The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm
IJRDM
44,11
1166
Received 19 August 2015
Revised 6 November 2015
26 June 2016
Accepted 10 July 2016
International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management
Vol. 44 No. 11, 2016
pp. 1166-1180
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-0552
DOI 10.1108/IJRDM-08-2015-0120
Teens as impulsive buyers:
what is the role of price?
Isabelle Muratore
Aix Marseille University, CRET-LOG, Aix-en-Provence, France
Abstract
Purpose – Considering that retailers view impulse buying as an important component of their
business (around 75 per cent of the purchases are unplanned) and considering also that teens often do
some shopping in autonomy and represent an important financial power, the purpose of this paper is to
fill the lack of studies concerning adolescent consumers impulse shopping behaviours. This paper
investigates the relationships between the positive (prestige sensitivity, price quality schema) and the
negative (price consciousness, value consciousness, price mavenism, sales proneness) role of price in
teens’ impulse buyings.
Design/methodology/approach – The test of the hypotheses has been achieved on a sample of
325 French teens (age between 14 and 18) using MANOVA. Previously, respondents were split in two
groups which are impulsive buyers and non-impulsive buyers.
Findings – Findings show clearly differences between teens’ impulsive buyings and teens’ non-impulsive
buyings. Teens’ as impulsive buyers possess more prestige sensitivity, price-quality schema, price
mavenism, sale proneness and less price consciousness and value consciousness than non-impulsive
buyers. Moreover, females adolescents are more inclined to be impulsive buyers than males adolescents.
Originality/value – Not only it is one of the rare studies that investigates on teens’ impulsive buying
but above all, it is the only study that takes into consideration the role of price perception, while a price
has to be paid in order to buy.
Keywords Price perception, Adolescent, Sale proneness, Impulse buying, Prestige sensitivity,
Retail shopping
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Around 75 per cent of purchases are not planned (Merzer, 2014), so retailers view
impulse buying as an important component of their business. An impulse purchase is
“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 conflict. Also, impulse buying is prone to occur with diminished regard for
its consequences” (Rook, 1987). Impulse buying is related to positive (hedonism,
reward, etc.) and negative (bad mood, stress) emotions (Youn and Faber, 2000). Impulse
buying is also linked to a deficit of self-control (Vohs and Faber, 2007), low self-esteem,
can contradict long-term goals (e.g. saving money) and engender satisfaction but also
regrets or guilty (Rook, 1987).
Teens, who are learning to be consumers and achieving their autonomy,
constitute an important market segment especially because of their spending power
(Palan et al., 2010). Concretely, French teenagers spend a lot of time doing some
shopping, more than half of teenagers (13-19 years) visit at least once a month a store
of fashion or of cultural products (Ipsos MediaCT). On the one hand, shopping is
considered by them as a form of entertainment, and, on the other hand, they are the
target of numerous marketing stimuli while they shop.
Besides, people who are more prone to experience emotional or affective state are
more likely to express impulsive buying (Dholakia, 2000). Brici et al. (2013) underline
that “Some scholars suggest that young consumers engaging in reckless behaviour is
the norm rather than the exception”. Considering that impulse buying is significant Teens as
during adolescence we need to better understand this phenomenon. There are gaps in impulsive
the teens’ impulsive buying research and the aim of this paper is to fulfil these gaps.
More precisely, this study seeks to investigate adolescents’ impulsive buyings and the
buyers
relationship with the perception of price. There are not many studies concerning teens’
impulsive buyings, none has dealt with the price perception, yet when a purchase is
made, obviously a price is paid. According to Damay (2008) “As soon the child is 1167
considered as a real buyer with substantial purchasing power, research quite logically
tends to focus on the economic dimensions of his or her behaviour”.
Concerning adults, the studies of Kukar-Kinney et al. (2007, 2012) show that for
excessive buyer and compulsive buyer in comparison to non-excessive buyer and
non-compulsive buyer, price perception is not the same. This contributes to a better
understanding of the buying process. The question in such a case is: why do we pay? Price
has not the same signification if it concerns an impulsive buyer or a non-impulsive buyer.
Impulsive buying and price are adjacent constructs. So what is the perception of
price for the adolescent’s impulsive buyer? Even if it is possible to think that the budget
of a teenager does not have to bear some fixed costs (housing, electricity, taxes, etc.)
or recurrent expenses (food) which characterize that of an adult, the fact that teens
show less consideration on finance deals only with one dimension of price perception
that is price consciousness. Or price perception is a multi-dimensional construct and
cannot be reduced to price consciousness.
The aim of this research is to better understand the relationships between several
concepts which deal with the role of price (Lichtenstein et al., 1993) (prestige sensitivity,
price-quality schema, price consciousness, value consciousness, price mavenism and
sale proneness) and adolescent’s impulsive buyers. For instance, are adolescents’
impulsive buyers less likely to be price conscious? Are they more likely to be prestige
sensitive than non-impulsive buyers? Are they more likely to use the price-quality
heuristics than non-impulsive buyers?
Finally, it will also be necessary to understand to what extent the impulse buying is
strongly developed in teenagers. More broadly, this research will contribute to a better
understanding of the teen’s buying process.
In order to answer this issue, first, we will present a review of the literature on
impulsive buying and then on price perception. Then hypotheses will be developed and
the methodology to test them will be described. Finally, the results and the discussion
will be presented.

