviors. It is an essential starting point for bringing together the literature on impulse buying and variety seeking. The next step is to develop a middle-range theory that provides a more comprehensive depiction of how the behaviors may be theoretically related. As Sharma et al. (2010) state, research on impulse buying is extensive (Clover, 1950; Applebaum, 1951; West, 1951; Rook, 1987; Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Baumeister, 2002; Kacen and Lee, 2002; Ramanathan and Menon, 2006; Vohs and Faber, 2007), as it is on variety seeking (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982; Baumgartner and

Tel.: +1 860 486 3835. E-mail address: Girish.Punj@business.uconn.edu. 0148-2963/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.07.007

Steenkamp, 1996; Van Trijp et al., 1996; Inman, 2001; Ratner and Kahn, 2002). Yet, despite this voluminous body of research, the two phenomena continue to remain difcult to conceptualize, dene and measure, a necessary prelude to the development of a theory that links them together. Consider for instance the most commonly accepted denition of impulse buying provided by Rook (1987). Impulse buying occurs when a consumer experiences a sudden, often powerful and persistent urge to buy something immediately. The impulse to buy is hedonically complex and may stimulate emotional conict. Also, impulse buying is prone to occur with diminished regard for its consequences. An attempt to de-construct the denition immediately reveals the multidimensionality of the behavior. How does one theorize about a behavior that is: sudden, powerful, persistent, immediate, hedonic and emotional? A similar attempt to de-construct the multiple denitions of variety seeking appearing in the literature (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982; Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1996; Van Trijp, 1995) reveals that the behavior is related to: satiation, boredom, curiosity, novelty, change and stimulation. Little wonder that efforts to categorize these behaviors into established taxonomies, such Baumgartner's (2002) three-dimensional behavior typology, has met with limited success. Due to the difculties in conceptualizing and dening variety seeking and impulse buying, researchers have often side-stepped the task and proceeded directly to how they may be measured. Or, alternatively, they have dened the behavior in terms of individual traits that are merely tendencies to exhibit the behavior in question. Both these approaches are not helpful in getting a better understanding of the behaviors of interest, much less of the relationship between them.

746

G. Punj / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 745748

The focus of some of the earlier research on impulse buying and variety seeking has mainly been on identifying person traits that are uniquely associated with the behaviors. But such a trait-based approach has not led to a richer understanding of the phenomena. For example, efforts to conceptualize and measure impulse buying using traits have met with limited success (Kollat and Willett, 1969; Rook, 1987). A recent study that found that variety seeking is lower in morning (as compared to evening) persons is an illustration of the trait-based approach carried to the extreme (Caci et al., 2004). As Sharma et al. (2010) note, individual traits associated with impulse buying and variety seeking seem to originate from a single personality trait labeled impulsivity by Eysenck (1993) or impulsive sensation seeking by Zuckerman (1993). A signicant overlap occurs between the impulsiveness dimension in Eysenck and Eysenck's (1978) four factor model of impulsivity and Zuckerman's sensation seeking scale, which also has four components, namely, thrill and adventure seeking, experience seeking, disinhibition and boredom susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1979). Impulsivity also seems to be related to novelty seeking (Cloninger et al., 1991, 1993). Yet despite these common trait-based origins, the behaviors are manifest quite differently. The only trait-behavior linkages that appear to discriminate between impulse buying and variety seeking seem to be (1) the disinhibition sub scale in Zuckerman's sensation seeking scale and impulsive buying, and (2) the boredom susceptibility sub scale also in Zuckerman's sensation seeking scale and variety seeking. That is not enough to go on in the effort to distinguish between impulse buying and variety seeking using individual traits. Given the construal overlap, it is unlikely that either impulsiveness or impulsivity can be uniquely related to either variety seeking or impulse buying. Hence, whether the continued pursuit of a trait-based approach can identify theory-based similarities and differences between these behaviors is uncertain. There need to be other bases by which these behaviors can be differentiated. All products may be purchased impulsively and all consumers engage in impulse buying on occasion (Applebaum, 1951; Sharma et al., 2010. Thus, impulse buying cannot be uniquely determined by product or person factors. Likewise, variety seeking occurs both within and across product categories and most consumers exhibit the behavior at times. Hence, no person or product factors can be casually related to variety seeking behavior either. Thus, situational inuences and individual differences (other than personality traits) play an important role in the characterization of these behaviors. An interaction perspective (e.g., Punj and Stewart, 1983) could be another alternative to the trait-based approach in examining the similarities and differences between impulse buying and variety seeking. Some researchers have noted that productsituation and personsituation interactions have not been adequately considered in studying these phenomena (Van Trijp et al., 1996). Whether the interaction approach would lead to a better conceptualization is an open question. Recent research on impulse buying goes beyond the trait-based approach and instead assumes that the behavior is the result of a state or condition. Using a state-based approach Zhang and Shrum (2009) conceptualize impulse buying as the result of the conict between two opposing motivations, namely pleasure-seeking and self-regulation. Specically, impulse buying is assumed to result from a depletion of resources that govern self-regulation (Vohs and Faber, 2007). Self-construal (which refers to how people perceive themselves to be linked with other people) is found to moderate impulse buying (Zhang and Shrum 2009). Unlike, the shift in focus on impulse buying research, recent variety seeking research seems to continue to be trait bound (e.g., Roehm and Roehm, 2005). There has been an excessive reliance on a single trait, namely, stimulation level (Van Trijp, 1995). When the environment provides low stimulation consumers engage in variety seeking behavior to increase stimulation to an optimal level (Menon and Kahn, 1995). Stimulation can come from the product or from the

