JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 15(4), 288–294

Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

How Does Shopping With Others Influence

IMPULSIVE PURCHASING
LUO Impulsive Purchasing?
Xueming Luo
University of Texas at Arlington

Most research in consumer psychology assumes that impulsive purchasing can be best ex-
plained by factors at the individual level. In contrast, this research examines how the presence
of others influences this behavior. Results of 2 experiments suggest that the presence of peers
increases the urge to purchase, and the presence of family members decreases it. However, this
difference is greater when the group (peers or family) is cohesive and when participants are sus-
ceptible to social influence.

Impulsive purchasing, generally defined as a consumer’s
unplanned purchase (e.g., Kollat & Willett, 1967), is an im-
portant part of buyer behavior. It accounts for as much as
62% of supermarket sales and 80% of all sales in certain
product categories. Although impulsive purchasing has at-
tracted attention in consumer research, this literature has
focused on identifying its individual-level antecedents, in-
cluding personal resources and cognitive effort (e.g., Cobb
& Hoyer, 1996), personal moods (e.g., Rook, 1987; Tice,
Bratslavsky, & Baumeister, 2001), and self-regulation ten-
dencies (e.g., Baumeister, 2002). Unfortunately, there is a
dearth of research on group-level determinants. Conse-
quently, although Rook (1987) called for research on im-
pulse purchasing “in a social environment (group versus
solo buying) context” (p. 196) 20 years ago, researchers
still have limited knowledge about the social context of im-
pulsive purchasing. Does shopping with others have an im-
pact on impulsive purchasing? If so, how?
This research suggests that the presence of other persons
in a purchasing situation is likely to have a normative influ-
ence on the decision to make a purchase. The nature of this
influence, however, depends on both perceptions of the nor-
mative expectations of the individuals who exert the influ-
ence and the motivation to comply with these expectations.
Because peers and family members, as the two primary
sources of social influence, often have different normative
expectations (i.e., peer group norms are relatively more re-
ceptive to the urge to purchase and induce less pressure to
monitor one’s purchases; see Childers & Rao,1992), their
Requests for reprints should be sent to Xueming Luo, Department of
Marketing, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019. E-mail: luoxm@uta.edu
presence in a purchasing situation can activate different ex-
pectations.1
However, the motivation to comply with these expecta-
tions depends on one’s attraction to (liking for) the other indi-
viduals involved and one’s more general susceptibility to in-
fluence. Thus, researchers also evaluate two factors that are
likely to affect the motivation to conform to social norms: (a)
the inherent susceptibility to social influence and (b) the
structure of the group (cohesive vs. not cohesive). Group co-
hesiveness refers to the extent to which a group is attractive to
its members (e.g., Forsyth, 2000; Turner, Pratkanis,
Probasco, & Leve, 1992).
The theory proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) helps
conceptualize these effects. This theory assumes that behav-
ior is a multiplicative function of expectations for what oth-
ers consider to be socially desirable and the motivation to
comply with these expectations. In this context, consumers
may perceive that peers, who are likely to reward spontaneity
and to pursue immediate, hedonic goals, consider impulsive
purchasing to be desirable. However, they may perceive par-
ents and other family members, who are likely to have eco-
nomic concerns (e.g., not wasting money), to consider impul-
1In this article I assume that research participants simply conform to the
expectations of whomever they happen to be with at the time; however, there
are other possibilities. First, some people may generally be inhibited from
making impulsive purchases. However, the presence of peers may release
this inhibition, thus increasing impulsiveness relative to control conditions.
In this case, individuals would be more impulsive in the presence of peers
than either in the presence of family members or alone. A second possibility
is that some people are typically impulsive, but the presence of family mem-
bers inhibits this behavior relative to control conditions. In this case, people
would be less impulsive in the presence of family members than either in the
presence of peers or alone. The effects of concern in this article may occur
over and above these facilitative and inhibitory tendencies.

sive purchasing to be undesirable. The motivation to comply
with these normative expectations may be greater among in-
dividuals who either are in a cohesive group with clearer and
consistent social norms or are susceptible to influence more
generally. Therefore, the effects of these expectations on im-
pulsive purchase behavior should be correspondingly greater
in these conditions.