2. Review of the literature

Adolescence can be seen as a passage between childhood and adulthood and is defined as
a period of changes or upheavals. The limits of adolescence remain relatively unclear.
The literature agrees to consider the adolescence as a period of development, during
which the teen is submitted to a process of socialization (Ward, 1974). In marketing, the
teenager differs from the child by his best brand’s knowledge (Benmoyal and Guiot,
2010) and he is also qualified of early adopter.
According to Gil et al. (2012), the spending motivations of teens are not well known
while they constitute a powerful group. They can be considered as having more income
than adults because they have not to pay for the household expenses (such as
insurance, electricity, etc.).
What differentiates in particular “the child from the teenager is its relative autonomy,
its possibilities of acting independently from parental control” (Bideau et al., 2002).
IJRDM Teens shop more in group with their friends than with their parents (Breazeale and Lueg,
44,11 2011). Shopping is a way for them to build their identity. For boys, the shopping in
group is a way to win in autonomy towards their mother while for girls it is linked
to their susceptibility to peer’s normative and informative influence (Gentina and
Chandon, 2014).
So studying the way teens buy through the concept of impulse buying (which
1168 according to Brici et al. (2013) seems to constitute a main behaviour of this target) and
the concept of price perception (what are the dimensions of the price perception when a
teen buys impulsively? are they different from those of a teen’s non-impulsive buyer?)
contributes to a better understanding of the teen as an autonomous buyer.

2.1 Impulsive buying

Impulse buying is a concept which has evolved. First, it has been defined as
“unplanned buying” to a more complex definition. If each impulse buying is
unplanned, each unplanned buying is not an impulse buying (Iyer, 1989). Unplanned
purchasing is a broader concept while impulse purchasing is one situation of
unplanned buying.
Drawing on previous researches, the impulsive buying is constituted by two parts,
the consumer feels suddenly a strong desire to buy a product, then the consumer loses
his self-control because his desire is too strong and so, he buys impulsively the product
(Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991) in order to get an immediate gratification. So the type of
purchase is characterized by an intensive desire and a lack of control.
The impulsive buying is defined through three dimensions (Youn and Faber, 2002):
a conative dimension (quickness and reactivity); a cognitive dimension (low level of
deliberation, few considerations about the future and the consequences and without
planning); an affective dimension (an urge to buy, an emotional conflict, a tendency to
experience feelings).
Virvilaite et al. (2009) propose a definition taking into consideration the evolution of
this concept “behaviour of impulsive purchasing is a consumer’s response to stimulus
experienced in a purchase environment, it is an instant decision. The consumer feels
emotional and/or cognitive reactions in post purchase. Impulsive purchasing does not
correspond to a rational decision making model of the consumer: when need emerges, a
consumer buys impulsively (without search of information) and does not search for
alternatives […] Consumers buying impulsively try to satisfy their hedonistic demands
through normative evaluations which affect a person’s impulsivity and, by doing this,
reduce his behaviour of impulsive buying”.
This conflict between desire and self-control invites to avoid either a potential
anticipated regret of a non-purchase or a potential anticipated purchase regret
(Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991). An anticipated regret of a purchase is negatively linked
with impulsive buying whereas an anticipated regret of a non-purchase is positively
linked with impulsive buying.
It has to be noticed that most researches deals with compulsive buying and not with
impulsive buying, often one is taken for the other. To be clear, the difference between
the two concepts is a question of degree. Indeed compulsive buying appears to be as
a pathology that is an addiction. According to Hirschman (1992) the difference is that
the impulsive buyer has enough self-control in order to avoid his impulsiveness to
become self-destructive.
Prior researches focus on factors which trigger impulsive buying: on the one hand
internal cues and on the other hand external cues (Wansink, 1994).
 2.1.1 Internal cues. According to Verplanken and Sato (2011), both negative and Teens as
positive mood are linked with impulsive behaviour. That is in order to get a more impulsive
hedonistic experience or to reduce bad mood, the consumer can have an impulsive
behaviour. Clearly impulsive buyers are more emotional sensitive than non-impulsive
buyers
buyers (Rook and Gardner, 1993). The strong desire to buy appears to be a self-
regulatory mechanism in order to reduce negative feelings as low self-esteem
(Verplanken et al., 2005) and negative well-being (Silvera et al., 2008). The impulsive 1169
buying results in a change to the consumer’s negative mood by rewarding himself
(Hausman, 2000). Moreover, impulsive buying is also perceived sometimes as a post
purchase dissatisfaction, a guilty feeling or a regret (Rook and Fisher, 1995) allowing
for the future the implementation of control strategies.
Lack of control, stress reaction, absorption (Podoshen and Andrzejewski, 2012a),
immaturity (Zhang and Shrum, 2009), materialism (Podoshen and Andrzejewski,
2012a), consumer impulsiveness (Sharma et al., 2010), perception of inadequacy levels
concerning his self-identity (Dittmar et al., 1995), age (Parboteeah, 2005) were found to
be related to impulse buying tendencies.
2.1.2 External cues. It is important for retailers to be aware that marketing
elements that they control are able to arise a strong desire to buy that is to buy
impulsively. Indeed, according to the review of the literature store layout,
atmosphere, for example, defined by sights, sound, smells (Youn and Faber, 2000),
staff (Parboteeah, 2005) have a strong effect on impulsive buying because these
factors are linked with the hedonism. Moreover, to touch the product increases
impulse purchasing as the distance between product and consumer decreases, so,
point-of-purchase signs, displays and packaging encouraging product touch increase
impulse purchasing (Peck and Childers, 2006).
Promotional incentives can trigger impulsive buying (Dholakia, 2000; Rook, 1987).
Indeed, impulsive buyings often take place during the sales period when products can
be considered by the consumer as “not expensive” (Youn and Faber, 2000). Moreover,
according to Ortony et al. (1990) the unexpected character of a situation may trigger
impulsive behaviour, yet sales are often unexpected and so can trigger impulsive
buying. The use of promotional activities and merchandising tactics is relevant in order
to focus consumers’ attention on emotionally appealing products (Kacen et al., 2012).
Concerning the price, even if researches emphasize that a low price is generally
preferred to a high price by impulsive buyers (e.g. Kacen et al., 2012), others assert that
consumers make impulsive purchases of both expensive and inexpensive items across
a wide range of product categories (e.g. Dittmar et al., 1995).

