You are on page 1of 42

A

Project Report on

“HOW DO BRANDS EXPLOIT


IMPULSIVE BUYING?”

Submitted by
Rishav Saha (175SM024)

Submitted to
Dr. Ritanjali Majhi

School of Management,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal
ACADEMIC YEAR 2018-2019

1
DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the Report of the P.G. Project Work entitled “How do
brands exploit impulsive buying” which is being submitted to the National
Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal in the partial fulfilment for the
completion of the course ‘Marketing Research’ in the department of ‘School of
Management’, is a bonafide report of the work carried out by me. The material
contained in this Report has not been submitted to any University or Institution
for the award of any degree.

Rishav Saha

School of Management

Place: NITK, Surathkal

Date: 24 October 2018

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my sincere gratitude to the course instructor Dr. Ritanjali Majhi, who
gave me this opportunity to work on this project. She guided me on the various
aspects of the project. Her valuable guidance and suggestions helped me in the
fulfilment of the project.
I extend thanks to my classmates who contributed and had a significant role to
play in the completion of this project.
Last but not the least I thank the almighty, relatives and friends for being with me
and supporting me through the entire journey of the project.

Rishav Saha

3
ABSTRACT

Impulsive buying behavior is the key to exploit the various brands in the e-shopping world.
But due to the psychological complexity of consumer buying decisions, firms are not able to
design new strategies for the e-tail customers compared to the retail customers in the organized
sector. The main focus of the study is on the brand exploitation through impulsive buying in
the e-tail portals. There are many known and unknown variables of impulsive buying in the
online portals, which affects the brand exploitation. Hence, the present study is limited to
identify the different internal and external factors that influences the impulsive buying of
customers in the e-tail shopping environment compared to the traditional retail shopping
traditions. There has been a considerable research done in the organized retail sectors to derive
the compulsive buying patterns through the self-congruence and impulsive buying tendency
that creates a competitive advantage for brand exploitation. But little research has been carried
on the e-tail portals. The study begins with identifying some fundamental research questions
after the detailed literature review, formation of standard hypothesis. Four major objectives
have been chosen to understand the relationship between impulsive buying and other factors,
to identify the dominant factors that influence the impulsive buying towards specific product.
A considerable research gap was identified between the impulsive buying trends in the
organized retail sectors and the e-tail portals. The present study used a qualitative and
quantitative approach using both primary and secondary sources of data. Factor Analysis were
applied for the primary data by applying an online survey with 11 close-ended questions. The
chi-square test was applied for the hypotheses. And the study concluded that no strong
relationship between buying frequency and gender, also there is significant difference in gender
for random buying of products. Age has no relation on random buying of products. In general,
people with no income or less income prefers to buy products in offers. The frequency of
buying does not depend on credit card holder. There is no relationship between gender and
buying a product based on purchase reviews and buying a product based on window display.
There is no significant relationship between age and buying product after a price drop but there
is significant relationship between age and buying with free items.

4
Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 6
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................................. 11
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................... 11
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 11
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................... 12
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................. 12
RESEARCH GAP .............................................................................................................................. 13
RESEARCH METHODLOGY .......................................................................................................... 13
APPROACH .................................................................................................................................... 13
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................... 13
SAMPLING ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Technique ................................................................................................................... 14
Defined Population ...................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Frame ........................................................................................................................... 14
Sampling Unit................................................................................................................................ 14
Sampling Method ......................................................................................................................... 15
Sample Size ................................................................................................................................... 15
Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Factor Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 32
FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................... 36
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 37
QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................................................................. 38
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 41

5
INTRODUCTION

Consumer psychology is a very deep-rooted aspect as every individuals perceives the

products as services differently (Nishant & etal, 2018). Impulsive buying is one of the

psychological factors that defines a company’s revenue potential. There are many

known and unknown variables which effects the brand loyalty. The companies take

maximum advantage of customers impulsive behaviour to generate maximum

revenue. From the past few years a lot of research has been conducted to ascertain

the impulsive buying behaviours from one brand to another brand, While e-shopping.

