See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280193248

Shopping online without thinking: Being emotional or rational?

Article  in  Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · January 2014

DOI: 10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0066

CITATIONS READS
158 8,505

2 authors:

Hilal Ozen Nil Kodaz Engizek

Istanbul University Istanbul University
9 PUBLICATIONS   215 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Price Related Constructs’ Effects on Daily Deal Buying Behavior in Turkey View project

Pazarlama: İlkeler, Genel Stratejiler View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nil Kodaz Engizek on 07 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-5855.htm

APJML
26,1 Shopping online without thinking:
being emotional or rational?
Hilal Ozen and Nil Engizek
78 Department of Marketing, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

Received 19 June 2013

Revised 26 August 2013
Accepted 29 September
2013
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore whether hedonic motivations of Turkish consumers have any
potential impact on their impulse buying tendencies (IBT) in the online environment. Besides, it also
covers which dimension of hedonic shopping motivation has the strongest effect on online IBT.
Design/methodology/approach – An online survey was conducted to test the structural model.
A total of 430 Turkish online consumers served as the sample. Data analysis was conducted using
confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling.
Findings – Findings confirm that hedonic value drives online IBT. While three dimensions of
hedonic shopping motivation (adventure, relaxation and value) affect online IBT in a positive way,
social shopping was related negatively to online IBT. It was also found that idea shopping does not
have a significant effect on online IBT.
Originality/value – Given the occurrence of impulse buying in online shopping and the importance
of hedonic motivations on consumer behavior, this study provides useful insights into impulse buying
behavior in an online setting. In developing markets like Turkey what is the role of hedonic shopping
motivations in online IBT? This study is unique in addressing this question for Turkish online
consumers.
Keywords Consumer behavior, Structural equation modelling, Shopping behavior, e-Marketing
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The rate of consumers who are using the online channel for shopping purposes is
rising and the revenues of e-tailers continue to grow rapidly. Convenience is the most
known motivation which encourages consumers for shopping online. Online shopping
provides broader selection of opportunities and greater access to information, above all
there is 7/24 access to an online store and the consumer has the opportunity to compare
the offerings of sellers worldwide (Kim, 2002). The online stores are not constrained, as
traditional retailers, by opening and closing times, physical locations, or, to a large
extent, product availability (LaRose, 2001). Beyond those opportunities of online
shopping, there are lack of social pressure and absence of delivery efforts which
stimulate the consumers to act impulsively when making online decisions (Verhagen
and van Dolen, 2011). While the increased convenience of online shopping compared to
traditional shopping is advantageous to most of the consumers, such convenience also
encourages impulse buying (Dawson and Kim, 2009).
Recently, online impulse buying has received some attention and considerable
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and academic studies have been made in order to identify the online impulse buying
Logistics behavior (Dawson and Kim, 2009; Verhagen and van Dolen, 2011; Wells et al., 2011;
Vol. 26 No. 1, 2014
pp. 78-93 Park et al., 2012). Some of the researches have led to the acceptance that emotions
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited dominate the impulse buying process and impulse buying behavior is a result of
1355-5855
DOI 10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0066 hedonic motivations (Yu and Bastin, 2010). Furthermore, the findings of the studies
indicate that there is a positive relationship between hedonic motivation and impulsive Shopping online
buying, and hedonic consumers are more likely to engage in impulse buying without thinking
(Babin et al., 1994; Hausman, 2000; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001; Arnold and Reynolds,
2003; Zhou et al., 2007). While these studies have extended the knowledge regarding
online impulse buying, a common thread across many of them is the needs to better
understand how the multidimensional hedonic motivation constructs influences online
impulse buying. 79
The purpose of this article is to gain a general understanding of online consumers’
impulse buying tendencies (IBT) from the aspect of hedonic shopping motivations.
This paper tries to answer these questions:
.
In developing markets, what is the role of hedonic shopping motivations in
online impulse buying tendency?
.
Which dimensions of hedonic shopping motivations has the strongest effect on
impulse buying tendency?

First of all, in the conceptual background part, impulse buying and online impulse
buying tendency is explained. Following those concepts the dimensions of hedonic
motivations were given in detail. After all, in order to address the issues raised above, a
model was proposed and tested in the methodological part. The study ends with
suggestions for Turkish e-tailers.