2.2 Price perception

2.2.1 Adolescent price perception. Price and children have not been studied a lot. The
main researches on this topic have been achieved by Damay et al. (Damay et al., 2011,
2014; Damay, 2008) and concern mainly the knowledge of price, price memorization,
price presentation and formulation.
Concerning price perception, studies carried out on children and teenagers do not
deal with this concept unilaterally. They take into account the notion of price as a
simple (as opposed to complex) notion, and they seek mainly to apprehend the
sensitivity to prices in a one-dimensional way (e.g. taking price into account vs not
taking price into account). These studies answer the question: “Do children and
teenagers take the price of products or services into account?”, but do not answer
IJRDM the question: “How do teenagers perceive price?”. Furthermore, the price variable
44,11 does not generally constitute the core of the studies, but is studied in a subsidiary way.
According to Damay (2008), there is no consensus for the moment concerning the role
of price in purchasing decision.
In conclusion, it appears clearly that the price has been studied only among adults
and children under 14. Consequently, it seems relevant to study what goes on between
1170 the ages of 14 and 18.
2.2.2 Adult price perception. Price perception could be defined as the process by
which consumers interpret price and attribute value to a good or a service (Sternquist
et al., 2004). In this paper, in accordance with Lichtenstein et al. (1993) and Sternquist
et al. (2004), price is a multi-dimensional cue.
Lichtenstein et al. (1993) use seven constructs to understand price perception, five
linked with the negative role of price and two linked with the positive role (see Figure 1).

3. Hypotheses
3.1 The negative role of price[1]
Price consciousness is defined by Lichtenstein et al. (1993) as the degree to which the
consumer focusses exclusively on paying attention to low price and it concerns the negative
role of the price. According to this point of view the consumer is looking for low prices in
order to buy. Such a perception necessitates to have a knowledge of prices levels.
As early as eight years old, children know perfectly well the price of the products
they wish to buy (Estess and Barocas, 1994). With a much broader access to
information during their teenage years (autonomy, expertise of web browsing), they
can compare prices of a product or a brand.
So, on the one hand, teens have skills to search for low prices, but, on the other hand,
this search is in contradiction with impulsive behaviour. Indeed, an impulsive purchase
is characterized by fast decision making (Youn and Faber, 2000), while the low price
searching necessitates time. Moreover, the impulsive buying process is more linked to
an affective dimension, while the search for low-prices concerns a cognitive process:
teens’ impulsive buying is less of a deliberative process. Furthermore, according to
Brici et al. (2013), teen consumers show less consideration of finances following impulse