situation. The concept of an optimal stimulation has only been used in conceptualizations of variety seeking. Yet, whether stimulation levels can predict variety seeking is mixed (Van Trijp, 1995). Despite the common underlying trait inuences on impulse buying and variety seeking, it is interesting that that stimulation levels have not been previously considered in conceptualizations of impulse buying. Are impulse buyers also not acting from a sense of stimulation? Could impulse buying be a reaction to being over stimulated? Perhaps, an effort to restore the optimal level? While Sharma et al. (2010) do not directly explore this possibility, it is conceivable that impulse buying and variety seeking seek to restore the optimal level of stimulation but from opposite directions. Nevertheless, the continued explanation of these behaviors in terms of stimulation levels (optimal or otherwise) is not likely to break any new theoretical ground. A deeper conceptualization is necessary. For example, the notion that variety seeking is a result of the need for an optimal level of stimulation suggests the presence of two countervailing forces. Yet, no probing of what causes stimulation levels to drop has been undertaken beyond the usual references in the literature to boredom, satiation, and curiosity. Similarly, the process by which the pursuit of variety counters the effects of boredom, satiation and curiosity still remains unexplained. A stronger conceptualization of variety seeking could emerge from an exploration (no pun intended) of the trade-off between the two countervailing forces that establish the optimal level of stimulation. While some progress has been made in terms of identifying moderating inuences on variety seeking (Ratner and Kahn, 2002), much remains to be done to get a better understanding of the phenomenon. One way toward richer conceptualizations of variety seeking and impulse buying is to revert back to the three-dimensional typology of purchase behaviors Baumgartner (2002) offers, where he categorizes impulse buying as a feeling-based, low purchase involvement and spontaneous purchase behavior, and variety seeking as a feeling-based, high involvement and spontaneous exploratory behavior. As Sharma et al. (2010) state, empirical evidence linking purchase involvement with impulse buying and variety seeking is inconsistent (Jones et al., 2003; Van Trijp et al., 1996). Also, variety seeking is not always a spontaneous behavior (McAlister and Pessemier, 1982), as Sharma et al. (2010) note. Despite these anomalies, a taxonomy based approach to identifying the similarities and differences between impulse buying and variety seeking may still be the best way forward, because it would at least provide a theoretical base to which recent research ndings (both conceptual and empirical) could be integrated. For example, the three self constructs that recent search on these behaviors has identied, namely self-monitoring, self-regulation and self-construal, could be used to add a fourth socio-normative dimension (intrapersonal versus interpersonal inuences) to the Baumgartner's three-dimensional taxonomy. The similarities and differences between impulse buying and variety seeking could be identied by exploring inuences that mediate the link between the individual traits common to these behaviors and the behaviors themselves. Then, moderating inuences on the meditational links could be explored. For example, impulse buying could be studied further by examining purchase behaviors where individual traits (e.g., consumer impulsiveness) are linked to the behavior of interest while being mediated by situational (e.g., giftgiving) or product (e.g., chocolate) inuences and moderated by transient affective factors (e.g., mood) or enduring cognitive inuences (e.g., self-regulatory resources). By examining such scenarios, a richer description of the behavior can be obtained, while also making gains on the measurement front. Evidence in favor of a hidden fourth socio-normative dimension to Baumgartner's taxonomy is cited by Sharma et al. (2010) and is also available from the empirical ndings in their study. Rook and Fisher (1995) found that consumers engage in impulse buying when acting on impulse is socially appropriate and rational. Also, Luo (2005) found that normative inuences based on a reference group inuence impulse

G. Punj / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 745748

747

buying by consumers. As Sharma et al. (2010) hypothesize (and empirically validate), there is evidence that these socio-normative inuences act in opposite directions. For example, self-monitoring is negatively related to impulse buying (Luo, 2005), but positively related to variety seeking (Ratner and Kahn, 2002). Consumers high in selfmonitoring are more likely to be susceptible to interpersonal inuences than those low in self-monitoring. They are more likely to engage in variety seeking as a means to show themselves as being interesting and creative (Ratner and Kahn, 2002), but also less likely to exhibit impulse buying because of a need to be viewed as being rational and prudent (Luo, 2005). The importance of a socio-normative dimension that underlies variety seeking and impulse buying can also be established by examining how characterizations of impulse buying have been modied with the times. As Sharma et al. (2010) assert, impulse buying has often been associated with negative traits and behaviors. For example, Zuckerman's (1994) Impulsive Sensation Seeking scale associates impulsiveness with various negative behaviors, such as gambling (McDaniel and Zuckerman, 2003), promotional games (McDaniel and Zuckerman, 2003), binge eating and alcohol abuse (Kane et al., 2004), adventure sports (Jack and Ronan, 1998), playing the lottery (Balabanis, 2002), drug abuse (Robbins and Bryan, 2004), irresponsible sexual behavior and reckless driving (Zuckerman, 2000). Depictions of impulse buying have been inuenced by prevalent social norms. Hence, an enduring denition of the construct is elusive (Kollat and Willett, 1969; Rook, 1987). For example, consider some of the older associations of impulsiveness with traits such as immaturity, primitivism, foolishness, and lower intelligence (Bohm-Bawerk, 1959; Freud, 1896; Mill, 1909). Impulse buying has had strong negative associations in the past. These have lessened to the point where a mere hundred years later, impulse buying is considered normatively neutral and even positive (Rook and Fisher, 1995). Instant gratication was denitely pass during Freudian times, but is vogue now. One last intriguing possibility that the psychology literature describes but has yet to be explored in consumer behavior research is that impulse buying has biological correlates (Cloninger et al., 1993). Could impulse buying (and maybe even variety seeking) have genetic origins? Hur and Bouchard (1997) explore such a possibility by examining the genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation seeking traits using the control scale on the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) (Tellegen, 1982) and the four sub scales of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS) (Zuckerman, 1979). Fifty-seven pairs of identical twins and fortynine pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart were used in the study. An analysis of the data showed that the proportion of the genetic variance of the control scale of the Personality Questionnaire and the Sensation Seeking Scale was 55%! Thus, common genetic factors may substantially contribute to the observed correlation between impulsivity and sensation seeking. Both sensation seeking traits and impulsivity have been found to be higher in deviant groups, such as drug abusers, delinquents and psychopaths (Zuckerman, 1979) that provides further evidence of a genetic pre-disposition that may link these behaviors, to the extent that one believes that social deviance has hereditary origins. Where do we go from here regarding further research on impulse buying and variety seeking? As the Cheshire cat asks, Where do you want to go? One option is to revert back to the three-dimensional typology of purchase behaviors (Baumgartner, 2002) and use it as a theoretical base to integrate recent ndings on impulse buying, variety seeking and other low-effort, feeling-based behaviors through the addition of dimensions, such as the socio-normative one proposed by Sharma et al. (2010). The expanded behavior typology could act as a repository for empirical ndings as new mediational paths to these phenomena and the moderating inuences that act on them are identied. Pursuing the genetic and biological connections to these trait-based behaviors is another option (Bouchard and McGue, 2003; McGue and Bouchard, 1998); this option includes using