Conceptual background
What is impulse buying?
According to Stern (1962) impulse buying is same with “unplanned buying” and
described as “any purchase which a shopper makes but has not planned in advance.”
This explanation is quite steady amongst other impulse purchasing literature (Cobb
and Hoyer, 1986; Kollat and Willet, 1967). More lately, this explanation has been
expanded by researchers further than a simple unplanned purchase to comprise an
emotional component or an urge to make the purchase. Impulse buying is then
redefined by Rook (1987, p. 191) containing these elements as: “Impulse buying occurs
when a consumer experiences a sudden, often powerful and persistent urge to buy
something immediately.” A systematic review of impulse buying literature was made
by Piron (1991) and he recommended a more precise and complete explanation for
impulse buying that consists of four elements: the purchase is unplanned, it is the
consequence of an exposure to stimulus, it is decided “on the spot”, and it involves an
emotional and/or cognitive reaction.
When consumers make impulse buying, they make an unintended, unreflective, and
immediate purchase, and often feel an urge to buy the product (Jones et al., 2003; Rook,
1987). A number of reasons can influence impulse buying. Those reasons may be
summarized as: low price, marginal need for item, emotions, low cognitive control or
spontaneous behavior. Such purchases may happen largely without considering the
financial consequence (Stern, 1962; Sharma et al., 2010).

From traditional impulse buying to online buying impulsiveness

With the beginning of the internet age and proliferation of e-commerce, online impulse
buying has received some attention and researches about online impulse buying have
emerged. Many academic studies have been conducted regarding impulse buying in
APJML the online environment (LaRose, 2001; Zhang et al., 2006; Parboteeah et al., 2009).
26,1 According to Eroglu et al. (2001) impulse buying in the online environment provides
potential research opportunities as online buying reduces the limitations of time and
space that often consumers face in conventional stores. The research results related to
impulse buying shows that online shoppers are more likely to be impulsive judged
against traditional shoppers (Donthu and Garcia, 1999). They do more unplanned
80 shopping than those in traditional stores. This is because consumers are more likely to
make overspending during online shopping due to the characteristic features of online
transactions (Dittmar et al., 2004). A number of aspects have been named by LaRose
(2001) which affects unregulated behavior (including impulse buying) and increase
consumer’s unplanned, sudden shopping intentions in online stores. These aspects
have been classified as product recommendations and suggestions, point programs, on
sale notices, and repeat purchase reminders. Also, the online atmosphere is another
important factor that has an effect on the level of impulsivity, in-store browsing and
the occurrence of impulse purchases (Costa and Laran, 2003).

Impulse buying tendency

Even though a framework of a shopping environment is most frequently used to
measure impulse buying (Rook and Gardner, 1993 in Silvera et al. (2008)), researchers
have said that impulsiveness is a basic human characteristic (Hilgard, 1962), and
impulse buying tendency is consequently a basic consumer feature (Rook and Fisher,
1995). There is also strong proofs showing that consumers’ tendency to buy on impulse
differs from person to person (Dittmar and Drury, 2000; Hausman, 2000; Verplanken
and Herabadi, 2001). In addition, Rook (1987, p. 196) states that “It is useful to think of
consumer impulsivity as a lifestyle trait.” Consistent with previous research and the
previous discussion of impulse buying (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Rook, 1987; Rook and
Fisher, 1995; Rook and Gardner, 1993), impulse buying tendency can be defined as the
degree to which an individual is likely to make unintended, immediate, and
unreflective purchases (i.e. impulse purchases). Correspondingly, a person could have
an urge, but s/he is not necessarily have to do it, several reasons may stop the
consumers’ alteration from impulsive buying tendency to impulse action.

Hedonic motivation for e-impulse buying

Shopping is known with its escapist and fantasy-like qualities. People sometimes shop
because shopping helps them to forget their problems and have a good time (Arnold
and Reynolds, 2012). On the other hand the purchases which are made impulsively
could also thought to be a way to relieve stress. Many research results have revealed
that impulse buying satisfies a number of hedonic needs such as fun, novelty and
surprise (Piron, 1991; Rook and Fisher, 1995; Thompson et al., 1990; Hausman, 2000)
and it has been noticed that impulse buyers show greater feelings of amusement,
delight, enthusiasm, and joy (Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982). They reveal hedonic
rather than utilitarian thoughts for their purchases when compared to non-impulsive
buyers, and the shopping experiences of impulse buyers tend to be driven by
high-arousal emotions such as excitement and pleasure (Verplanken et al., 2005). In
their study, Lim and Hong (2004) also stated that hedonic shopping motivations
persuade online impulse apparel buying.
 Hedonic value dimensions have mainly been the issue of studies both in the Shopping online
traditional store and online store (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Hoffman and Novak, without thinking
1996; Babin and Attaway, 2000). Similar to traditional shoppers, online shoppers are also
thought to shop for leisure intentions. For example, a study done by Mathwick et al.
(2001) has revealed that internet shopping has experiential value that includes
enjoyment and aesthetics. Such experiential value could be considered the same as
hedonic value (To et al., 2007). Furthermore, according to Kim (2002) consumers who 81
prefer online shopping are also fulfilling the wants of experience and emotion, which
demonstrates that internet shoppers are akin to in-store shoppers as they need utilitarian
as well as hedonic value. Another study held by Parsons (2002) found that there are
plentiful hedonic shopping motivations for online shoppers which were diversion, self
gratification and learning about new trends. Based on those previous studies, it could be
considered that hedonic shopping values for online shopping do also exist.
Hedonic motivations could be evaluated as predictors of online shopping and
e-impulse purchases. Online sellers often try to generate a hedonic environment that is
favorable by many consumers with many atmospheric signals that manipulate
shopping behavior (Childers et al., 2001; Eroglu et al., 2001). From this point of view,
e-impulse buying can be seen as a valued shopping behavior rather than just a means
of acquiring unplanned goods with the inclusion of hedonic motivations (Hausman,
2000). The main motivation of hedonic consumers for shopping is because they take
pleasure in this procedure (To et al., 2007, p. 775). For them, shopping is not just about
obtaining the material or finishing the task (Sherry, 1990; Babin et al., 1994).
In the hedonic shopping motivations theory, there are different kinds of ways to
measure the hedonic values of consumers. Those studies take different approaches into
consideration. Some of the studies assume hedonic shopping motivation as a
unidimensional construct (Sarkar, 2011; Kim and Eastin, 2011; Park et al., 2012) while
others use a multidimensional scale (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Kim, 2006; To et al.,
2007). This paper adapts to the second approach and tries to measure the hedonic
motivations of online consumers with a multidimensional scale. There are many scales
developed to measure hedonic value in a multidimensional construct, but from the
perspective of hedonic value, this study categorizes hedonic shopping motivations of
online shopping as adventure, social, idea, value, and relaxation according to To et al.
(2007) and Arnold and Reynolds (2003), and excludes the hedonic value of “role
shopping” and “authority/status shopping”. Since most of the constructs were adapted
to online shopping, those five dimensions are thought to have a relationship with IBT
of Turkish online consumers.