Negative Positive role

role of price
of price

Value Price Coupon Sale Price Price-quality Prestige

consciousness consciousness proneness proneness mavenism schema sensitivity

A concern for The degree to An increase An increase The degree to Generalized Favourable
price paid which the propensity to propensity to which an belief across perceptions of
relative to consumer respond to a respond to a individual is a product the price cue
quality focusses purchase offer purchase offer, source for categories that based on
perceived exclusively on because the because of the price the level of the feelings of
Figure 1. paying low
price
coupon form of
the purchase
sale form, in
which the price
information for
many kinds of
price cue is
related
prominence
and status that
Negative and offer positively positively products and positively to higher prices
affects affects places to shop the quality signal to other
positive role of price purchase purchase for the lowest level of the people about
evaluations evaluations prices product the purchaser
buying than adults. Subsequently, they are much less aware of their real-life Teens as
constraints, finances and budgets. So, searching for a low price is not something which impulsive
matters for teens that are impulsive buyers because they do not need to manage their
budget. Thus, the following hypothesis might be drawn:
buyers
H1. Teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be price conscious than teen
non-impulsive buyers.
1171
The use of impulsive buying as a form of mood repair could be triggered by the context
of the shop. Indeed, the retail environment can, via different means, promote impulse
behaviour. In fact, sale proneness (an increase propensity to respond to a purchase
offer, because of the sale form in which the price positively affects purchase
evaluations) is used in a way to pay less to get as much or to pay as much in order to
get more (more product, cents-off, etc.). According to Yip et al. (2012) the presence of
promotion is an attribute (at the sixth place) determining young people’s favourite
store. Teens report to be attracted by discounts and buy one get one free offers.
Moreover, according to several searches (e.g. Youn and Faber, 2000) impulsive buying
often occurred during the sales period. In fact, some consumers are looking for deals
because of an economic profit, while others buy products in sale for a psychological
profit (Lichtenstein et al., 1990). This psychological profit is linked with the
“smart-shopper-feeling” and according to Labbe-Pinlon et al. (2005), to be proud of
making a good deal is linked with impulsive buying. In fact, the sale is understood as
the sign of a good deal.
So, the sale can be viewed as a “good deal” which can stimulate the adolescent’s
purchase and makes him feel like a “smart shopper”. Doing so, his guilty feeling which
seems according to Brici et al. (2013) linked to the impulse behaviour, will be minimized.
It is also a way to avoid an anticipated regret of a non-sale.
Sale’s prone teens, by buying impulsively, are not following a deep cognitive process
comparing the objective value of the deal, but will follow the “communication about the
deal” (i.e. the crossed off price, etc.):
H2. Teen impulsive buyers are more likely to be sale prone than teen
non-impulsive buyers.
As far as price mavenism (i.e. the degree to which an individual is a source for price
information for many kinds of products and places to shop for the lowest prices) is
concerned, the frequency of the interactions between peers may lead teenagers to
discuss the price of products. However, the fact that teenagers might discuss between
themselves about the price of their purchases does not constitute a necessary condition
to turn them into price maven. What seems to be the fundamental characteristic of a
maven is his objective expertise and his perceived expertise. Breazeale and Lueg (2011)
report through a review of the literature that self-esteem is positively linked to
marketing mavenism. Given that several authors (e.g. Verplanken et al., 2005) have
shown that self-esteem is negatively linked to impulsive purchase, the following
hypothesis can be drawn:
H3. Teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be price maven than teen
non-impulsive buyers.
Value consciousness, that is a concern for price paid relative to the quality perceived,
constitutes a complex cognitive process. Indeed, this requires examination of two
product’s attributes (price and quality) in the decision. Such a process takes time to
IJRDM compare and to evaluate the value of the product through different kinds of indicators.
44,11 However, the urge to buy which characterized the impulsive buying is in contradiction
with the time needed to achieve such a deliberative process. So, the following
hypothesis can be proposed:
H4. Teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be value conscious than teen
non-impulsive buyers.
1172
3.2 The positive role of price
Prestige sensitivity is a favourable perception of the price cue based on feelings of
prominence and status that higher prices signal to other people about the purchaser.
Prestige sensitivity is related to socially visible consumption behaviours (McGowan and
Sternquist, 1998). Products are very used to define its owner (Belk, 1988). According to
Chaplin and John (2007) around the age of 10-11, the symbolic meanings and the status
accorded to certain types of possessions and products are understood. Indeed
possessions are a way to define self-concepts, to translate a salient part of who they are.
To do so, teens can manage their impressions by acquiring brands and products
plebiscited by their peers in order to be accepted (Cohen, 1982). So peer relationships are
very important to teen’s development of self-image (Molenmaker, 2008).
Besides, Bearden et al. (1989) have shown that self-esteem relates negatively to
normative interpersonal influence on purchasing decisions. In fact, a deficit in
self-concept may be affected in a more important way by external sources such as peer
pressure (Gil et al., 2012). In the same way, Yang et al. (2013) have supported that
children’s self-esteem negatively relates to their susceptibility to peer influence.
Moreover several researches (e.g. Silvera et al., 2008) have underlined that an
impulse purchase is a way to cope with the feelings of low esteem.
Teens who buy (products) in an impulsive way in order not only to give a better
image of themselves (to them and to the peers) but also to increase their self-esteem, do
so in order to compensate their low esteem.
The above discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H5. Teen impulsive buyers are more likely to be prestige sensitive than teen
non-impulsive buyers.
Price-quality schema is about the belief that price evaluates the quality of the product.
Higher the price is, better the quality is, a low price implies a low quality.
The dimensions of price-quality schema and prestige sensitivity should not be treated
in the same way. Indeed, both are related to price, but in a very different way:
price-quality schema expresses a belief about the intrinsic meaning of price (e.g. price is
an expression of the quality of a product or a service), whereas prestige sensitivity
expresses a belief in relation with other people’s perception.
Children are aware that the price of a product depends on its quality as early as ten
years old (Fox and Kerhret-Ward, 1990). As a consequence, this type of heuristic is
already existing during teenage years. Thus, given that impulsive buying is something
achieved quickly (Youn and Faber, 2000), we can postulate that teens will less go
through a deep investigation (a complex cognitive process) during their impulse
buyings and so will use heuristics to make their choices. More precisely, every teen
have the skill, but impulse buyers are more likely, because of less deliberation, to use
heuristics in order to take an impulsive decision. This heuristic provides them an
evidence that the price is a relevant indicator of the quality of the product. Doing so,
they alleviate a post purchase regret. It is, for teens, a way to deal with an anticipated Teens as
regret (Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991). Taking into consideration the price allows them impulsive
to be comforted concerning the quality expected (he can expect to have a low, an
average or a high quality). So the following hypothesis can be drawn:
buyers
H6. Teen impulsive buyers are more likely to infer quality on the basis of price than
teen non-impulsive buyers.
1173
Concerning adults, several searchers (e.g. Segal and Podoshen, 2013; Tifferet and
Herstein, 2012) have suggested that women overall make more impulse purchases than
men. According to Tifferet and Herstein (2012) it is because women score higher in
hedonic consumption than men and that they show more anxiety and depression than
men. Yet the literature review has clearly highlighted the existing relationship between
positive and negative emotions and impulse buyings.
Concerning teenagers, they are achieving autonomy not only as individuals
transitioning to adulthood but also as consumers learning how to navigate the contours
of the market by themselves. Concretely, in this autonomous consumption, adolescent
girls, relative to teenage boys, are the primary shopping spenders in this age group
(Palan et al., 2010). Consequently, adolescents girls may make more unplanned
purchases. Furthermore, Moksnes et al. (2010) found that girls scored higher on all
measures of stress and emotional states than boys, underlying a more emotional
background for girls than for boys. For these reasons we propose that:
H7. Females adolescents are likely to be more impulsive buyers than males
adolescents.