This research examined these possibilities. Specifically, it
determined whether the presence of peers increases the urge
to purchase and the presence of family members decreases it
and whether this difference is greater when the group (peers
or family) is cohesive, and when participants are susceptible
to social influence, than when this is not the case.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Stern (1962) argued that impulse buying largely depends on
resources such as money, time, and physical and mental ef-
fort. Persons’ moods could also influence their impulse buy-
ing (Rook & Gardner, 1993). In particular, people who feel
happy may be disposed to reward themselves more gener-
ously and to feel as if they have more freedom to act.
Baumeister (2002) suggested that impulsive buying and
self-control personality are just two sides of the same coin;
impulsive buying is simply the loss of one’s self-control or
the surrender to temptation. Thus, individual-level analyses
have dominated research on the nature and antecedents of
impulsive buying.
Rook and Fisher (1995), however, investigated impulsive
buying beyond the individual level. They suggested that
a spontaneous gift for an ill friend … or simply taking advan-
tage of a two-for-one in-store special are impulse buying in-
stances that may represent, respectively, kind, generous, and
practical activities. When impulse buying is more virtuously
motivated, it is likely to elicit more positive normative evalu-
ations. (p. 305)
Rook and Fisher distinguished between the impulsive
urge to buy (“the spontaneous and sudden desire that is expe-
rienced upon encountering an object;” Beatty & Ferrell,
1998, p. 172) and the behavior that results fulfills this urge
(Rook, 1987; Rook & Gardner, 1993). Their findings indi-
cate that when acting on impulse is socially appropriate and
rational, consumers tend to have both a greater impulsive
urge to buy and a greater likelihood of doing so.
The presence of other persons in a purchasing situation is
also likely to influence the decision to make a purchase. In
some instances, the mere presence of others can influence be-
havior. Zajonc (1965), for example, suggested that the pres-
ence of others is likely to magnify whatever behavioral dis-
position exists a priori. This effect could occur regardless of
whether the others are peers or family members. In other in-
stances, however, consumers may believe that others’ opin-
IMPULSIVE PURCHASING 289
ions and behaviors are credible. Alternatively, they may take
others’ buying behavior as a justification for their own, thus
releasing their inhibitions about buying. Finally, they may
use others’ behavior and their purchases as visible indicators
of socially desirable activities. This last influence is reflected
in Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action,
which assumes that behavioral intentions are determined not
only by attitudes toward the behavior but also by the motiva-
tion to comply with social norms.
The nature of this influence, however, may depend on the
norms and values of the group. As noted earlier, family mem-
bers (e.g., parents) may foster a sense of responsibility to
both the family and others and consequently may discourage
wastefulness and extravagance. To this extent, they may con-
sider impulsive buying to be undesirable (Abrams, Marques,
Bown, & Henson, 2000; Baumeister, 2002; Heckler,
Childers, & Arunachalam, 1989). The presence of family
members may activate this normative value and therefore de-
crease the urge to purchase. In contrast, peer group members
may encourage spontaneity and the pursuit of hedonic goals
independently of their long-range consequences. Therefore,
although the presence of family members may decrease the
likelihood of individual impulsive purchasing, the presence
of peers may increase it.
The effects of the presence of others are likely to be
greater when the group to which they belong (peers or fam-
ily) is cohesive than when it is less so. Group cohesiveness
(i.e., the attractiveness of the group to its members; Forsyth,
2000) is likely not only to induce a clearer normative expec-
tation but also to increase the motivation to comply with it.
Thus, if the peer group norms encourage impulsive buying,
then the tendency to engage in this behavior in the presence
of peers should increase with the cohesiveness of the peer
group in question. In contrast, if the family’s norms are an-
tagonistic to impulsive purchasing, then the tendency for the
presence of family members to inhibit impulsive purchasing
should be greater when the family is cohesive.2
Individual differences in susceptibility to influence may
further affect the disposition to conform to normative expec-
tations and, therefore, the impact of these expectations on im-
pulsive purchasing. Susceptibility to influence is defined as
an individual’s willingness to accept information from other
people about purchase decisions (Bearden & Etzel, 1982).
The opposing effects of peers’ presence and family members’
presence on impulsive purchasing will be greater when peo-
ple are susceptible to influence than when they are not. Fur-
thermore, susceptibility to influence may increase the impact
of group cohesiveness on these effects; that is, peers’ pres-
ence should have its greatest positive effect on individuals’
2Although we have assumed that group cohesiveness exerts its influence
through its impact on motivation to comply, cohesive groups may have more
clearly defined expectations than noncohesive ones. To this extent, cohesive-
ness could also have an impact through its influence on subjects’ perceptions
of expectations.