Dimensions of hedonic shopping motivations

Adventure/explore shopping. It is indicated by adventure dimension that consumers
come across something new and appealing, and practice the enjoyment of searching
during the process of shopping (Westbrook and Black, 1985). According to Sherry
(1990), it is not only the product itself which gives consumer the sensual pleasure
during the shopping process. For example, consumers would sense a feel of interest
while dealing with the computer (Webster et al., 1993). This sense of curiosity would
create the action of adventure and affects e-IBT of consumers. Therefore, this study
presents the following hypothesis:
APJML H1. Adventure/explore shopping has a significant positive influence on the online
IBT of consumers.
26,1
Value shopping. Value shopping refers to the enjoyment generated when the consumer
hunts for bargains, looks for discounts and sales (Westbrook and Black, 1985;
Babin et al., 1994). In a similar way, Chandon et al. (2000) states that getting a better
discount would offer consumers delight because they believe themselves as smart
82 shoppers. Finding a price cut or a good deal may direct consumers to pleasure from
personal accomplishment. In online stores, consumers are more likely to find bargains
and discounts especially with the widespread use of daily deal sites and this may lead
consumers urge to make sudden, unplanned shopping. Therefore, this study presents
the following hypothesis:
H2. Value shopping has a significant positive influence on the online IBT of
consumers.
Idea shopping. The idea dimension of hedonic motivation refers that consumers go
shopping because they want to learn about new trends and new fashions (Arnold and
Reynolds, 2003). Online shopping gives consumers information about products, brands
and new trends (To et al., 2007). According to the study held by Parsons (2002), people
prefer online shopping because they are able to find, judge and understand about new
trends, brands and product launches. Online shopping gives shoppers the chance of
information seeking such as key word ads, banner ads, sponsorships, online product
reviews, price comparisons, and other promotion activities whenever, wherever, and
whatever they need. This may direct them to buy on impulse (Kim and Eastin, 2011).
Further, hyperlinks take consumers straight away to online stores (Koufaris, 2002).
Given the huge product and marketing information accessible online, it is expected that
the more consumers discover web sites, the more possible they are to be exposed to
product and marketing information. And with the right stimulus, consumers will be
more likely to purchase products impulsively (Moe, 2003). Therefore, this study
presents the following hypothesis:
H3. Idea shopping has a significant positive influence on the online IBT of
consumers.
Social shopping. By social shopping it is meant socializing while shopping, having
pleasure of shopping with friends and family, and connecting with others while
shopping (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). The foremost motive for people to go shopping
is the social interaction offered by shopping (Dawon et al., 1990). According to Arnold
and Reynolds (2003) the time spent during shopping with friends or family members is
seen as a treasure by a lot of people, and also they think that they are getting benefit
from social activities while shopping. Even though it is thought that with the help of
online communities, online shoppers are now able to share information and shopping
experiences with those who have the same interest online (Wolfinbarger and Gilly,
2001; To et al., 2007), some researchers have found that people prefer online shopping
in order to escape social interaction, not to deal with sales people. Similarly Rohm and
Swaminathan (2004) stated in their study that consumers who are motivated by social
interaction might choose to shop from a traditional retail store as opposed to the online
context. Also Sarkar (2011) indicated that hedonic shopping motives are dominant
in the case of store-shopping where buyers directly interact with the sales people.
So, a hedonic customer is more likely to make most of the purchases by visiting brick, Shopping online
rather than click stores. Therefore, this study presents the following hypothesis: without thinking
H4. Social shopping has a significant negative influence on the online IBT of
consumers.
Relaxation shopping. The last dimension of hedonic shopping motivations is labeled as
“relaxation shopping”, which involves shopping to relief stress, and alter consumers’ 83
negative mood into positive mood (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). Numerous consumers
confessed that they do shopping to reduce stress or to stop thinking about their
problems, they see shopping as a way to wind down, relax, improve a negative mood,
or just satisfy the need for escaping from reality. As also Yu and Bastin (2010) stated, it
follows logically that relaxation shopping is correlated with impulse buying tendency
(IBT) positively:
H5. Relaxation shopping has a significant positive influence on the online IBT of
consumers.