4. Method
4.1 Data collection
Data collection has been achieved through three high schools. These high schools were
located in the south of France and were varied concerning the type of teens.
The data collection procedures insured respondent anonymity. The final sample
was of 325 French teens (age between 14 and 18). There were 57.85 per cent female
and 42.15 per cent male. Concerning the age the distribution was the following: 14 years
old 13.54 per cent; 15 years old 25.23 per cent; 16 years old 14.46 per cent; 17 years old
21.85 per cent; 18 years old 24.92 per cent.

4.2 Construct measures

All constructs were measured using existing scales. Because the seven scales are
English, all items have been translated into French using the parallel-blind technique
to insure translation equivalence and have been pre-tested in order to check the
understanding of each item because of the translation but also to check the good
understanding of teenagers (the scale has been initially achieved on adults). So several
items have been deleted or adapted. The scales were formatted into five-point Likert.
To measure the tendency to buy impulsively a scale developed by Rook and Fisher
(1995) (buying impulsiveness scale) has been used. This scale is usually used in other
researches (e.g. Fenton-O’Creevy et al., 2012). Initially it consists of nine items and
only one dimension. Given that three items during a pre-test were misunderstood
they have been deleted. This scale includes statements such as “I see it, I buy it,
describes me”, “I often buy things without thinking”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is
0.86. The χ2 value for the confirmatory factor model is 40.107 (df ¼ 9; p ¼ 0.000).
IJRDM Other goodness of fit measures are: GFI ¼ 0.959; AGFI ¼ 0.904 and RMSEA ¼ 0.1
44,11 indicating an acceptable fit of the model[2].
The other concepts (price consciousness, sale proneness, price mavenism, value
consciousness, prestige sensitivity and price-quality schema) have been measured
through the scales developed by Lichtenstein et al. (1993). Each scale is
uni-dimensional. The χ2 value for the confirmatory factor model for the six scales
1174 is 231.512 (df ¼ 120; p ¼ 0.000). Other goodness of fit measures are: GFI ¼ 0.921;
AGFI ¼ 0.887 and RMSEA ¼ 0.05 indicating an acceptable fit of the model.
Discriminant validity is supported.
4.2.1 Price consciousness. The original version consists of five items. Two items
have been deleted. This scale includes statements such as “The time it takes to find low
prices is usually not worth the effort” (reversed score), “I am not willing to go to extra
effort to find lower prices” (reversed score). Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.806.
4.2.2 Sale proneness. Initially it consists of six items, two items have been deleted.
This scale includes statements such as “If a product is on sale, that can be a reason for
me to buy it”, “I am more likely to buy brands that are on sale”. Cronbach’s α for the
scale is 0.91.
4.2.3 Price mavenism. The original scale was achieved through six items, two have
been misunderstood. Examples of items used include “I like helping people by
providing them with price information about many types of products”, “For many
kinds of products, I would be better able than most people to tell someone where to
shop to get the best to buy”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.754.
4.2.4 Value consciousness. Value consciousness is operationalized using two items
among the five. Teenagers indicated their agreement with such statements “I am very
concerned about low prices, but I am equally concerned about product quality”,
“I generally shop around for lower prices on products, but they still must meet certain
quality requirements before I buy them”. Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.77.
4.2.5 Prestige sensitivity. Three items on the nine items are used. Sample items
include statements such as “Buying the most expensive brand of a product makes me
feel classy”, “People notice when you buy the most expensive brand of a product”.
Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.80.
4.2.6 Price-quality schema. This construct is measured using two items above the
four (“The price of a product is a good indicator of its quality”, “You always have to pay
a bit more for the best”). Cronbach’s α for the scale is 0.785.