290 LUO
impulsive buying when the peers are cohesive and the indi-
viduals are susceptible to influence, whereas the presence of
family members should have its greatest negative effect un-
der these conditions.
In the research reported in this article, the influence of
others’ social group presence on individual impulse purchas-
ing are inferred from participants’ responses to situations in
which they imagined taking part. This strategy was used for
several reasons. First, psychologists and consumer research-
ers have argued that a social audience does not have to be
physically present; it can be imagined (Aribarg, Arora, &
Bodur, 2002; Edelmann, 1981; Ratner & Kahn, 2002). Even
when individuals are alone, they can engage in different buy-
ing behavior as a result of imagining others (Moreault &
Follingstad, 1978; Taylor & Schneider, 1989; Tice et al.,
2001). Furthermore, the effects of imagining a social pres-
ence on purchase behavior can be similar to the effects of an
actual presence (e.g., Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001).
Finally, as Rook and Fisher (1995) suggested, an imag-
ined-scenario approach may reduce the likelihood of the so-
cial desirability biases because of the personal, sensitive na-
ture of impulse buying (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). For these
reasons, therefore, I believed that the use of this approach
would provide a convincing test of my hypotheses.
STUDY 1
Method
One hundred fifty-two undergraduate students participated
for experimental course credit. Participants were assigned
randomly to one of four cells of a 2 (family members vs. peer
friends) × 2 (high-cohesive group vs. low-cohesive group)
design, as well as to a fifth, solo shopping control condition.
Procedure. Participants were introduced to the study
with instructions that its purpose was to understand reactions
to shopping behaviors in different social situations, and they
were told that “the key to the success of this research depends
on whether you really imagine yourself in these situations.”
With this preamble, they were exposed to one of five hypo-
thetical scenarios. In the control condition, the scenario read:
Mary is a 21-year-old college student with a part-time job. It
is two days before Mary gets her next paycheck and she only
has $25 left for necessities. In addition to food, Mary needs to
buy a pair of warm socks for an outdoor party this weekend.
After work she goes by herself to the mall to purchase the
socks. As she is walking through a final department store,
Mary sees a great looking sweater on sale for $75.
In the four experimental conditions, the next-to-last sentence
was replaced with a description of the type and cohesiveness
of the individuals that accompanied her. Specifically, in the
peer–high-cohesiveness conditions the sentence read: “After
work she goes with a group of her best friends to the mall to
purchase the socks.” In the peer–low-cohesiveness condi-
tions it read: “She goes with a group of co-workers from her
part time job, whom she just recently met.” In the fam-
ily–high-cohesiveness conditions the statement read “After
work, her family meets her at the mall to shop and purchase
the socks. Mary and her family are very close-knit.” Finally,
in the family–low-cohesiveness conditions the preceding sen-
tence was changed to “Mary is not very close to her family,
and rarely has contact with them, she just runs into her family
in the mall.”
To reduce the effects of social desirability bias, I empha-
sized to participants that there were no right or wrong an-
swers to the questions and that it was important for them to
imagine themselves as the shopping consumer (Mary) in the
scenario. Participants were asked to try to imagine how they
would really feel in the same situations.
Dependent variables. Two dependent variables were
of interest: (a) impulsive urge and (b) purchasing. To provide
an index of impulsive urge, participants were asked to project
themselves into the shopping scenario and to report their
agreement with four items: (a) “I experienced a number of
sudden urges to buy,” (b) “I wanted to buy things even though
they were not on the shopping list,” (c) “I had strong urges to
make impulsive purchases,” and (d) “I felt a sudden urge to
buy.” Responses were made on a multi-item Likert scale that
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The
average of these items (Cronbach’ α = .83) was used as an in-
dicator of impulsive urge.
Impulsive purchasing was assessed with a measure devel-
oped by Rook and Fisher (1995). Specifically, participants
were asked to choose which one of five purchase decision al-
ternatives the imaginary character would make: (a) “buy only
the socks”; (b) “want the sweater and not buy it”; (c) “decide
not to buy the socks”; (d) “buy both the socks and the sweater
with a credit card”; and (e) “buy both, plus matching slacks
and a shirt, also with the credit card.” Choices of these alter-
natives were coded 1 through 5, respectively. The validity of
this scale, which was demonstrated by Rook and Fisher, was
confirmed in this study, as I indicate here. The Pearson’s cor-
relation between the two dependent variables was .67 (p
< .01).
Manipulation check. Finally, participants were asked
to indicate whether they recognized that the imaginary char-
acter was not shopping alone but with peers or the family
(yes/no) when they projected themselves into the shopping
scenarios (Dahl et al., 2001). Furthermore, they reported
their agreement that the group accompanying the character
was “very close and unified” along a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree; Taylor & Schneider, 1989;
Yoo & Alavi, 2001).

Pretest Data
To confirm that the five decision alternatives comprising the
measure of impulsive behavior were ordered in impulsive-
ness in the manner assumed by Rook and Fisher (1995), I
collected additional data from an independent sample of 46
undergraduate business students. These students were pre-
sented with the same purchasing situations used in the con-
trol condition of the main experiment and were asked to rate
the impulsiveness of each purchase alternative along a
10-point scale ranging from 1 (lowest impulsiveness) to 10
(highest impulsiveness). The alternative “buy only the socks”
was rated lowest (M = 0.51); followed by “want the sweater
and not buy it” (M = 1.83); “decide not to buy the socks” (M =
2.98); “buy both the socks and the sweater with a credit card”
(M = 8.92); and “buy both, plus matching slacks and a shirt,
also with the credit card” (M = 9.34). Note that “decide not to
buy” (the third decision alternative) was reported to be more
impulsive than either “buy only the socks” (first decision al-
ternative) or “want the sweater and not buy it” (second deci-
sion alternative). Rook and Fisher explained this by noting
that “because Mary was described as planning to buy the
socks, some respondents appeared to viewed her change of
plans as impulsive” (p. 308). Alternatively, participants may
have interpreted this response alternative to mean “decide to
purchase the sweater and not the socks” rather than interpret-
ing “no purchase” as impulsive in its own right. Be that as it
may, the amount of impulsiveness implied by the five alterna-
tives is ordered in the manner I assumed.
A central assumption underlying my hypotheses is that
peers consider it socially desirable to make impulsive pur-
chases, whereas family members do not. To test this, an inde-
pendent sample of 68 adult participants were instructed to
imagine that Mary actually bought the unplanned jacket and
matching slacks and shirt either in the presence of peers or in
the presence of the family. Evaluations of this impulsive buy-
ing in different groups were assessed along five 7-point se-
mantic differentials (good vs. bad, rational vs. crazy, waste-
ful vs. productive, acceptable vs. unacceptable, right vs.
wrong) on which high values indicated more favorable evalu-
ations. When ratings were averaged over the five scales, it
was found that participants judged the behavior to be more
desirable in the presence of peers (M = 5.72) than in the pres-
ence of family members (M = 2.36), t(67) = 3.75, p < .01.
Results
Manipulation check. The manipulation of the imag-
ined social presence of a peer or family group was effective.
Participants were more likely to report that others were pres-
ent in the situation in the four experimental conditions than in
the solo-status condition, χ2(1, N = 128) = 8.73, p < .05. In
addition, participants who were exposed to scenarios con-
cerning best friends (M = 6.51) were significantly more
likely than those who considered scenarios pertaining to co-
IMPULSIVE PURCHASING 291
workers (M = 2.47) that the imaginary character and the
group are very close and unified, t(59) = 3.52, p < .05. Corre-
spondingly, participants were significantly more likely to re-
port that the imaginary character and the group are very close
and unified if their scenarios referred to a closely knit family
(M = 6.20) than if they referred to a noncohesive family (M =
2.56), t(59) = 3.48, p < .05.
Hypotheses testing results. I hypothesized that the
presence of peers would increase the imagined urge to pur-
chase but the presence of family members would decrease this
urge. However, this difference should be greater when the
group in question is cohesive than when it is not. Data bearing
on this hypothesis are summarized in the top half of Table 1. As
expected, participants reported a greater urge to purchase
when they imagined peers being present (M = 4.39), and less
urge to purchase when they imagined family members being
present (M = 3.40), than did the control participants (M = 4.03),
F(2, 127) = 3.47, p < .05. As the data in Table 1 indicate, how-
ever, the effect of others’ presence was appreciably greater
when the group was cohesive (4.68 vs. 3.05 for peer vs. family
members, respectively), than when it was not (4.10 vs. 3.74,
respectively). This conclusion is confirmed by a significant in-
teraction of cohesiveness and group type under experimental
conditions alone, F(1, 128) = 7.21, p < .05.
The effects of experimental variables on the imagined
likelihood of purchasing were very similar. As shown in the
bottom half of Table 1, respondents reported a greater ten-
dency to engage in impulsive purchasing when they imag-
ined peers being present (M = 3.18), and less tendency to en-
gage in impulsive purchasing when they imagined family
members being present (M = 2.61), than they did in control
conditions (M = 3.02), F(2, 127) = 5.74, p < .05. However,
this difference was much greater when the group was cohe-
sive (M = 3.56 vs. 2.42, when peers vs. family members were
present, respectively) than when it was not (3.04 vs. 2.91, re-
spectively) This conclusion is confirmed by a significant in-
teraction, F(1, 128) = 6.15, p < .05, of cohesiveness and
group type under experimental conditions alone.
TABLE 1
Impulsive Urge and Impulsive Purchasing as a Function
of Group Type and Group Cohesiveness: Study 1
Condition Peer Group Family Group
Impulsive urge
Cohesive 4.68a 3.05c
Noncohesive 4.10b 3.74b
Control 4.03b
Impulsive purchasing
Cohesive 3.56a 2.42c
Noncohesive 3.04b 2.91b
Control 3.02b
Note. Cell means with unlike subscripts differ at p < .05.
292 LUO
STUDY 2
In Study 1, the presence of peers was found to increase the
urge to purchase and impulsive buying, but the presence of
family members was found to decrease them. This differ-
ence, however, was greater when the group in question was
cohesive than when it was not. Study 2 replicated these find-
ings and tested the impact of susceptibility to influence.
Method
One hundred twelve undergraduate students participated in
the study. They were assigned at random to cells composing a
2 (high vs. low susceptibility to influence) × 2 (peer vs. fam-
ily group) × 2 (high vs. low cohesiveness) experimental de-
sign. The same procedure in Study 1 was used, with the fol-
lowing exceptions. First, I modified the impulsive-purchase
context and changed the product in consideration from
“sweater” to “jacket.” Second, the solo-shopping scenario
was dropped. Third, the gender of the imaginary character
was changed from female (Mary) to male (John) to increase
the generalizability of the findings. Finally, participants an-
swered items measuring susceptibility to influence in addi-
tion to items of impulsive urge and purchasing choice, ma-
nipulation checks, and general demographics.
To assess susceptibility to influence, I used the 12-item
scale validated by Bearden and colleagues (e.g., Bearden,
Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989; Bearden & Rose, 1990; Rose,
Bearden, & Teel, 1992). Specifically, participants indicated
their degree of agreement with items such as “It is important
that others like the products that I buy”; “If others can see me
using a product, I buy the one they expect me to buy”; “I
rarely purchase the latest styles until I know others approve
of them”; “When buying products, I generally purchase those
brands that I think others will approve of”; and “I like to
know what products make good impressions on others.” Re-
sponses, which were made a scale that ranged from 1 (dis-
agree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), were averaged over par-
ticipants to provide a single score for each participant. A
Impulsive Urge and Impulsive Purchasing as a Function of Group Type,
Group Cohesiveness, and Susceptibility to Influence: Study 2
High Susceptibility to Influence
Peer Group
Condition M n
Impulsive urge
Cohesive group 5.85a 10
Noncohesive group 3.93c 11
Impulsive purchasing
Cohesive group 3.81a 10
Noncohesive group 2.81c 11
Note. Cell means with unlike subscripts differ at p < .05.
median split was used to divide the sample of participants
into high or low susceptibility to influence (Aaker, 1999;
Aribarg et al., 2002).
Results
Participants’ imagined urge to purchase is summarized in the
top half of Table 2 as a function of group type, cohesiveness,
and susceptibility to influence. This urge was greater in the
presence of peers (M = 4.52) than in the presence of family
members (M = 3.27), F(1, 106) = 7.09, p < .05. However, this
difference was significantly greater when the group was co-
hesive (5.27 vs. 2.68) than when it was not (3.86 vs. 3.76),
F(1, 106) = 7.82, p < .05, and was greater when participants
were susceptible to influence (4.85 vs. 3.13) than when they
were not (4.13 vs. 3.34), F(1, 106) = 6.22, p < .05. Moreover,
the three-way interaction of group type, cohesiveness, and
susceptibility to influence was significant, F(1, 104) = 6.30, p
< .05. This is attributable to the fact that the effect of group
type was greater when the group was cohesive and partici-
pants were susceptible to influence (5.85 vs. 2.35) than under
any other condition. In other words, the imagined impulsive
urge is greatest in the peer group, when the peers are cohe-
sive, and when the individual has high susceptibility to influ-
ence (M = 5.85). In contrast, this urge is smallest in the family
group, when the family is cohesive, and when the individual
has high susceptibility to influence (M = 2.35).
The effects of experimental variables on the imagined
likelihood of purchasing, shown in the bottom half of Table
2, were very similar; that is, the likelihood of impulsive pur-
chasing was greater in the presence of peers (M = 3.26) than
in the presence of family members (M = 2.61), F(1, 106) =
4.12, p < .05. However, this difference was significantly
greater when the group was cohesive (3.52 vs. 2.36) than
when it was not (2.76 vs. 2.85), F(1, 106) = 5.63, p < .05, and
was greater when participants were susceptible to influence
(3.35 vs. 2.54) than when they were not (2.93 vs. 2.74), F(1,
106) = 5.08, p < .05. Moreover, the three-way interaction of
group type, cohesiveness, and susceptibility to influence was
TABLE 2
Low Susceptibility to Influence
Family Group Peer Group Family Group
M n M n M n
2.35e 14 4.51b 13 3.04d 14
3.79c 21 3.81c 17 3.73c 10
2.10e 14 3.20b 15 2.53d 14
2.83c 21 2.71c 17 2.91c 10

significant, F(1, 104) = 3.87, p < .05, and is attributable to the
fact that the effect of group type was greater when the group
was cohesive and participants were susceptible to influence
(3.81 vs. 2.10) than under any other condition. In other
words, the imagined impulsive likelihood of purchasing is
greatest in the peer group, when the peers are cohesive, and
when the individual has high susceptibility to influence (M =
3.81). In contrast, this urge is smallest in the family group,
when the family is cohesive, and when the individual has
high susceptibility to influence (M = 2.10).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
When does shopping with others matter to individual im-
pulse purchasing? The answer to this question clearly de-
pends on the presence of the other persons involved, group
cohesiveness, and the individual’s susceptibility to influence.
Specifically, the presence of peers increases the urge to pur-
chase, but the presence of family members decreases it. Fur-
thermore, this difference is greater when the group (peers or
family) is cohesive and when the person is susceptible to so-
cial influence, than when this is not the case.
This research provides an advantage over previous stud-
ies, which have typically considered only individ-
ual-difference variables (Jones, Reynolds, Weun, & Beatty,
2003; Kacen & Lee, 2002) and have neglected social vari-
ables. Furthermore, it extends research on the influence of
family- and peer-based groups on consumer decision making
(e.g., Childers & Rao, 1992; Heckler et al., 1989; Moschis,
1985) showing that the influence of group type interacts with
group cohesiveness. The finding that peer cohesiveness and
family cohesiveness have opposite influences suggests the
need to consider the important differences between a fam-
ily-based group and peer-based group and to categorize peer
and family groups in terms of this variable. This need may be
apparent in other domains of behavior as well.
On the other hand, it is obviously important to consider in-
dividual-difference variables. In this research, neither group
cohesiveness nor the type of group involved had much effect
on the behavior of individuals with low susceptibility to in-
terpersonal influence (Burnkrant & Cousineau, 1975;
Wooten & Reed, in press). Future studies on impulse buying
should consider the moderating role of susceptibility to
influence.
The indication that family- and peer-based groups have
different influences on individual impulse purchasing sug-
gests different promotion and advertising strategies for dif-
ferent shopping groups (Kollat & Willett, 1969; West, 1951).
For example, promotional group-based coupon and price dis-
counts targeted at customers shopping with a cohesive peer
group would enhance store sales but may be less effective on
family-oriented shoppers.
A limitation of this research is that presence of others was
imagined and not real. Although an indirect imaginary ap-
IMPULSIVE PURCHASING 293
proach seems acceptable and empirically supported in the
impulse-buying literature, future research is needed to ex-
plore both actual and imagined situations. However, it should
be noted that observing actual impulse-buying behavior in a
social environment has some problems. For example, observ-
ing and interviewing shoppers in stores may significantly
change what is being observed about impulsive buying, thus
leading to a confounding of the results by means of the
“guinea pig effect” (Pollay, 1968; Willett & Kollat, 1968).