Methodology
In this study it is proposed that hedonic value affects online impulse buying tendency.
More specifically, the primary objective of this paper is to gain a better understanding
of the role of hedonic shopping motivations (adventure, idea, value, social and
relaxation) in driving impulse purchases in online retail settings. Second, which
dimension of hedonic shopping motivation has the strongest effect on online impulse
buying tendency is investigated. This study proposes an integrated model to explain
the online IBT of consumers (Figure 1). Validating the hedonic shopping motivations
scale and IBT scale on a sample of Turkish online shoppers is the last objective. This

Adventure
Shopping H1

Idea H2
Shopping

H3 Affective Impulse
Value
Buying Tendency
Shopping

H4

Social
Shopping
H5

Figure 1.
Relaxation Hypothesized structural
Shopping model
APJML study would then apply a structural equation model to verify the causal relationship
26,1 among the variables in the model.

Sample
An online survey was used to gather data on user’s online IBT and online hedonic
shopping motives. Respondents of this study were adults in Turkey who have internet
84 shopping experience. The survey was conducted at the beginning of 2012. With an offer
of a USB flash disk to selected participants, respondents were recruited via numerous
internet sites (Fizy, HaberTürk, Internethaber). The online survey link was active for
two weeks. The survey data were stored on a secure server. The most of the data was
collected within the first week; a few responses trickled in during the second week.
A total of 430 valid and complete responses were included in the final analysis out of 475
responses received. Demographic profiles of the sample is in Table I. The respondents
were generally highly educated, relatively young, and experienced with the internet.
This profile is comparable with typical internet users identified in Turkey (TUIK, 2012).

Measures
All the constructs in this study were measured using multi-item scales. All measurement
items were taken from validated measurement instruments, but they were all adapted to
online context. The measures were selected because the wording closely matched to the
research constructs and seemed directly applicable to this research.

n %

Age
18-25 202 47.0
26-33 127 29.5
34-41 62 14.4
42-49 23 5.3
50-57 11 2.6
58 þ 5 1.2
Total 430 100.0
Gender
Female 156 36.3
Male 274 63.7
Total 430 100.0
Education
Have not completed high school 5 1.2
High school 58 13.5
University 312 72.6
MS/doctorate 55 12.8
Total 430 100.0
Years on the internet
1 year and less than 1 year 1 0.2
2-3 years 16 3.7
4-5 years 37 8.6
6-7 years 98 22.8
Table I. 8-9 years 92 21.4
Demographic profiles of Over 10 years 186 43.3
the respondents Total 430 100.0
To assess consumer’s trait of hedonic shopping motivation, five point Likert-type Shopping online
scale (1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 4 – agree, without thinking
5 – strongly agree) was modified to fit the online shopping context from Arnold and
Reynolds (2003) and To et al. (2007) hedonic shopping motivations scale. The hedonic
motivation sub-scales were labeled as adventure (four items), value (three items), idea
(four items), social (four items) and relaxation (three items) shopping.
In laboratory settings or surveys, it is difficult to assess impulse buying. Since 85
impulse buying tendency is a good predictor of impulse buying (Kim and Eastin, 2011,
p. 78), IBT were adapted and measured on behalf of impulsive buying behavior. In
order to examine the impulse buying tendency of the consumers in relation to their self
perception, the study used the impulse buying tendency scale (IBTS) developed by
Verplanken and Herabadi (2001). The scales were based on two sets of items, which
refer to cognitive and affective aspects of impulse buying, respectively. Cognitive facet
concerns the lack of planning and deliberation during shopping. Affective facet
concerns feelings of pleasure and excitement, an urge to buy. However, in this study,
only the affective dimension of the scale has been used, as it was said above e-impulse
buying is more related to hedonic and emotional motivations. In addition to this,
according to Dinçer’s (2010) research results impulse buying is purely affective. This
could be explained by the fact that consumers buy products for non-economic reasons,
such as fun, fantasy, and social or emotional gratification. So, the affective facet is more
related with feelings and emotions, in that way, the impulse purchase might be a way
to deal with emotions. These results also emphasize the importance of emotional
shopping environment and the use of affective components in marketing campaigns.
Even though cognitive models frequently have noteworthy explanatory power, they
are insufficient in completely detailing many consumer behaviors or purchase
decisions (Erevelles, 1998). Affect may be a chief motivation source of consumer
behavior (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982) and it may also exert indirect effects on
consumer behavior by shaping cognition (Cacioppo and Gardner, 1999). Whether its
effects are direct or indirect, affect can play a significant role in consumer behavior.
The affective subscale contains items related to feelings of excitement, lack of control,
and the urge to buy.
In order to measure affective online IBT, Verplanken and Herabadi’s (2001) IBT
scale was adapted to fit the online shopping context. Impulse buying tendency was
measured on a ten-item, five point Likert-type scale (1 – strongly disagree, 2 –
disagree, 3 – neither agree nor disagree, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree).
The survey also included topics related to the individual profiles of the participants
(i.e. gender, age), internet usage patterns (e.g. duration of internet usage, how
frequently the consumer obtains information on products he/she plans to buy, how
much the consumer spent for e-shopping in the last six months). The English version of
questions from the literature on hedonic shopping motives and impulse buying were
double back-translated into Turkish to ensure the equivalence of the two versions of
the questionnaire.
The questionnaire of the study was reviewed by 12 internet shoppers before
conducting the survey to ensure that the questionnaire was understood. Subjects of the
pretests included seven graduate students and five PhD candidates of a national
university in Turkey. During the process, the subjects suggested that the phrasing of
APJML certain items could be revised. The suggestions were subsequently incorporated into
26,1 the final questionnaire.