5. Results
The test of the hypotheses has been achieved using MANOVA. Previously,
respondents were split in two groups (impulsive vs non-impulsive buyers).
According to the five-point Likert’s measurement scale (six items), the scores of
18 (which are linked with the neutrality) have not been taken into consideration,
19 observations have been deleted. In order to split the sample in two groups, we have
taken the scores down and equal to 17 (the non-impulsive buyers group) and the scores
equal to 19 and above (the impulsive buyers group). Impulsive buyers group represents
34 per cent of the respondents and the non-impulsive buyers group represents
66 per cent of the respondents.
According to H1, teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be price conscious than teen
non-impulsive buyers, the test supports this hypothesis. Consistent with this hypothesis
teen non-impulsive buyers score higher concerning price consciousness than teen
impulsive buyers (Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 9.07; Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 10.22; Teens as
F1,301 ¼ 11.744; p ¼ 0.000; r ¼ 0.192). impulsive
We predicted in H2 that teen impulsive buyers are more likely to be sale prone than
teen non-impulsive buyers. This prediction is confirmed: teen non-impulsive buyers
buyers
score is lower concerning sale proneness as opposed to teen impulsive buyers
(Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 15.86; Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 14.66; F1,301 ¼ 9.208; p ¼ 0.002;
r ¼ 0.171). 1175
In H3, we stated that teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be price maven than
teen non-impulsive buyers. However, contrary to what we have expected, teen
impulsive buyers are more likely to be price maven in comparison with teen
non-impulsive buyers (Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 12.10; Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 10.55;
F1,301 ¼ 12.722; p ¼ 0.000; r ¼ 0.200).
H4 predicted that teen impulsive buyers are less likely to be value conscious than
teen non-impulsive buyers. This hypothesis is supported. So teen non-impulsive buyers
show a higher score concerning value consciousness than teen impulsive buyers
(Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 6.99; Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 7,44; F1,301 ¼ 3.747; p ¼ 0.05; r ¼ 0.110).
In the line with what we postulated in H5, teen impulsive buyers are more likely to
be prestige sensitive than teen non-impulsive buyers, H5 is validated. So teen non-
impulsive buyers are less likely to be prestige sensitive as opposed to teen impulsive
buyers (Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 8.38; Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 6.75; F1,301 ¼ 18.619;
p ¼ 0.000; r ¼ 0.239).
Furthermore, as reported in H6, the inference of quality based on the price is higher
for teen impulsive buyers than for teen non-impulsive buyers (Mteen impulsive buyers ¼ 5.75;
Mteen non-impulsive buyers ¼ 5.08; F1,301 ¼ 6.749; p ¼ 0.009; r ¼ 0.147).
Finally, H7, according to which females adolescents are likely to be more impulsive
buyers than males adolescents, is confirmed. So males adolescents appear to less
engage themselves in impulsive buying than females adolescents (Mfemales ¼ 15.49;
Mmales ¼ 13.76; F1,323 ¼ 7.371; p ¼ 0.007; r ¼ 0.149).

6. Discussion, limitations and implications

The aim of this research is to better understand the relationships between teenager’s
impulsive buying and their price perception (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). The findings
show clear differences between teens’ impulsive buyings and teens’ non-impulsive
buyings: they do not perceive price in the same way. Each hypothesis has been
validated excepted H3.
Teen impulsive buyers possess more prestige sensitivity, price-quality schema, price
mavenism, sale proneness and less price and value consciousness than non-impulsive
buyers. Furthermore, this research reports that females adolescents are more impulsive
buyers than males adolescents. Moreover, buying impulsively does not seem to
correspond to the majority of teens as expected by the quotation (see in introduction) of
Brici et al. (2013), only 34 per cent of the sample is qualified as impulsive buyers.
So several points seem to be underlying. First, even if emotion seems to be involved
in impulse buying, teens’ impulsive buyers use heuristics (i.e. price-quality schema or
the presence of a deal) but not as an algorithm process to buy quickly. It is why teens’
impulsive buyers are less price conscious and value conscious. Concerning price
consciousness, according to Labbe-Pinlon et al. (2005), the correlation between
perceived price and real price is weak. The authors suggest that price evaluation is
not an antecedent but the consequence of impulsiveness. Indeed the consumer will
under estimate the price of a product when his product desire is very strong.
IJRDM Price consciousness appears to be more a behaviour which consists to look after low
44,11 price, but what is the relation of this concept with the price perceived and the price
knowledge? Hence, maybe the measure of the price knowledge could give another
result more objective than the price consciousness.
Second, sale proneness, prestige sensitivity and price-quality schema are a way to