These studies focus only on group type and cohesiveness;
future research may apply other developments in group dy-
namics to evaluate individual impulse purchasing (Forsyth,
2000; Shaw, 1981). Future research may also consider that
group influence could indirectly affect impulsive behaviors
through other moderators, in addition to the susceptibility to
influence studied in this research.
Finally, consumers may engage in more or less impulsive
buying in a group situation for various reasons. This research
is far from exhaustive in exploring these reasons. Future re-
search may need to consider other perspectives. The time is
ripe for more consumer psychologists to investigate individ-
ual impulsive purchasing in a social group context.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank David Faro, Tom Rywick, Fernando Jaramillo,
Hermann Jurgens, and two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments on previous versions of the manu-
script.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persua-
sion. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 45–57.
Abrams, D., Marques, J., Bown, N., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and
anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78, 906–927.
Aribarg, A., Arora, N., & Bodur, O. (2002). Understanding the role of pref-
erence revision and concession in group decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 41, 336–349.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impul-
sive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,
28, 670–676.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product
and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
183–194.
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer
Research, 15, 473–481.
Bearden, W. O., & Rose, R. (1990). Attention to social comparison informa-
tion: An individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 461–471.
Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precur-
sors. Journal of Retailing, 74, 169–191.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Cousineau, A. (1975). Informational and normative so-
cial influence in buyer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,
206–214.
294 LUO
Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and
peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, 198–211.
Cobb, C. J., & Hoyer, W. (1996). Planned versus impulse purchase behavior.
Journal of Retailing, 72, 384–409.
Dahl, D., Manchanda, R., & Argo, J. (2001). Embarrassment in consumer
purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal
of Consumer Research, 28, 473–481.
Edelmann, R. (1981). Embarrassment: The state of research. Current Psy-
chological Reviews, 1, 125–138.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forsyth, D. (2000). One hundred years of groups research: Introduction to
the special issue. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4,
3–6.
Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L., & Arunachalam, R. (1989). Intergenerational
influences in adult buying behaviors: An examination of moderating fac-
tors. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 16, pp.
276–284). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Jones, M., Reynolds, K., Weun, S., & Beatty, S. (2003). The product-specific
nature of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research, 56,
505–511.
Kacen, J., & Lee, J. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive
buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 163–176.
Kollat, D. T., & Willet, R. (1967). Customer impulse purchase behavior.
Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 21–31.
Kollat, D. T., & Willet, R. (1969). Is impulse purchasing really a useful con-
cept for marketing decisions? Journal of Marketing, 33, 79–83.
Moreault, D., & Follingstad, D. (1978). Sexual fantasies of females as a
function of sex guilt and experimental response cues. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1385–1393.
Moschis, G. P. (1985). The role of family communication in consumer so-
cialization of children and adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research,
11, 898–913.
Pollay, R. W. (1968). Customer impulse purchasing behavior: A reexamina-
tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 323–325.
Ratner, R., & Kahn, B. (2002). The impact of private versus public consump-
tion on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29,
246–257.
Rook, D. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14,
189–199.
Rook, D., & Fisher, R. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 305–313.
Rook, D., & Gardner, M. (1993). In the mood: Impulse buying’s affective
antecedents. In J. Arnold-Costa & R. Belk (Eds.), Research in consumer
behavior (Vol. 6., pp. 1–28). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Rose, R., Bearden, W., & Teel, J. (1992). An attributional analysis of resis-
tance to group pressure regarding illicit drug and alcohol consumption.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 1–13.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stern, H. (1962). The significance of impulse buying today. Journal of Mar-
keting, 26, 59–62.
Taylor, S., & Schneider, S. (1989). Coping and the simulation of events. So-
cial Cognition, 7, 174–194.
Tice, D., Bratslavsky, E., & Baumeister, R. (2001). Emotional distress regu-
lation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it! Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 53–67.
Turner, M., Pratkanis, A., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion,
and group effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective
on groupthink. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
781–796.
West, J. (1951). Results of two years of study into impulse buying. Journal
of Marketing, 15, 362–363.
Willet, R., & Kollat, D. T. (1968). Customer impulse purchase behavior:
Some research notes and a reply. Journal of Marketing Research, 5,
326–330.
Wooten, D. B., & Reed, A., II. (2004). Playing it safe: Susceptibility to nor-
mative influence and protective self-presentation. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 551–556.
Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: Relative influences
on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quar-
terly, 25, 371–390.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965, July 16). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
Received: January 3, 2004
Revision received: May 27, 2004
Accepted: February 4, 2005