sophisticated neuropsychological methods that consumer researchers have recently adopted (Yoon et al., 2006). References
Applebaum William. Studying consumer behavior in retail stores. J Mark 1951;16: 3240 (October). Balabanis George. The relationship between lottery ticket and scratch-card buying behaviour: personality and other compulsive behaviours. J Consum Behav 2002;2 (1):7-22. Baumeister Roy F. Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing and consumer behavior. J Consum Res 2002;28(4):6706. Baumgartner Hans. Toward a Personology of the Consumer. J Consum Res 2002;29(2): 28692. Baumgartner Hans, Steenkamp Jan-Benedict EM. Exploratory consumer buying behavior: conceptualization and measurement. Int J Res Mark 1996;13:12137 (April). Beatty Sharon E, Ferrell Elizabeth M. Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. J Retailing 1998;74(2):16991. Bohm-Bawerk Eugen von. Capital and interest. South Holland, IL: Libertarian; 1959. Bouchard Thomas J, McGue Matt. Genetic and environmental inuences on human psychological differences. J Neurobiol 2003;54:4-25. Caci Herve, Robert Phillipe, Boyer Patrice. Novelty seekers and impulsive subjects are low in morningness. Eur Psychiatry 2004;19(2):7984. Cloninger CR, Przybeck TR, Svrakic DM. The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire: US normative data. Psychol Rep 1991;69:104757. Cloninger CR, Svrakic DM, Przybeck TR. A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1993;50:97590. Clover Vernon T. Relative importance of impulse buying in retail stores. J Mark 1950;25: 6670 (July). Eysenck Hans Jrgen. The nature of impulsivity. In: McCown William G, Johnson Judith L, Shure Myrna B, editors. The impulsive client: theory, research and treatment. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 1993. p. 5770. Eysenck Sybil BG, Eysenck Hans Jrgen. Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychol Rep 1978;43: 124755. Freud Sigmund. Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. In: Starchey John, Freud Anna, editors. The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth; 1896. Hur Yoon-Mi, Bouchard Jr Thomas J. The genetic correlation between impulsivity and sensation seeking traits. Behav Genet 1997;27(5):45563. Inman Jeffrey J. The role of sensory-specic variety in attribute-level variety seeking. J Consum Res 2001;28:10520 (June). Jack SJ, Ronan Kevin R. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports participants. Pers Individ Differ 1998;25(6):106383. Jones Michael A, Reynolds Kristy E, Seungoog Weun, Beatty Sharon E. The productspecic nature of impulse buying tendency. J Bus Res 2003;56:50511. Kacen Jacqueline J, Lee Julie Anne. The inuence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior. J Consum Psychol 2002;12(2):16376. Kane Tamsin A, Loxton Natalie J, Staiger Petra K, Dawe Sharon. Does the tendency to act impulsively underlie binge eating and alcohol use problems? An empirical investigation. Pers Individ Differ 2004;36(1):8394. Kollat David T, Willett RP. Is impulse purchasing really a useful concept for marketing decisions? J Mark 1969;33:7983 (January). Luo Xueming. How does shopping with others inuence impulsive purchasing? J Consum Psychol 2005;15(4):28894. McAlister Leigh, Pessemier Edgar. Variety-seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. J Consum Res 1982;9(3):31122. McDaniel Stephen R, Zuckerman Marvin. The relationship of impulsive sensation seeking and gender to interest and participation in gambling activities. Pers Individ Differ 2003;35(6):1385400. Menon Satya, Kahn Barbara E. The impact of context on variety seeking in product choices. J Consum Res 1995;22:28595. Mill John Stuart. Principles of political economy. London: Longmans Green; 1909. McGue Matt, Bouchard Thomas J. Genetic and environmental inuences on human behavioral differences. Annu Rev Neurosci 1998;21:1-24. Punj Girish N, Stewart David W. An interaction framework of consumer decision making. J Consum Res 1983;10(2):18196. Ramanathan Suresh, Menon Geeta. Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on impulsive behavior. J Mark Res 2006;43(4):62841. Ratner Rebecca K, Kahn Barbara E. The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. J Consum Res 2002;29:24657. Robbins Reuben N, Bryan Angela. Relationships between future orientation, impulsive sensation seeking, and risk behavior among adjudicated adolescents. J Adolesc Res 2004;19(4):42845. Roehm Harper A, Roehm Michelle L. Revisiting the effect of positive mood on variety seeking. J Consum Res 2005;32:3306 (September). Rook Dennis W. The buying impulse. J Consum Res 1987;14:18999 (September). Rook Dennis W, Fisher Robert J. Normative inuences on impulsive buying behavior. J Consum Res 1995;22:30513 (December). Sharma Piyush, Sivakumaran Bharadhwaj, Marshall Roger. Impulse buying and variety seeking: A trait-correlates perspective. Journal of Business Research 2010;63(3): 27683. Tellegen A. Brief manual for the Differential Personality Questionnaire. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Unpublished Manuscript 1982.

748

G. Punj / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 745748 Zhang, Yinlong, Shrum LJ. The inuence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. J Consum Res 2009;35(5):83850. Zuckerman Marvin. Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1979. Zuckerman Marvin. Sensation seeking and impulsivity: a marriage of traits made in biology. In: McCown William G, Johnson Judith L, Shure Myrna B, editors. The impulsive client: theory, research and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1993. p. 7192. Zuckerman Marvin. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1994. Zuckerman Marvin. Are you a risk taker? Do you drink and drive, gamble, or sleep with strangers? It's not just a behavior. It's a personality. Psychol Today 2000 (Nov/Dec); 33(6):5258.

Van Trijp Hans CM. Variety seeking in product choice behavior: theory with applications in the food domain. Mansholt Studies 1. Wageningen: Agricultural University; 1995. Van Trijp Hans CM, Hoyer Wayne D, Inman J Jeffrey. Why switch? Product categorylevel explanations for true variety seeking behavior. J Mark Res 1996;38:28192 (Summer). Vohs Kathleen D, Faber Ronald J. Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. J Consum Res 2007;33(4):53747. West John C. Results of two years of study into impulsive buying. J Mark 1951;15:3623 (January). Yoon Carolyn, Gutchess Angela H, Feinberg Fred, Polk Thad A. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of neural dissociations between brand and person judgments. J Consum Res 2006;33(1):3140.