Method of analysis
Structural equation modelling (SEM) was chosen in order to validate the causal
86 relationship among variables in the research model. A two-stage analysis method:
measurement model and structural model were used for data analysis with the help of
AMOS 18.
Measurement model. To validate the unidimensionalities of the hedonic shopping
motivation and IBT scale, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with AMOS was
carried out. The purpose was to reach acceptable levels of discriminant and convergent
validities of these constructs. In terms of measurement model, offending estimates
should be examined at first. Those estimates are coefficients which exceed acceptable
limits. The common examples are standardized coefficients exceeding or close to 1.0,
negative error variance, or very large standard errors associated with any estimated
coefficient (To et al., 2007).
At first, the initial fit indices demonstrated poor fit. For this reason, in the initial
analysis, the results suggested that six items (three items from hedonic shopping value,
three items from IBT) with either low factor loading (below 0.40) or large standard
errors were dropped from further analysis. After deleting the items with low factors,
the measurement model was assessed on a number of fit indices, including relative x 2,
goodness of fit index (GFI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and
Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Raykov
and Marcoulides, 2006). The x 2 statistics was found significant and the ratio of the x 2
value relative to degrees of freedom was less than the cutoff point of 3. The GFI, NFI,
and CFI were all greater than the recommended level 0.9; and the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) was found less than 0.08 (Hair et al., 2010) (Table II).
Based on all statistics, the model fit the data very well.
After the overall model was accepted, reliability and validity analysis were
conducted. Construct reliabilities of all the items were higher than 0.70 and suggested
good reliability (Hair et al., 2010, p. 709). Discriminant validity is measured using
average variance extracted (AVE). All variance extracted measures exceeded the
recommended level of 0.5 (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). The results demonstrate that
both items and constructs have acceptable reliability and validity. Additionally,
discriminant validity was shown when the AVE of each construct was larger than the
squared correlation coefficients with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981, p. 46).
As can be seen in Table III, the AVE of each construct is larger than the squared
correlation coefficients between constructs. Therefore, it could be concluded that
discriminant validity was also achieved (To et al., 2007).
Structural model. SEM was conducted after satisfying the requirements of the
measurement model. The structural equation model of this study was used in order to
test the causal relationships hypothesized among the dimensions of online hedonic
shopping motivations and online IBT of Turkish online shoppers. The goodness-of-fit
measures were within the range of recommended levels, so the model was acceptable. In
the structural model, x 2 value was evaluated first. The x 2 value was 562.307 with 190
degrees of freedom, which was significant. Other fit indices also indicated an acceptable
Constructs and indicators Factor loadings
Shopping online
without thinking
Online IBT
It is a struggle to leave nice things I see in an online store 0.728
I sometimes cannot suppress the feeling of wanting to buy something online 0.773
I sometimes feel guilty after having bought something from an online store 0.563
I find it difficult to pass up a bargain in an online store 0.658
If I see something new on the internet, I want to buy it 0.678
87
I am a bit reckless in buying things from the internet 0.677
I sometimes buy things online because I like buying things, rather than because I
need them 0.727
Adventure shopping
To me, online shopping is an adventure 0.778
Online shopping is a thrill to me 0.776
Online shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe 0.803
Value shopping
For the most part, I shop online when there are sales 0.801
I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop online 0.784
I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop online 0.879
Idea shopping
I shop online to keep up with the trends 0.791
I shop online to keep up with the new fashions 0.870
I shop online to see what new products are available 0.808
I shop online to experience new things 0.764
Social shopping
I shop online to develop friendships with other internet shoppers 0.681
I shop online to extend personal relationship 0.990
Relaxation shopping
When I am in a down mood, I shop online to make me feel better 0.887
To me, online shopping is a way to relieve stress 0.897
I shop online when I want to treat myself to something special 0.749
Table II.
Notes: Goodness of fit statistics: x 2 ¼ 499.851, df ¼ 182, pb ¼ 0.000; GFI ¼ 0.906; NFI ¼ 0.913; Measurement model
CFI ¼ 0.942; RMSEA ¼ 0.06; AVE . 0.5 results