increase self-esteem or to reduce guilty feeling, allowing adolescents’ impulsive buyers
1176 to attain the positive feelings they seek. Teen impulsive buyers do not seem to pay
attention to the financial dimension of price because they are not very concerned by
budget. So, teen impulsive buyers are more vulnerable because they focus their
purchases more on products that provide them with prestige. Their sale proneness
allow them to alleviate their regret and guilty. It allows teens’ impulsive buyers to feel
as smart shoppers not really because of the objective advantage but because of the
feeling to get a good deal because there is a sale.
In other words teen impulsive buyers focus their purchases more on products that
provide them with prestige and so buy well-known and well-accepted brands. Even if
teen impulsive buyers are not price conscious, that is they do not look intentionally for
low prices, they do, however, feel happy when they can take advantage of a promotion.
Third, H3 is not validated. Teen impulsive buyers are more likely to be price maven
than teen non-impulsive buyers (even if they do not search for low price). It is maybe
because adolescent impulsive buyers, because they buy frequently, are perceived by
peers as having a good knowledge of prices and seem to be experts.
Clearly, this research shows that teen impulsive buyers tend to consider price at the
same time in his positive and negative role.
This research has limitations. One of the limitations of this research is that the data
collection has been achieved on French teens only living in south of France. It would be
necessary, even if nothing allow to think that this kind of teens has a specific
perception, to work on a more representative sample. Another limitation deals with the
age of the teens, in order to present hypothesis concerning this variable it would have
been interesting to have also children from 12 to 14 years old. Lastly, now that
relationships between price perception and impulse buying have been underlined, it
will be necessary to include other variables such as self-esteem in order to analyse the
relationships in a deeper way.
In spite of its limitations, this research also has implications for retailers. Concerning
teens’ impulsive buyers a way to trigger their purchase is to send them sales deal via
e-mail or on their mobile phone, underlying also the prestige of their products and the
peers’ acceptance. We can also imagine sales promotion for three friends (girls) who
will shop together, this type of deal would take into consideration the place of deal and
peers acceptance. Moreover, the achievement of “flash” deals in the store could be also a
good way to trigger the purchase for teens’ impulsive buyers. Finally, geolocalized
mobile deals appear to be also a relevant way to touch this target. Indeed, this
generation called the Z generation is born with the mobile phone and the internet. So,
the technologies are well known. Geolocalization on mobile is particularly adapted in
order to trigger, for teens’ impulsive buyer, their impulsive buyings through deals. As
according to Ortony et al. (1990), the unexpected character of a situation may trigger
impulsive behaviour. This geolocalization makes things unexpected in two ways: not
only a deal is ephemeral but also the geolocalization (the store can know where I am)
can appear as surprising and unexpected.
In order to contribute to change self-esteem (i.e. to boost self-esteem), the teen’s
membership for a brand can be relevant. Indeed to inform him of new products, new
deals, to invite him personally to discover a new offer (for different kind of events) that Teens as
is to communicate with him as a VIP, will make him feel as a very important person. impulsive
Hence, the brand membership will alleviate his low self-esteem. This can bring him
(the teen impulsive buyer) to make more impulsive purchases in the store.
buyers
From a more societal point of view, given the frequency of their buyings, it could be
possible to educate adolescents in order for them to be less impulsive buyer and so to
make more optimal purchases via the achievement of programme at school concerning 1177
how to manage a budget and the consequences of a bad management.
Clearly given the following, the study of the impulsive buying of this target seems
to be useful:
• impulsive buying constitutes an important aspect of the retailing;
• adolescents have money and are buying in an autonomous way; and
• they are in construction and so dependant of their peers regards.
The study implies several important directions for future researches. This theme has to
be studied deeper. Different questions are to be solved. Considering that the adolescent
is a member of the Z generation, how to trigger teenager’s impulsive on-line buying?
Does the role of price is the same in teenager on-line impulsive buying?
It appears also that teenage impulsive buyers are more deal prone. But more
precisely what kind of deal will trigger them most?
Moreover, in order to better apprehend the role of price in adolescents’ impulsive
behaviour, the understanding of his money attitude and his budget management are
important. The aim will be to build a typology of adolescents’ impulsive buyers in order
to better target them.
Finally, in echo with the review of the literature: what kind of display and
atmosphere are more inclined to trigger adolescent impulsive buying?

Notes
1. None hypothesis will be made about coupon proneness which is a specific kind of deal.
2. The model has been tested without the observations equal to 18, see “Results” for
more explanations.

References
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.T. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 473-481.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 139-168.
Benmoyal, S. and Guiot, D. (2010), “The products dedicated to adolescents: symbolic consumption
of brands or symbolic consumption of products?”, Journal of Marketing Trends, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 27-42.
Bideau, J., Houdé, O. and Pedinielli, J.-L. (2002), L’homme en développement, PUF, Paris.
Breazeale, M. and Lueg, J.E. (2011), “Retail shopping typology of American teens”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 565-571.
Brici, N., Hodkinson, C. and Sullivan-Mort, G. (2013), “Conceptual differences between adolescent
and adult impulse buyers”, Young Consumers, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 258-279.
IJRDM Chaplin, L.N. and John, R.D. (2007), “Growing up in a material world: age differences in
materialism in children and adolescents”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 4,
44,11 pp. 480-493.
Cohen, J.B. (1982), “Playing to win: marketing and public policy at odds over Joe Camel”, Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 155-167.
Damay, C. (2008), “What is the meaning of ‘price’ and ‘being expensive’ for children?”, Young
1178 Consumers, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-188.
Damay, C., Clauzel, A. and Guichard, N. (2011), “When children confront prices: an approach
based on price presentation”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 7,
pp. 514-525.
Damay, C., Guichard, N. and Clauzel, A. (2014), “Children’s price knowledge”, Young Consumers,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 167-177.
Dholakia, U.M. (2000), “Temptation and resistance: an integrated model of consumption impulse
formation and enactment”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 955-982.
Dittmar, H., Beattie, J. and Friese, S. (1995), “Gender identity and material symbols: objects and
decision considerations in impulse purchases”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 491-511.
Estess, P. and Barocas, I. (1994), Kids, Money and Values, Betterway Books, Cincinnati, OH.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Furnham, A.D.S. and Davies, G. (2012), “Antecedents and consequences
of impulsive buying: can impulsive buying be understood as dysfunctional emotion
regulation?”, Eighth International Conference on Emotions and Worklife: Emonet VIII,
Helsinki, available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/35606/ (accessed 23 April 2015).
Fox, K.F.A. and Kerhret-Ward, T. (1990), “Naïve theories of price: a developmental model”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 310-329.
Gentina, E. and Chandon, J.-L. (2014), “Le rôle du genre sur la fréquence de shopping en groupe
des adolescents: entre besoin d’individualisation et besoin d’assimilation”, Recherche
et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 35-64.
Gil, L.A., Kwon, K.-N., Good, L.K. and Johnson, L.W. (2012), “Impact of self on attitudes toward
luxury brands among teens”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1425-1433.
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-419.
Hirschman, E.C. (1992), “The consciousness of addiction: toward a general theory of compulsive
consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 155-179.
Hoch, S.J. and Loewenstein, G.F. (1991), “Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer
self-control”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 492-507.
Iyer, E.S. (1989), “Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment and time
pressure”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 40-57.
Kacen, J., Hess, J. and Walker, D. (2012), “Spontaneous selection: the influence of product
and merchandising factors on consumer impulse purchases”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 578-588.
Kukar-Kinney, M., Ridgway, N. and Monroe, K. (2007), “The positive and negative role of price in
excessive buying behaviour”, American Marketing Association Proceedings, Winter, pp. 94-95.
Kukar-Kinney, M., Ridgway, N. and Monroe, K. (2012), “The role of price in the behaviour and
purchase decisions of compulsive buyers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 63-71.
Labbe-Pinlon, B., Bonnefont, A. and Giraud, M. (2005), “Incidence des prix et des promotions sur
le déclenchement d’impulsions d’achat et d’achats impulsifs émotionnels en GMS”, Actes
des 10èmes Journées de Recherche en Marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon, November.
Lichtenstein, D., Netemeyer, R.G. and Burton, S. (1990), “Distinguishing coupon proneness from Teens as
price consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility perspective”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 54-67.
impulsive
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1993), “Price perceptions and consumer
buyers
shopping behaviour: a field study”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 232-245.
McGowan, K. and Sternquist, B. (1998), “Dimensions of price as a marketing universal:
a comparison of Japanese and US consumers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6 1179
No. 4, pp. 49-65.
Merzer, M. (2014), “Survey: 3 in 4 Americans make impulse purchases”, available at: www.
creditcards.com/credit-card-news/impulse-purchase-survey.php (accessed 23 July 2015).
Moksnes, U.K., Moljord, I.E.O., Espnes, G.A. and Byrne, D.G. (2010), “The association between
stress and individual differences: the role of gender and self-esteem”, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 430-435.
Molenmaker, L.P. (2008), “Lead users in social networks of children”, Young Consumers, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 90-103.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. and Collins, A. (1990), The Cognitive Structure of Emotions, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Palan, K., Gentina, E. and Muratore, I. (2010), “Adolescent consumption autonomy:
a crosscultural study”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 12, pp. 1342-1348.
Parboteeah, D.V. (2005), “A model of online impulse buying: an empirical study”, doctoral
dissertation, Washington State University, Washington, DC.
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.
Podoshen, J.S. and Andrezejewski, S.A. (2012a), “An examination of the relationship between
materialism, conspicious consumption, impulse buying, and brand loyalty”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 319-333.
Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulse buying behaviour”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Rook, D.W. and Gardner, M.P. (1993), “In the mood: impulse buying’s affective antecedents”,
Research in Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 1-28.
Segal, B. and Podoshen, J. (2013), “An examination of materialism, conspicuous consumption and
gender differences”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 189-198.
Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B. and Marshall, R. (2010), “Impulse buying and variety seeking:
a trait-correlates perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 276-283.
Silvera, D.H., Lavack, A.M. and Kropp, F. (2008), “Impulse buying: the role of affect, social influence,
and subjective wellbeing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Sternquist, B., Byun, S.-E. and Jin, B. (2004), “The dimensionality of price perceptions: a cross-
cultural comparison of Asian consumers”, International Revue of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 83-100.
Tifferet, S. and Herstein, R. (2012), “Brand commitment, impulse buying, and hedonic
consumption”, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 176-182.
Verplanken, B. and Sato, A. (2011), “The psychology of impulse buying: an integrative
self-regulation approach”, Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Verplanken, B., Herabadi, A.G., Perry, J.A. and Silvera, D.H. (2005), “Consumer style and health:
the role of impulse buying in unhealthy eating”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 429-441.
IJRDM Virvilaite, R., Saladiene, V. and Bagdonaite, R. (2009), “Peculiarities of impulsive purchasing
in the market of consumer goods”, Commerce of Engineering Decision, Vol. 62 No. 2,
44,11 pp. 101-108.
Vohs, K.D. and Faber, R.J. (2007), “Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects
impulse buying”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 537-547.
Wansink, B. (1994), “The dark side of consumer behaviour: empirical examinations of impulsive
1180 and compulsive consumption”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21, p. 508.
Ward, S. (1974), “Consumer socialization”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Yang, Z., Schaninger, C.M. and Laroche, M. (2013), “Demarketing teen tobacco and alcohol use:
negative peer influence and longitudinal roles of parenting and self-esteem”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 559-567.
Yip, T.C.Y., Chan, K. and Poon, E. (2012), “Attributes of young consumers’ favorite retail shops:
a qualitative study”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 545-552.
Youn, S. and Faber, R.J. (2000), “Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 179-186.
Youn, S. and Faber, R.J. (2002), “The dimensional structure of consumer buying impulsivity:
measurement and validation”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, p. 280.
Zhang, Y. and Shrum, L.J. (2009), “The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 838-850.

Further reading
Brée, J. (1987), “L’enfant et le processus de consommation: l’utilisation des attributs ‘marque, prix
et prime’ dans l’acte d’achat”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-29.
Damay, C. and Guichard, N. (2008), “How do children buy? Studies of children’s buying criteria”,
International Conference Child and Teen Consumption, Bergen, pp. 24-35.
McNeal, J.U. (1992), Kids as Consumers, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Podoshen, J.S. and Andrzejewski, S.A. (2012b), “An investigation into the relationships between
materialism, conspicuous consumption, brand loyalty and impulse buying”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 319-334.
Ward, S., Wackman, D.B. and Wartella, E. (1977), How Children Learn to Buy: The Development of
Consumer Information Processing Skills, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Corresponding author
Isabelle Muratore can be contacted at: isabelle.muratore@univ-amu.fr

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