There is a lot of confusion in the marketing intelligence as to which brand is associated

with the impulsive purchasing nature of the customers in India. Due to this, so many

brands miserably fail to exploit customers losing the market share drastically. Hence

the present study makes an attempt to explore the various internal and external factors

that influence the impulsive buying of customers in online shopping. The basic

objective of this study is to classify the different brands that exploits the customers on

the basis of various impulsive buying factors.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The study focus on impulsive buying behaviours of customers that causes brand

exploitation. The present study is limited to identify the different factors that influences

the impulsive buying of customers with two categories: -

INTERNAL & EXTERNAL

This study also makes an attempt to classify the bands that exploits the impulsive

buying nature of the customers.

6
LITERATURE REVIEW

Desai .P .S (2016) explored the impulsive buying as a dependent variable and factors

like window display, Proximity, Price, Promotional offer, Hedonic feelings, Having

Credit card, Impact of peers as independent variables using simple regression

method. The researcher found that Chocolates (77%), Apparels (65%) and food (52%)

are mostly purchased impulsively from organized retail stores in Gujarat. This is an

impulsive buying behaviour which is a widely recognized phenomenon. However,

there is no clear evidence of the same product purchases in the online shopping

trends. Hence, there is a research gap between the retail and the e-tail impulsive

buying behaviours. Anant .J .B et. al (2016) worked on the similar study and argued

that there is a significant positive relationship between the impulsive buying tendency

and impulsive buying behaviour. The relationship between impulsive buying tendency

and self-control was found to be inversely significant. The results also derived a

significant relationship between impulsive buying tendency and the two personality

constructs of Conscientiousness and Extraversion. Arnold .J et. al (2017) proposed

that self-congruence could lead to negative behaviours (i.e. impulsive and obsessive

compulsive buying). The results also indicated that self-congruence is a better

predictor of brand attachment. The researchers described the wonderful mechanism

of how brand attachment operates between self-congruence and the two negative

behaviours. Heping.H et. al (2018) found some out breaking conclusions about

compulsive buying with high-prevalence in China that may be associated with face

consciousness. The new online compulsive buying drivers in China include observed

buying, daydreaming and emotion. Charlotte .V et. al (2017) researched on the

perceptions of local presence and found that the local presence increase when

products are presented in a vivid and interactive manner in a web store. Perceptions

7
of local presence increased the urge to buy impulsively through increased product

affect. Researchers also concluded that the product risk does not inhibit the urge to

buy impulsively. Shakeel .A.S & Shabeer .A.N (2018) examined the effect of intrinsic

attributes on impulsive buying behaviour among young customers and found that

personality significantly shapes impulsive buying predispositions. Shakeel .A.S &

Fayaz .A.N (2017) argued that intrinsic factors significantly influence the impulsive

buying decision. Lin .X (2018) built a hierarchical model based on 17 motivations and

observed that online group buyers were mainly driven by utilitarian motivations. Self-

actualization was the ultimate factor motivating online group buyer behaviour. Anant

.J.B & Anshul .V (2014) found that extraversion and conscientiousness significantly

affect impulsive buying behaviour. Researchers also concluded that Collectivism

positively affects impulsive buying, but individualism found unrelated. Gender did not

moderate relationship between intrinsic factors and impulsive buying. Materialism,

shopping enjoyment tendency and impulsive tendency affect impulsive buying. Anant

.J .B & Anshul .V (2015) also continued their observations highlighting 23 hypotheses

related to the availability of money, time and credit card that affected impulsive buying

behaviour (IBB). Economic well-being positively impacted IBB, while age had negative

relationship. Family presence, friendly employees, sales promotion, store environment

affected IBB. Arne .F & Maria .M (2013) were the first to use the amount spent

impulsively as a dependent variable. Researchers concluded that E-Store design and

e-store navigation are significant stimuli of shopping enjoyment and also shopping

enjoyment drives impulsiveness, browsing and impulse shopping behaviour. Li-Ting

.H (2016) came out with the two outstanding findings. First, the urge to buy differs from

impulse buying and significantly predicts impulse buying behaviour. Secondly, peers’

opinions on social networking websites exert considerable influence on consumers’

8
impulsive desire to purchase. Sinje .V et. al (2015) compared compulsive buyers and

controls with respect to impulsivity measures and hoarding. Researchers identified the

group differences on self-reports of impulsivity but not on behavioural tasks. Yanhong

.C et. al (2018) further indicated that urge to buy impulsively is determined by affective

trust in the recommender and affection toward the recommended product which are

influenced by both recommender and affection toward the recommended product,

which are influenced by both recommender-related signals (information quality and

similarity) and product-related signals (vicarious expression and aesthetic appeal).

Ing-Long .W et. al (2016) observed that the online impulse purchasing is an important

part of online shopping. The study proposed a model with three issues, flow, website

quality and trust that determined the individual psychological state of online shoppers.

Kelseanna .H.H et. al (2019) applied the Episodic Future thinking (EFT) on the online

grocery shopping and observed that the obese customers purchased the groceries

with fewer calories compared to the normal household buyers. Tommy .K .H .C et. al

(2017) built a conceptual framework to explain the interrelationships between the three

key elements of online impulse buying namely Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR).

Louis .Y.S et. al (2016) applied the two-factor theory to identify hygiene and motivation

factors that activated online impulse buying. Motivation factors were sales promotion

stimuli and hygiene factors were the design factors. Chia .C .C & Jun .Y.Y (2018)

investigated the impulse buying behaviours on mobile auction and concluded that the

impulse buying behaviours is most affected by impulsive buying tendency. Catherine

.E .G et. al (2017) argued that the compulsive buying is thought to serve as a means

of alleviating negative effect. Anxiety Sensitivity (AS) was predictive and was

considered as the risk factor for negative emotional arousal. David .D et. al (2014)

found that there was no significant relationship between the online compulsive buying

9
and internet addiction even though the users were suffering from alcohol and tobacco

use disorders. And online compulsive buyers spent significantly more money and more

time in online shopping. Researchers concluded that online compulsive buying was a

distinctive behavioural disorder with loss of control, with overall financial and time-

consuming impacts. Richard .J. L et. al (2017) came out with three important findings.

Firstly, determinants of shopping frequency varied by shopping setting. Secondly,

online shopping was associated with higher rates of in-store shopping. Thirdly,

Attitudes and perceptions played a major role in the shopping decision. Silvia .B et. al

(2017) concluded that the pre-shopping tendency influenced the impulse buying

directly and higher levels of urge to buy impulsively lead to higher levels of impulse

buying. Jangchung .V. C et. al (2016) researched on the Facebook users by studying

their C2C recommendations with a “buy and sell” framework to empirically investigate

the effect of the information quality of the advertisement, the trait of the impulsiveness

and the number of “likes” it receives on Consumers’ urge to buy impulsively. Ying .P.L

(2012) found the higher the consumer product involvement, the higher product

knowledge and impulse buying behaviour. Beata .S et. al (2015) observed that there

was no relationship of happiness with the impulsive buying and brand loyalty. Yoseph

.D.P et. al (2016) argued that as the individuals who are financially dependent when

pass the transition to become fully financially independent, there exists a negative

correlation between self-regulation and impulsive buying behaviour as the monetary

issues decline. And the urge to buy the unnecessary goods are controlled through the

self-regulation. From the above literature review, it is evident that there is little research

conducted on the e-tail impulsive buying compared to the retail sectors.

10
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Many e-tail giants have begun to compete with various internet marketing strategies

migrating from retailing business. The companies fail to understand the reasons

behind the declining sales of their brands making other rival brands to win the

customers by exploiting their impulsive buying nature. Therefore, it is very important

to identify the unknown factors that influences the consumers to buy those brands.