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Construct reliability AVE

(1) Online IBT 0.786 0.871 0.501

(2) Adventure shopping 0.225 0.805 0.829 0.618
(3) Value shopping 0.533 0.057 0.874 0.846 0.649
(4) Idea shopping 0.656 0.241 0.491 0.819 0.891 0.671
(5) Social shopping 0.680 2 0.004 0.579 0.561 0.847 0.862 0.764 Table III.
(6) Relaxation shopping 0.689 0.250 0.362 0.485 0.618 0.703 0.883 0.717 Correlation matrix

fit for the proposed model (GFI ¼ 0.89; NFI ¼ 0.902; CFI ¼ 0.932; RMSEA ¼ 0.068)
based on recommendation levels (Hair et al., 2010).
Most of the hypotheses were also validated. Table IV summarizes the standardized
path coefficients and t-values. While adventure shopping, value shopping and
relaxation shopping had positive influences on online IBT, social shopping affected
online IBT negatively. On the other hand, idea shopping had no causal relationship
with online IBT. Therefore, H1, H2, H4, and H5 were supported while H3 was rejected.
APJML Discussion and conclusion
26,1 Hedonic shopping motivations have been extensively applied to shopping motivation
studies for both physical and online stores (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Hoffman and
Novak, 1996; Babin and Attaway, 2000). However, few studies explore whether hedonic
shopping motivations exist in the internet shopping environment and its relationship
with online impulse buying tendency. Within a dynamic e-tail environment, hedonic
88 shopping motivation could be viewed as an important part of online impulse buying
tendency. This study provides insight for marketers into developing e-business
strategies by understanding online impulse buying behavior in conjunction with the
components of hedonic shopping motivation which are adventure shopping, value
shopping, idea shopping, social shopping and relaxation shopping.
The findings of this study show that online consumers who see online shopping as
an adventure and as a way to relax, have a higher tendency to do impulse purchases
from the internet. In addition to that, when there are discounts, they cannot resist
against shopping online impulsively. It could be said that positive correlation estimates
exist between the three dimensions of hedonic shopping motivation (adventure,
relaxation and value) and online impulse buying tendency. Sarkar (2011, p. 64) stated
in his study that:
A customer with high hedonic shopping values tends to prefer direct interaction with the
product or salespeople, which become stimuli in creating the hedonic arousal. A hedonic
customer, therefore, is likely to make most of the purchases by visiting brick, rather than click
stores.
This study has similar findings with Sarkar. Online consumers, who participated in
this study, do not consider social shopping as a driver of impulse buying tendency.
Social shopping was related to online IBT negatively which means that an online buyer
who has a social personality avoids online impulse purchasing. This finding could be
related to Turkish online consumers’ feelings to be not perceived as an irrational buyer
in her/his social circle. On the contrary, who sees online shopping as an adventure, as a
way to relieve stress and hunts for bargains is prone to shopping impulsively. So, an
online consumer could do more impulse buying from the internet depending on which
of the dimensions of hedonic shopping motivations dominate.

Implications
The results of this study empirically validate that Turkish online consumers who have
tendency to do impulse buying have hedonic shopping motivations and they do not
only care value, but also adventure, and enjoyment. Those findings could have very

Standardized path coefficients t-values Hypothesis

Adventure shopping ! online IBT 0.440 5.225 * Supported

Value shopping ! online IBT 0.146 3.087 * Supported
Idea shopping ! online IBT 0.013 0.205 * Not supported
Social shopping ! online IBT 20.116 22.288 Supported
Table IV. Relaxation shopping ! online IBT 0.402 5.486 * Supported
Parameter estimates for
the structural model Note: Significant at: *p , 0.05
important implications in the context of e-marketing. In order to increase the ratio of Shopping online
online impulse purchases, an e-tailer in Turkey should try to improve some of the without thinking
hedonic value dimensions regarding to its web site. The web site design could be such
that it provides excitement to the customers, and makes them feel themselves special
and relaxed.
The online consumers are also convinced for shopping impulsively when there are
sales and discounts. This is because impulsive buyers are likely to be open and flexible 89
to sudden or unexpected buying ideas (Park and Lennon, 2006). When they encounter
special offers or bargains they cannot stand buying those products or services. This
reveals that price competition in the internet is still an important factor for Turkish
online consumers which should be considered important. E-tailers may follow the
pricing strategies of their competitors and quickly respond to the price changes.
Most of the internet retailers provide their consumers the opportunity of speaking
and discussing with other consumers who are shopping at the same time with them, so
that they could socialize. This is most of the time a good solution for consumers who
are searching for advices when they are making purchases online. But interestingly, in
online impulse purchases the situation differs according to the research results. An
online consumer avoids impulse buying if s/he wants to extend personal relationships.
Although Turkish people are collectivist in their nature according to Hofstede (2012),
the behaviors of Turkish impulsive buyers differ.
In this study, there is also a different, but interesting finding. The study found no
relationship between idea shopping dimension of hedonic shopping motivation and
online IBT. If the online consumer is fashion conscious and likes to keep up with the
trends by using the internet, this means not that s/he is going to make online IBT. So,
we cannot argue that Turkish online consumers keeping up with the trends are
impulse buyers. There is no direct positive or negative relation between those two
constructs according to the study made. In a study held by Phau and Lo (2004), a
positive relationship between fashion innovativeness and online impulsiveness was
found. But, this finding is not supported in Turkey. They rather make online impulse
buying for adventure, for relaxation or to get value.

Limitations and future research

Although the results of this study provide an understanding of the role of hedonic
shopping motivations on online impulse buying tendency, there are still some
limitations and a need for additional research. One possible concern with this study
might be the question of generalizability, due to the use of a convenient online sample.
The sample was collected using non probabilistic method and may not represent the
general Turkish online consumer. The results are limited by online consumers who
visited the selected web sites. Future research could increase the number of
participants. A second limitation which could need future research concerns the
influence of other dimensions on online IBT. This study investigated the effect on
online IBT from hedonic perspective. In the literature some studies examined the
effects of utilitarian shopping motivations, service quality, web site quality on IBT
(Bressolles et al., 2007; Park et al., 2012; Wells et al., 2011). In the future, the other
factors affecting IBT could be included and the effects may be retested. Similar to this
limitation, in this study online IBT was represented by affective online IBT. Finally,
most of the respondents in this study were making reservations and were buyers of
APJML books, CDs, and electronics. So, they responded in terms of online retailers of those
26,1 products or services. Future research could make a product specific study.