Hence, the study tries to understand the correlation of impulsive buying with the brand

exploitation.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Researches try to define and understand the various concepts of impulsive buying,

consumer behaviours, online branding and their inter-relationship, e-tailing, impulsive

buying, brand exploitation, online shopping, etc.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1) To study the various factors affecting impulsive buying behaviour of consumers.

2) To examine the impact of various demographic variables like Gender, Age, Income,

Marital status, on urge for impulsive Buying.

3) To analyse the impact of external factors like price reduction, offers on urge for

impulsive buying.

4) To investigate the impact of situational factors like having credit card and

friends/relatives influence to urge for impulsive buying.

11
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

R1 – What are the factors that affect impulsive buying behaviour of consumers?

R2 – Which demographic variables affect impulsive buying?

R3 – What are the external factors, which causes consumers for making impulsive

buying decision?

R4 – Which situational factors play an important role in impulsive buying?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

1. Buying frequency of female is more than that of male.

2. There is no significant difference in gender for random buying.

3. Younger people have more tendency towards random buying.

4. There is a significant relationship between gender and offer given for buying a

product.

5. People with no income prefer to buy products in offers.

6. There is a significant relationship between credit card holder and frequency of


buying.

7. There is a significant relationship between gender and buying a product based on


purchase reviews.

8. There is a significant relationship between gender and buying products based on

window display.

9. There is a significant relationship between age and buying product after a price

drop.

10. There is a significant relationship between age and buying with freebies.

12
RESEARCH GAP

Impulsive buying behaviour leads to unplanned shopping. It becomes difficult for the

branded companies to predict their future market potential. When the customers

buying behaviour is uncertain. Hence, the researcher’s need to analyse and find out

different methods to convert this unplanned Shopping behaviour to a predictable the

hidden influencing factors.

RESEARCH METHODLOGY

APPROACH

The present study uses a qualitative and quantitative approach to study the various

internal and external factors of impulsive buying of the customers and relating these

factors to the specific brands. A descriptive study is conducted for this problem.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

The study is primarily based on the secondary data through literature review in the

form of Journals, Websites, Blogs, Newspaper.

The primary data is collected through a structure questionnaire and processed through

the SPSS.

Chi-Square Test and Factor Analysis is applied for the primary data.

Steps used for conducting survey:

 Defining the objective of survey.

 Determining the sample group.

 Preparation of structured questionnaire.

 Recording the answer. (Primary data collection)

 Analysis of primary data.

13
SAMPLING

Sampling Technique

Sampling refers to the process of selecting and studying the characteristics of a

relatively small number of items from a relatively large population of such items in

order to draw statistically valid inferences about the characteristics of the entire

population. Since the research involves data collection from a wide spread

geographical area, the sampling technique used in this research is Non-Probability

Convenience sampling. The difference between probability and non-probability

sampling is, in probability sampling the chance of selecting each event is same while

that is not the case while you are dealing with non-probability sampling.

Defined Population

Men and Women of age ranging from 18 and above who have shopped at different e-

shopping websites like flipkart, amazon, snapdeal and other branded e-tail portals with

a shopping experience of 6 months and above.

Sampling Frame

Online buyers were chosen including, students from institutions, employees from

different corporate sectors, and individuals from households who shop regularly

through online e-tail portals from semi-urban and urban locations of India, to conduct

the survey online with a structured questionnaire containing eleven closed ended

questions, and four demographic questions.

Sampling Unit

Customers who buy products online/offline, regularly/occasionally, having different

gender, age and income groups.

14
Sampling Method

Non-probability convenience sampling method was used – where any buyer making

some purchase from the past few months. Non-probability samples that are

unrestricted are called ‘convenience samples’. They are the inexpensive and easiest

to conduct. Here subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility and

proximity to the researcher. As the name suggest convenience, the researcher have

the freedom to choose whomever they find. It is generally used in early stages of

exploratory research. When we are seeking any sort of guidance, we can use this

sampling. In this research, the population is too large that it is impossible to include

every individual.

Sample Size

The five researchers collected the primary data through an online survey by using

google forms by circulating the questionnaire link to their maximum email contacts.

The respondents were qualified buyers who had the online shopping experience from

a time period of 1 year and above with their willingness to participate in our research

as a valid respondent. The questionnaire was completed online within a time frame of

1 week gathering maximum respondents located in urban and semi-urban areas of

India.

The total sample size was 92 (No. of respondents who answered our online

questionnaire)

15
Analysis

The data was compiled, and analysis was performed with the help of google forms,

and then generating useful graphs in Microsoft Excel, Tableau, and SPSS. Hypothesis

testing was done using chi-square test in SPSS. Factor analysis was also done in

SPSS.

16
Gender * Buying Frequency Cross tabulation

Buying Frequency
Once in two
Everyday Monthly days Weekly Yearly Total
Gender Female 0 24 1 9 4 38
Male 3 42 1 4 4 54
Total 3 66 2 13 8 92

Hypothesis 1:

Null Hypothesis: Buying frequency of female is more than that of males.

Alternative Hypothesis: Buying frequency has no relation with gender.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.269a 4 .122
Likelihood Ratio 8.307 4 .081
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .83.

As the p-value is 0.122, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

17
Online Buying Preference
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 2 2.2 2.2 2.2
Sometimes 26 28.3 28.3 30.4
Yes 64 69.6 69.6 100.0
Total 92 100.0 100.0

18
Crosstab

random buying
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 11 15 12 38
Male 15 27 12 54
Total 26 42 24 92

Hypothesis 2:

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in gender for random buying.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is difference in gender for random buying.

19
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.301a 2 .522
Likelihood Ratio 1.298 2 .523
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 9.91.

As the p-value is 0.522, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

20
Crosstab

random buying
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 22 40 22 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 2 2 2 6
Less than 20 Years 2 0 0 2
Total 26 42 24 92

Hypothesis 3:

Null Hypothesis: Younger people have more tendency towards random buying.

Alternative Hypothesis: Age has no relation on random buying.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.651a 4 .227
Likelihood Ratio 5.639 4 .228
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .52.

As the p-value is 0.227, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

21
Hypothesis 4

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between gender and offer given for

buying product.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no relationship between gender and offer given for

buying product.

Crosstab
Count
Offers
Always Never Sometimes Total
Gender Female 14 0 24 38
Male 21 1 32 54
Total 35 1 56 92

22
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .784a 2 .676
Likelihood Ratio 1.146 2 .564
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .41.

As the p-value is 0.676, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

23
Crosstab

Offers
Always Never Sometimes Total
Income Between 30,000 to 50,000 3 0 3 6
per month
Between 50,000 to 100,000 3 1 3 7
per month
Less than 30,000 per month 5 0 7 12
More than 100,000 per 0 0 1 1
month
No Income 24 0 42 66
Total 35 1 56 92

Hypothesis 5

Null Hypothesis: People with no income prefers to buy product in offers.

Alternative Hypothesis: Income and buying in offers have no relationship.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.719a 8 .049
Likelihood Ratio 7.094 8 .527
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 12 cells (80.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .01.

As the p-value is 0.049, less than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the

alternate hypothesis.

24
Credit Card * Buying Frequency Cross tabulation

Buying Frequency
Once in two
Everyday Monthly days Weekly Yearly Total
Credit Card No 3 39 2 9 4 57
Sometimes 0 11 0 2 3 16
Yes 0 16 0 2 1 19
Total 3 66 2 13 8 92

Hypothesis 6

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between credit card holder and

frequency of buying.

Alternative Hypothesis: Frequency of buying not depend on credit card availability.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.207a 8 .624
Likelihood Ratio 7.507 8 .483
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 11 cells (73.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .35.

As the p-value is 0.624, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept
the alternate hypothesis.

25
Gender * Purchase reviews Cross tabulation

Purchase reviews
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 1 8 29 38
Male 6 6 42 54
Total 7 14 71 92

Hypothesis 7

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between gender and buying a

product based on purchase reviews.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no relationship between gender and buying a

product based on purchase reviews.

26
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.563a 2 .168
Likelihood Ratio 3.846 2 .146
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 2.89.

As the p-value is 0.168, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

27
Gender * Window display Cross tabulation

Window display
No Sometimes Yes Total
Gender Female 11 7 20 38
Male 11 15 28 54
Total 22 22 48 92

Hypothesis 8

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between gender and buying a

product based on window display.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between gender and

buying a product based on window display.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.505a 2 .471
Likelihood Ratio 1.520 2 .468
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 9.09.

As the p-value is 0.471, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

28
Age * Price Drop Cross tabulation

Price Drop
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 12 25 47 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 0 2 4 6
Less than 20 Years 1 0 1 2
Total 13 27 52 92

Hypothesis 9

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between age and buying product

after a price drop.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between age and buying

product after a price drop.

29
Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.424a 4 .490
Likelihood Ratio 4.123 4 .390
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .28.

As the p-value is 0.490, greater than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis and accept

the alternate hypothesis.

30
Age * Free items Cross tabulation

Free items
No Sometimes Yes Total
Age Between 20 - 30 Years 8 31 45 84
Between 30 - 40 Years 2 3 1 6
Less than 20 Years 1 1 0 2
Total 11 35 46 92

Hypothesis 10

Null Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between age and buying with free

items.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between age and buying

with free items.

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.007a 4 .041
Likelihood Ratio 7.637 4 .106
N of Valid Cases 92
a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .24.

As the p-value is 0.041, less than 0.05, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the

alternate hypothesis.

31
Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test


Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .584
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 191.016
df 105
Sig. .000

As the KMO Value is near to 0.6, we assume the sample was adequate for the study

Total Variance Explained


Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Factor Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 2.299 15.326 15.326 1.794 11.962 11.962 1.570 10.466 10.466
2 2.045 13.635 28.962 1.562 10.410 22.372 1.147 7.649 18.115
3 1.518 10.121 39.082 .957 6.383 28.755 1.121 7.474 25.589
4 1.271 8.475 47.557 .830 5.531 34.286 1.015 6.765 32.354
5 1.159 7.725 55.282 .563 3.756 38.042 .760 5.066 37.420
6 1.119 7.461 62.743 .460 3.066 41.108 .553 3.688 41.108
7 .946 6.309 69.052
8 .851 5.672 74.724
9 .765 5.100 79.824
10 .653 4.350 84.174
11 .578 3.853 88.028
12 .527 3.517 91.544
13 .482 3.211 94.755
14 .437 2.912 97.667
15 .350 2.333 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

From Eigenvalues, we see there are 6 factors contributing to the study.

32
Factor Matrix
Factor
1 2 3 4 5 6
Online Buying Preference .056 .021 .621 .224 -.029 -.121
Buying Frequency .027 -.214 .404 -.162 .262 .274
Shopping mall display & .355 .216 .183 -.147 .063 -.190
buying
Offers .049 .332 -.046 -.078 .340 .145
Free items .069 .410 -.219 .010 .072 -.049
Purchase reviews .325 .637 -.106 .548 -.013 .143
Price Drop .319 .225 -.108 -.060 .124 .211
Window display .389 .310 -.124 -.420 .018 -.134
Family/Friend possession .676 .144 .393 -.020 -.251 .000
Credit Card .311 .100 -.147 -.099 -.041 -.310
random buying .392 .035 .075 -.298 .094 .169
Gender .024 -.015 -.120 -.018 -.233 .216
Age .529 -.441 -.176 .182 -.154 .129
Marital Status -.449 .449 .222 .124 .094 -.055
Income .420 -.458 -.100 .312 .440 -.191
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

33
From the above factor analysis,

Factor 1 – Age, Random Buying, Credit Card, Family/Friend Possession, Price Drop,

Shopping Mall display, Window Display

Factor 2 – Free Items, Marital Status

Factor 3 – Online Buying Preference, Buying Frequency

Factor 4 – Purchase reviews

Factor 5 – Offers, Income

Factor 6 – Gender.

34
35
FINDINGS

After the analysis, we found:

 Buying frequency has no relation with gender.

 There is difference in gender for random buying.

 Age has no relation on random buying.

 There is no relationship between gender and offer given for buying product.

 People with no income prefers to buy product in offers.

 Frequency of buying not depend on credit card availability.

 There is no relationship between gender and buying a product based on

purchase reviews.

 There is no significant relationship between gender and buying a product based

on window display.

 There is no significant relationship between age and buying product after a

price drop.

 There is significant relationship between age and buying with free items.

36
CONCLUSION

The respondents gave responses to the question, which were asked, in the surveys

done by the means of questionnaire via google form. The responses were then

analysed by the means of graphs in Microsoft Excel and Tableau. The hypothesis

testing was done by the means of chi-square test and the null hypothesis was then

rejected by accepting the alternative hypothesis. Also factor analysis shows there are

six significant factors contributing to the study.

We made a series of conclusion from the analysis

We have not seen strong relationship between buying frequency and gender. There

is a significant difference in gender for random buying of products. Age has no relation

on random buying of products. There is no direct relationship between gender and

offer given for buying any product. In general, people with no income or less income

prefers to buy products in offers. The frequency of buying does not depend on credit

card holder. There is no relationship between gender and buying a product based on

purchase reviews and buying a product based on window display. There is no

significant relationship between age and buying product after a price drop but there is

significant relationship between age and buying with free items.

37
QUESTIONNAIRE

This survey is conducted for our marketing research project in order to find out how

brands exploit impulsive buying in consumers.

1. Do you prefer buying products from online? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

2. How often do you buy products? (online & offline) *

Everyday

Once in two days

Weekly

Monthly

Yearly

3. Do you buy any product if you see it being displayed in shopping mall? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

4. Do you prefer buying products at the time of offers? *

Always

Sometimes

Never

5. Do you prefer free items with any product purchase? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

38
6. Do you consider past buyers reviews is important for making any purchase

decision. *

Yes

No

Sometimes

7. Do you wait for a price drop for buying a costly product? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

8. Do you feel window display of your liked product makes you like it more. *

Yes

No

Sometimes

9. Do you like to own a product, which your friends/family uses? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

10. Do you feel because of Credit Card, you shop more? *

Yes

No

Sometimes

11. Do you think the products you buy is an impulsive decision? *

Yes

No

39
Sometimes

12. Your Gender *

Female

Male

Other

13. Your Age *

Less than 20 Years

Between 20 - 30 Years

Between 30 - 40 Years

40 years and above

14. Marital Status *

Unmarried

Married

15. Income (in INR) *

No Income

Less than 30,000 per month

Between 30,000 to 50,000 per month

Between 50,000 to 100,000 per month

More than 100,000 per month

40
REFERENCES

Anant .J .B, Anshul .V & Saumya Dixit (2016). Impulsive buying tendency: Measuring
important relationships with a new perspective and an indigenous scale. IIMB Management
Review, vol.28, pp 186-199.

Anant .J .B & Anshul .V (2015). Does urge to buy impulsively differ from impulsive buying
behavior? Assessing the impact of situational factors. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol.22, pp 145-157.

Anant .J .B & Anshul .V (2014). Intrinsic factors affecting impulsive buying behavior-
Evidence from India. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21(4), pp 537-549.

Arne .F & Maria .M (2013). The role of atmospheric cues in online impulse-buying behavior.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 12 (6), pp 425-439.

Arnold .J, Yuksel .E & Lyndon Simkin (2017). Self-Congruence, brand attachment and
compulsive buying. Journal of Business Research, Retrived from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296317302874

Beata .S, Jurate .M & Indre .J (2015). The Relationship of Happiness, Impulse Buying and
Brand Loyalty. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 213, pp 687-693.

Catherine .E .G, Margo .C .W, Angela .D .W & Keely .A .M (2017). “I fear, therefore, I
shop!” exploring anxiety sensitivity in relation to compulsive buying. Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 104, pp 37-42.

Charlotte .V, Tibert .V & Willemjin .V .D (2017). Role of local presence in online impulse
buying. Information & Management, Vol. 54 (8), pp 1038-1048.

Chia .C .C & Jun Y .Y (2018). What drives impulse buying behaviors in a mobile auction?
The perspective of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telematics and Informatics, Vol.
35 (5), pp 1249-1262.

David .D, Pauline .G & Michel .L (2014). Characteristics of online compulsive buying in
Parisian Students. Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 39 (12), pp 1827-1830.

Desai .P .S (2016). A Study on Consumers’ Impulse Buying Behavior in Organized Retail


Stores with reference to Gujarat State (Doctoral Synopsis). Retrieved from
shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/176163/16/16_synopsis.pdf

Heping .H, Monika .K .K & Nancy .M Ridgway (2018). Compulsive buying in China:
Measurement, prevalence, and online drivers. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 91, pp 28-
39.

Ing .L.W, Kuei-Wan .C & Mai-Lun .C (2016). Defining key drivers of online impulse
purchasing: A perspective of both impulse shoppers and system users. International Journal
of Information Management, Vol.36 (3), pp 284-296.

41
Jengchung .V .C, Bo-chiuan .S & Andree .E .W (2016). Facebook C2C social commerce: A
study of online impulse buying. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp 57-69.

Kelseanna .H .H, Jennifer .S, Sara O’D & Leonard .H .E (2019). Episodic future thinking and
grocery shopping online. Appetite, Vol.133, pp 1-9.

Li-Ting .H (2016). Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying. Journal of
Business Research. Vol. 69(6), pp 2277-2283.

Lin .X (2018). Analysing consumer online group buying motivations: An interpretive


structural modeling approach. Telematics and informatics, Vol. 35(4), pp 629-642.

Louis Y.S.L, Sheng .W.L & Li-Yi .H (2016). Motivation for online impulse buying: A two-
factor theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 (5), pp
759-772.

Nishant .A, Yashwardhan .B & Kanika .B (2018). Impulsive Buying As Leverage.


International Journal Of Advanced Research, Ideas And Innovations In Technology, Vol. 4
(1), pp 362-365.

Richard .J .L, Ipek .N .S, Patricia .L .M & Susan .L .H (2017). Relationships between the
online and in-store shopping frequency of Davis, California residents. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 100, pp 40-52.

Shakeel .A .S & Shabir .A .N (2018). Impact of personality influencers on psychological


paradigms: An empirical-discourse of big five framework and impulsive buying
behavior.European Research on Management and Business Economics, Vol. 24, pp 77-81.

Shakeel .A .S & Fayaz A .N (2017). Role of intrinsic factors in impulsive buying decision:
An empirical study of young consumers. Arab Economics and Business Journal, Vol.12(1),
pp 29-43.

Silvia .B, Maria .G .C & Benedetta .G (2017). A structural equation model of impulse buying
behavior in grocery retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp 164-
171.

Sinje .V, Antje .H, Richard .P & Alexander .L.G (2015). Impulsivity in consumers with high
compulsive buying propensity. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders,
Vol.7, pp 54-64.

Tommy .K .H .C, Christy M .K .C & Zach .W .Y .L (2017). The state of online impulse-
buying research: A literature analysis. Information & Management, Vol. 54 (2), pp 204-217.

Yanhong .C, Yaobin .L, Bin .W & Zhao .P (2018). How do product recommendations affect
impulse buying? An empirical study on WeChat Social Commerce. Information &
Management, Retrived from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.09.002

Ying .P .L (2012). The Relationship between Consumer Product Involvement, Product


Knowledge and Impulsive Buying Behavior. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.
57, pp 325-330.

42

You might also like