References
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing,
90 Vol. 79, pp. 77-95.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2012), “Approach and avoidance motivation: investigating
hedonic consumption in a retail setting”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 399-411.
Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
share of customer”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 644-656.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, M.E. (1998), “Impulse buying: modeling its precursors”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 169-191.
Bressolles, G., Durrieu, F. and Giraud, M. (2007), “The impact of electronic service quality’s
dimensions on customer satisfaction and buying impulse”, Journal of Customer Behavior,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 37-56.
Cacioppo, J.T. and Gardner, W.L. (1999), “Emotions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp. 191-214.
Chandon, P., Wansibk, B. and Laurent, G. (2000), “A benefit congruency framework of sales
promotion effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 65-81.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 511-535.
Cobb, C.J. and Hoyer, W.D. (1986), “Planned versus impulse purchase behavior”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 62, pp. 67-81.
Costa, F. and Laran, J. (2003), “Impulse buying on the internet: antecedents and consequences”,
paper presented at 2003 SMA Retail Symposium, New Orleans, LA.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1971), “Shopping orientations and product usage rates”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 505-508.
Dawon, S., Bloch, P.H. and Ridway, N.W. (1990), “Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail
outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 408-427.
Dawson, S. and Kim, M. (2009), “External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying online”,
Direct Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Dinçer, C. (2010), “The influence of affect and cognition on impulse buying behavior”, Öneri,
Vol. 9 No. 33, pp. 153-158.
Dittmar, H. and Drury, J. (2000), “Self-image – is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison between
‘ordinary’ and ‘excessive’ consumers”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 109-142.
Dittmar, H., Long, K. and Meek, R. (2004), “Buying on the internet: gender differences in online
and conventional buying motivations”, Sex Roles, Vol. 50, pp. 423-444.
Donthu, N. and Garcia, A. (1999), “The internet shopper”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 52-58.
Erevelles, S. (1998), “The role of affect in marketing”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42,
pp. 199-215.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), “Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: a Shopping online
conceptual model and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 5,
pp. 177-184. without thinking
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 91
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-417.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), “Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Hilgard, E.R. (1962), “Impulsive versus realistic thinking”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 59,
pp. 477-488.
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-101.
Hoffman, D.L. and Novak, T.P. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: conceptual foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 50-68.
Hofstede, G. (2012), “What about Turkey?”, available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/turkey.html
(accessed 10 February 2012).
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Weun, S. and Beatty, S.E. (2003), “The product-specific nature of
impulse buying tendency”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 505-511.
Kim, H.S. (2006), “Using hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations to profile inner city
consumers”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 57-79.
Kim, S. and Eastin, M.S. (2011), “Hedonic tendencies and the online consumer: an investigation of
the online shopping process”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 10, pp. 68-90.
Kim, Y.K. (2002), “Consumer value: an application to mall and internet shopping”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 595-602.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kollat, D.T. and Willet, R.P. (1967), “Consumer impulse purchasing behavior”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 21-31.
Koufaris, M. (2002), “Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behavior”, Information System Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 205-223.
LaRose, R. (2001), “On the negative effects of e-commerce: a sociocognitive exploration of
unregulated on-line buying”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 6 No. 3.
Lim, H.J. and Hong, K.H. (2004), “A study on information search and impulse buying behavior
according to the internet clothing shopping motives”, Journal of the Korean Society of
Clothing and Textiles, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1065-1075.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. and Rigdon, E. (2001), “Experiential value; conceptualization,
measurement, and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Moe, W.W. (2003), “Buying, searching or browsing: differentiating between online shoppers
using in-store navigational clickstream”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 29-39.
APJML Parboteeah, D.V., Valacich, J.S. and Wells, J.D. (2009), “The influence of website characteristics
on a consumer’s urge to buy impulsively”, Wells Information Systems Research, Vol. 20
26,1 No. 1, pp. 60-78.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Funches, V.M. and Foxx, W. (2012), “Apparel product attributes, web
browsing, and e-impulse buying on shopping websites”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 65, pp. 1583-1589.
92 Park, J. and Lennon, S.J. (2006), “Psychological and environmental antecedents of impulse buying
tendency in the multichannel shopping context”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 56-66.
Parsons, A.G. (2002), “Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click”, The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 380-392.
Phau, I. and Lo, C.C. (2004), “Profiling fashion innovators: a study of self-concept, impulse buying
and internet purchase intent”, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 399-411.
Piron, F. (1991), “Defining impulse purchasing”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
pp. 509-514.
Raykov, T. and Marcoulides, G.A. (2006), A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling,
Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Rohm, A.J. and Swaminathan, V. (2004), “A typology of online shoppers based on shopping
motivations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 748-757.
Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 189-199.
Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 305-313.
Rook, D.W. and Gardner, M.P. (1993), “In the mood: impulsive buying’s antecedents”, in
Arnold-Costa, J. and Belk, R.W. (Eds), Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-28.
Sarkar, A. (2011), “Impact of utilitarian and hedonic shopping values on individual’s perceived
benefits and risks in online shopping”, International Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 58-65.
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.
Sherry, J.F. (1990), “A sociocultural analysis of Midwestern flea market”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 13-30.
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.
Stern, H. (1962), “The significance of impulse buying today”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 59-62.
Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B. and Pollio, H.R. (1990), “The lived meaning of free choice: an
existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of
contemporary married women”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 346-361.
To, P.L., Liao, C. and Lin, T.H. (2007), “Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on
utilitarian and hedonic value”, Technovation: The International Journal of Technological
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 774-787.
TUIK (2012), “Household information technology usage study results”, Turkish Statistical
Institute News Bulletin, available at: www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id¼10880
(accessed 20 February 2013).
Verhagen, T. and van Dolen, W. (2011), “The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online Shopping online
impulse buying: a model and empirical application”, Information & Management, Vol. 48,
pp. 320-327. without thinking
Verplanken, B. and Herabadi, A.G. (2001), “Individual differences in impulse buying tendency”,
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15, pp. 571-583.
Verplanken, B., Herabadi, A.G., Perry, J.A. and Silvera, D.H. (2005), “Consumer style and health:
the role of impulsive buying in unhealthy eating”, Psychology & Health, Vol. 20, 93
pp. 429-441.
Webster, J., Trevino, L.K. and Ryan, L. (1993), “The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 411-426.
Weinberg, P. and Gottwald, W. (1982), “Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Wells, J.D., Parboteeah, V. and Valacich, J.S. (2011), “Online impulse buying: understanding the
interplay between consumer impulsiveness and website quality”, Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-56.
Westbrook, R.A. and Black, W.C. (1985), “A motivation-based shopper typology”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 78-103.
Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M. (2001), “Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun”, California
Management Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 34-55.
Yu, C. and Bastin, M. (2010), “Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in
transitional economies: a symbiosis in the Mainland China marketplace”, Brand
Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 105-114.
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R. and Koh, C.E. (2006), “The role of impulsiveness in a TAM-based
online purchasing behavior model”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 54-68.
Zhou, L., Dai, L. and Zhang, D. (2007), “Online shopping acceptance model: a critical survey of
consumer factors in online shopping”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 41-62.

Corresponding author
Nil Engizek can be contacted at: nilkodaz@istanbul.edu.tr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats