The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-2223.htm

Role of
An investigation of precursors consumer
of online impulse buying and its innovation

effects on purchase regret: role

of consumer innovation
Muhammad Arslan Sarwar Received 25 December 2022
Revised 24 February 2023
Faculty of Management and Administrative Sciences, University of Gujrat, Accepted 1 June 2023
Gujrat, Pakistan
Jawaria Nasir
Faculty of Business and Management, University Sultan Zainal Abidin,
Terengganu, Malaysia
Binesh Sarwar
Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University Islamabad,
Sahiwal, Pakistan
Muzzammil Hussain
Department of Commerce, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, Pakistan, and
Ali Abbas
School of Management, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China

Abstract
Purpose – Impulsive buyers are a dream segment for retailers and marketers. Stimulants in the retail
environment and cognitive aspects evoke a sudden urge the acquisition of products spontaneously. This paper
aims to examine key cognitive aspects of impulsive buying behaviour and purchase regret in an online context.
Design/methodology/approach – An online survey was conducted to collect the data of 317 online
consumers with the help of a convenience sampling technique. The structural equation modelling technique
was carried out to establish the validity and reliability of measures and examine the proposed relational
paths.
Findings – The study results suggest that cognitive aspects recede impulsive buying, resulting in purchase
regret. The empirical findings on the impulsive buying behaviour and purchase regret to yield several
important implications, including developing marketing strategies and policies to evoke the intentions for
impulsive buying behaviour, consumer innovation and balancing the feelings of regret.
Practical implications – The study also provides some significant contributions to the literature on
online impulse buying and its related paradigms.
Originality/value – This study mainly attempted to determine the precursors of online impulse buying
and purchase regret from the perspective of hedonic and experiential consumption motivation and consumer
innovation. Getting reflections from cognitive dissonance theory and the post purchase evaluation, a
theoretical model was developed and empirically tested for impulsive online buyers.
Keywords Purchase regret, Online impulse buying, Perceived playfulness, Consumer innovation, International Journal of Innovation
Science
Self-gratification, Regret theory © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-2223
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/IJIS-12-2022-0244
IJIS 1. Introduction
Emerging markets in developing countries have recently witnessed a rapid shift in online
shopping; the number of online shopping sites and the availability of global brands have
increased. The internet is also becoming a significant shopping platform with increasing
growth compared to conventional modes of shopping (Kumar et al., 2021; Husain et al., 2022;
Cavazos-Arroyo and M
aynez-Guaderrama, 2022; Lim et al., 2017). Under the perspective of
conscious behavioural theories, for example, the “theory of rationalized action”, a multitude
of consumer behaviours regarding decision-making are investigated. But based on the
current developments in consumer psychology on spontaneous, unexpected patterns of
stimulus decision-making, a number of studies try to examine the phenomenon of online
purchasing behaviour (Hride et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020).
Consumers often go for unplanned purchases or even make sudden decisions to purchase
something by a single click that may be triggered by appealing advantages such as
convenience, time-saving and the absence of delivery efforts (Lim et al., 2022a, 2022b; Lim
et al., 2017). Consumers also go shopping for many reasons other than utilitarian purposes,
for example, to get relief, for the sake of fun and to express self-image or identity (Park and
Yoon, 2017). Such kind of behaviour creates impulse buyers, and such behaviour refers to as
unplanned and quick buying behaviour and is followed by specific emotional feelings of
delight, desire or any other influential urge to buy (Badgaiyan et al., 2016). Previous studies
show that unplanned or impulse purchases account for as much as almost 60% of all
purchases (Sarwar et al., 2020), and as many as 40% online consumers perceive themselves
as impulse buyers (Habib and Qayyum, 2018; Wang et al., 2020).
Although researches on impulsive purchasing behaviour exist in the literature,
researchers need more elaborate studies to understand the phenomenon better, especially in
the context of online shopping. Likewise, several taxonomies were proposed forming
multiple environmental or external factors, social factors (Bandyopadhyay, 2016; Chung
et al., 2017), situational and recreational (Cinjarevic et al., 2011) or cultural factors relating to
online impulse buying. Rezaei et al. (2016) and Richard and Chebat (2016) also recommend
that the impact of web browsing on impulse purchasing be examined to provide a clear
understanding of processes for converting browsing to shopping. Richard and Chebat (2016)
have highlighted the need to model the process with post-purchase cognition effects,
entertainment and online purchasing intentions of main website variables.
The current study seeks to examine consumer purchase regret that may increase as a
result of such online impulse shopping. Such feelings of regret may serve as a reference
point variable to explain customer post-purchase feelings after an impulse purchase (Liao
et al., 2017). This study aims to investigate the direct impact of imperative personal or
internal contextual precursors based on a combination of hedonic and experiential
consumption towards online impulse buying and purchase regret. The reason to choose a
mixture of both consumption motivations is that hedonic spending is related to the
satisfaction of persons’ desires and is an aspect of experiential consumption(Choi et al.,
2020). Therefore, by bringing together previous literature on these consumption-related
stimuli, this study attempts to combine regret theory and concepts to formulate a unified
research framework. This study used the theoretical lens of the theory of regret to
understand consumer behaviour after an impulse purchase encounter. On behalf of it, the
factors chosen (perceived playfulness, consumer innovativeness, product involvement, self-
image congruence and self-gratification) are only associated with internal stimuli and
attempted to measure the direct impact on consumer sudden or unplanned purchasing
decisions.
 Although customers are seeking to rationalize their buying decisions, they may have Role of
questions about the correctness of their choices. Customers compare their chosen brands consumer
with the alternatives they decided not to purchase (Sarwar et al., 2020; Simpson et al., 2008).
This comparison often results in a condition of sorrow and psychological pain known as
innovation
post-purchase regret. If customers perceive their buying decisions to be wrong, they feel
regret (Gabler et al., 2017). The literature on consumer behaviour shows that regrets are
accompanied by poor consumer satisfaction after a purchase (Sarwar et al., 2019). Low
satisfaction generally leads to no intention of repurchase (Liao et al., 2017), a willingness to
move to alternative brands, and highly negative reviews (S
anchez-García and Curr
as-P
erez,
2011). Consequently, marketers need to know the possible antecedents of consumers’ regret.
This study contributes more precisely to marketing and consumer behaviour literature by
elucidating online impulsive purchasing behaviour in this detailed study.

2. Literature review
2.1 Regret theory
Regret is characterized as a cognitively driven or cognitively determined emotion. An
individual experience regrets that the result of the non-chosen alternative would have been
better but rejoices when the result of the other alternative would have been worse (Davvetas
and Diamantopoulos, 2017). The theory of regret states that consumers perceive the
expected usefulness of brands and, after experiencing the brand, compare the experience
with perceived value, which can lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A person tends to
avoid negative emotions like regret and seeks positive feelings like happiness when making
decisions. Although regret and joy are felt only when the results of the decision are known,
they are anticipated and taken into account when evaluating various alternatives. Feelings
of regret will place individuals in a depressed state because it affects them badly and leads
them to blame themselves for their poor decision and frustration. The expectation of
potential regret, therefore, has an impact on current choices (Liao et al., 2017; Sarwar et al.,
2019).

2.2 Online impulsive buying

With the increasing complexity and tendency of impulse buying in a wide range of products
and services, it is recognized as a universal dimension of consumer buying behaviour and,
therefore, is considered a significant element in various marketing activities (Sharma et al.,
2010). Impulse buying can be described as an irresistible desire or urge to purchase
something which leads the customer to a phase of psychological imbalance. The impulse
buying behaviour of the consumer is influenced by a range of factors that include store
environment, products display, emotional state, personal traits such as impulsiveness and
lack of self-control and other factors, including the availability of time and purchasing
power (Habib and Qayyum, 2018; Lin et al., 2018).
Lebo (2003) identified that the customer’s inclination towards online shopping is
increasing, which has also given rise to the inclination of shoppers to buy impulsively. Jones
and Kim (2010) reported in their study that it is normal for online shoppers to purchase
unintentionally. Research findings of Gohary and Hanzaee (2014) also support that both
utilitarian and hedonic browsing tends to influence consumers’ online buying behaviour.
Online impulse buying behaviour also highly depends on hedonic and experiential
shopping motivation (Park et al., 2012). For instance, the research findings of Sarwar et al.
(2018) showed that online shopping behaviour is characterized by the motivations of the
consumers to enjoy the shopping experience, which is a part of experiential values. These
IJIS experiential values can precisely like hedonic shopping motivations, which induce the
consumers to shop for the sake of enjoyment and pleasure (To et al., 2007).

2.3 Hedonic and experiential consumption

Internet and the proliferation of e-commerce have played an essential role in the growing
trend towards online impulse buying (Lin et al., 2018; Ozen and Engizek, 2014). “Going
shopping” either online or offline has become a new experience for people as a part of the
fantasy, entertainment, relaxation and excitement. Researchers have analyzed both intrinsic
and extrinsic benefits of consumer shopping activities from multiple perspectives (Ladhari
et al., 2019). Extrinsic benefits are characterized as utilitarian in nature and are usually task-
oriented, function-oriented or rational feelings (Ryu and Park, 2020), while intrinsic benefits
are usually hedonic, for example, fun, pleasure, thrill or emotional feelings (Kim, 2006). In the
current scenario, researchers are taking into consideration the hedonic and experiential
aspects of consumer motivation towards impulse buying because of its potential value and
emotional worth.
Shopping over the internet also has some experiential value in the form of perceived
pleasure and fantasies. Such kind of experiential value can reveal the same as hedonic value
(To et al., 2007). Another study also found that experiential value can be primarily viewed as
hedonic, utilitarian or a combination of both (Kwon and Jain, 2009). Researchers also
proposed that experiential online shoppers often have particular interests and hobbies that
they actively pursue as personal motivation (Pappas et al., 2017). Few other studies also
indicate that these personal motives play a significant role in online impulse buying
regarding own diversion, self-gratification, innovativeness and sensory stimulation (Arnold
and Reynolds, 2003; Cinjarevic et al., 2011). Therefore, online impulse buying satisfies
consumers’ different hedonic or experiential needs regarding fun, pleasure, surprise
(Hausman, 2000) and amusement or mental relaxation (Bakırtas  and Divanoglu, 2013).

2.4 Perceived playfulness

Playfulness is a concept that is widely used in flow theory to explain or measure human
behaviour in a specific context instead of individual differences (Hsieh and Tseng, 2017).
Playfulness is a multifaceted variable, including the aspects of individuals’ pleasure,
interest and other emotional stimulations (Vuorela et al., 2019). In web-based systems,
perceived playfulness is defined as an individual’s tendency to interact impulsively and
imaginatively with computers and online technology and enjoy this activity on its part.
Meng et al. (2019) and Proyer et al. (2019) explained that playfulness and fun, along with
novelty-seeking, are the determinants of impulsive buying behaviour regarding hedonic
shopping motivations.
Consumers are more likely to involve in online impulse buying when they find it a source
of amusement and pleasure. Some other studies also reveal that pleasure is the urge for most
shoppers who impulsively buy online (Proyer et al., 2019). The positive effect of shopping
enjoyment on online buying behaviour has been studied primarily in the context of e-store
cues and website stimuli (Nasir et al., 2020). Researchers have also attributed unplanned
buying behaviour to intrinsic fun and fantasy (Lin et al., 2018) and memorable shopping
experiences for individuals through getting involved and find it exciting and enjoyable, so
as a result, they urge to buy more (Chang et al., 2014; Wadera and Sharma, 2018). It,
therefore, can be hypothesized that:

H1. Perceived playfulness has a significant and positive influence on online impulsive
buying.
2.5 Consumer innovativeness Role of
According to Chauhan et al. (2019), consumers’ innovativeness refers to their desire and urge to consumer
try new things and experiences, which is also reflected in their novelty-seeking behaviour while
shopping. The inclination of online shoppers to buy impulsively also depends on their urge to
innovation
find variety and innovativeness online (Jürgensen and Guesalaga, 2018). Consumers tend to
prefer shopping online as it allows them to search for new trends and innovations in brands and
products. Online shopping also allows consumers to search for the latest information regarding
new products, product reviews and new promotional activities, which urge them to purchase
impulsively (Parsons, 2002). Research findings of Dwivedi and Chaturvedi (2020) also reveal that
online impulse behaviour was found to be associated with innovativeness in the case of fashion
apparel. Consumers who have a higher tendency for openness to experience tend to seek novelty
in buying online and, thus, are more impulsive to purchase products online (Bekoglu et al., 2016).
Acquiring new information online tends to positively affect the online impulse buying decisions
of the consumers (Kamboj et al., 2022; SivaKumar and Gunasekaran, 2017). It, therefore, can be
hypothesized that:

H2. Innovativeness has a significant and positive influence on online impulsive buying.

2.6 Product involvement

According to Hoonsopon and Puriwat (2016), product involvement refers to the state of
consumers’ interest in a product such involvement is especially relevant. Product involvement
consists of four components: perceived significance, the perceived risk with the purchase of
goods, the symbolic value of the product and the hedonic aspect of the product. With a high
degree of involvement, messages are more personal and create more relationships, and people
are more likely to become involved in buying. When products are considered to be more
personal or important, it plays an important role as individuals have more personal
connections. Products with high engagement have extra symbolic value (Park and Yoon, 2017).
Chung et al. (2017) found a significant relationship between involvement in fashion-
oriented products and their urge to go hedonic shopping. Liu and Sutanto (2012) have found
that the extent to which consumers are involved in the product affects their buying
behaviour. Consumers’ cognition and behavioural responses are also influenced by the
degree of product involvement. Product involvement has been seen as an important concept
for understanding consumers’ decision-making behaviour.
Buyers with a high level of product involvement have great motivation to browse,
process and compare details about the product before purchase. Previous studies have
shown that the level of participation could affect the attitudes and behaviour of consumers
(Lee et al., 2017). When buyers are more involved in a product, they actively take part in the
online buying process and put extra effort to seek and compare information on the relevant
product. It was also discussed in a study by Liao et al. (2016) the high-involvement products
play an important role in motivating customers to do more online impulse buying. By the
above discussion, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

H3. Product involvement has a significant and positive influence on online impulsive
buying.

2.7 Self-image congruence/self-concept

According to Nam et al. (2016), self-concept refers to the ability of the consumers to perceive
themselves, which leads them to purchase such products, which act as a way of expressing
IJIS themselves. The relationship between self-concept/image with the urge for impulse buying
behaviour has been validated by the findings of Sirgy et al. (2016). Researchers argued that
self-image congruity affects consumers’ choices, preferences and loyalty. Roe and Bruwer
(2017) described self-image/concept congruence as the alignment or similarity between the
self-concept of the consumers and the image of the product and brand. It was also studied in
the past that obsessive product purchase of things for hedonic responses related to their self-
concept development rather than for utilitarian benefits (Babin et al., 1994). Similarly, there
is certainly research evidence that consumers have more urge and desire to purchase
products that are in line with their self-image (Liu and Sutanto, 2012) or reflect their
personality. Besides, when consumers associate their self-image with the rationale behind
the purchase, they will likely make an impulse purchase (Kang et al., 2009). Individuals who
are more self-concept oriented have urge to greater impulse-purchase behaviour for the
products associated with their image (Muruganantham and Bhakat, 2013). It can be
hypothesized that:

H4. Self-image congruence has a significant and positive influence on online impulsive
buying.

2.8 Self-gratification
Self-gratification refers to the act of pleasing or satisfying oneself by doing something,
especially physically. The concept suggests that human beings are motivated in such a way
to act in something particular, to get relief and to change his/her mood. Gratification has
been considered an essential hedonic motivation, which enhances consumers’ urge to shop
to improve their moods by spending on something they cherish (Li et al., 2019). Arnold and
Reynolds (2003) explained that self-gratification involves giving a treat or amusement to
oneself, and therefore, consumers are engaged in shopping for the sake of self-satisfaction.
The literature has shown the existence of a positive and direct link between positive
effects, engaging in self-gratification and the urge to buy impulsively. These findings are
consistent with the belief that individuals already in positive moods will try to prolong those
emotions through their behaviour. It, therefore, seems that the urge to participate in
impulsive buying behaviour is based on the chance of prolonging the positive mood (Sofi
and Najar, 2018). According to Pebrianti (2016), a positive mood would lead to Impulse
buying more than a negative mood. He also found a positive relationship between positive
affect and the urge to buy impulsively.
Additionally, self-gratification allows online shoppers to make impulse purchases as
they like to buy some products to get relief or to forget their problems temporarily (Babin
et al., 1994; Parsons, 2002). From such experience, the individuals seem to drive out their
gratification from instant hedonic pleasures (Prashar et al., 2017), which is more significant
than the actual product acquisition. So, the study proposes the following hypothesis to test:

H5. Self-gratification has a positive and significant influence on online impulsive

buying.

2.9 Purchase regret

The sense of regret experienced after a certain decision directly influences the actions of
consumers and different consequences for consumer behaviour (Zeelenberg and Pieters,
2004). If the customer feels positive after a purchase, it leads to satisfaction, but if the
customer’s experience goes wrong, he starts to feel dissatisfied, angry and regretful.
Because impulse purchase is instant; therefore, the reaction is also rapid. In the context of Role of
regret theory, we will explore consumer behaviour in terms of a dissatisfied impulse consumer
purchase. According to Lee and Workman (2018) study, the most impulsive purchasing innovation
behaviour, due to post-purchase cognitive dissonance, could produce regret and anger
responses. Hoch (Hoch and Loewenstein, 1991) also point out those impulsive purchases,
which result from poor self-control if the product preference is inconsistent between pre-
purchase and post-purchase, will increase regret and anger in response. Customers with
more product information and involvement in the reminder impulsive buying process than
in the pure impulsive buying process should have less regret after reminder impulse buying
than after pure impulse buying (Sarwar et al., 2019). Lin et al. (2018) looked at the effects on
impulse buyers’ post-purchase dissonance and said most respondents would feel purchase
regret and anger. Besides, it has been suggested that impulsive purchase leads to higher
cognitive dissonance than more planned purchases.
According to Dwivedi and Chaturvedi (2020), negative effects such as anger and regret
generally generate a desire to withdraw from such circumstances as it makes the customer
perceive the location to be unlikely to solve his/her intended purpose for visiting it. Hence,
there is little chance of impulsive urges being generated. As negative effects may cause
withdrawal from the store, it is likely to lead to purchase regret (Bellini et al., 2017). The
present study uses online impulsive purchases in instantaneous situations, which express
every type of purchase scenario. However, most of the previous studies refer to the positive
effect of impulsive purchases on purchase regret (Lee and Workman, 2018; Scheinbaum
et al., 2020). Thus, it can be postulated that:

H6. Online impulsive buying has a significant positive influence on purchase regret.

3. Data and methods

A survey was conducted to gather data from young consumers of Pakistan. An online public
survey was conducted from November 2019 to February 2020 using a convenience sampling
technique. The main benefits of convenience sampling are that it is affordable, effective and
easy to use (Lim et al., 2020; Jopp et al., 2021; Lim et al., 2022a, 2022b). The respondents were
approached from various internet sites and online communities in different time slots,
including Facebook, Twitter, OLX, Techcity, Yahoo and other online bloggers, with the
request to fill the questionnaire voluntarily. In the survey questionnaire, screening questions
were used to ensure that respondents experienced online buying from shopping websites
during the last three months. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed out of which 183
were excluded for not having an online shopping experience and, due to incomplete
responses, resulted in 317 valid responses representing a response rate of 63.4%. In the final
data analysis, 317 valid responses were included. The sample of 317 young consumers
included 178 males and 139 females, with 34% of respondents bearing age less than
22 years, 39% between the age group of 23 and 27, 22% between the age group of 27 and
32 years, 5% were at the age of 33 and above. The education profile of the respondents
represented that 2% of the respondents were holding metric, 6% intermediate, 39%
bachelor, 35% master and 18% above the master’s degree. The monthly income profile of
the respondents represents that 30% of the respondents were below 50,000, 40% were
between the range of 50,001 and 100,000, 16% were between the range of 100,001 and
150,000, 9% were between the range of 150,001 and 200,000 and only 5% were above
200,000 rupees.
IJIS 3.1 Measures
The research instrument comprised two parts: In the first part, the basic information of
respondents, such as their gender, age, income and internet usage patterns, were measured.
Whereas in the second part, a five-point Likert scale was used to measure cognitive
variables, online impulse buying and purchase regret. The construct, perceived playfulness,
was measured by four items adapted from Babin et al. (1994). Consumer innovativeness was
measured by three items adapted from Arnold and Reynolds (2003) and To et al. (2007).
Product involvement was measured by four items adapted from Zaichkowsky (1994). Self-
image congruence was measured by four items adapted from Sirgy et al. (2016), and self-
gratification was measured by four items adapted from Babin et al. (1994). Online impulse
buying was measured by five items adapted from Rezaei et al. (2016). Purchase regret was
measured by four items adapted from Tsiros and Mittal (2000).

4. Results and analysis

Data were analyzed for validity, reliability and testing of proposed relation paths. Data were
tested for missing values, outliers and normality. All the items fell within the expected range
of 6 3 Skewness and Kurtosis, which indicated the normality of the data. Common method
biases were tested by using Harman’s single factor. The results of factor analysis using the
maximum likelihood method showed that the largest factor accounted for 34.565% less than
the threshold value of 50%, an indication of no common method biases (Habib and Qayyum,
2018; Pebrianti, 2016). Variance inflation factor (VIF) was estimated to access the issue of
multicollinearity. Results showed that VIF ranged between 1.65 and 3.23, which is less than
the threshold value of 4 (Awang, 2015; Habib and Qayyum, 2018), indicating that there is no
issue of multicollinearity.

4.1 Measurement model

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to measure convergent validity,
discriminant validity and reliability, which were assessed by examining factor loading,
Cronbach’s alpha composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values.
The threshold level for factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE is 0.5 to 0.7,
respectively (Sarwar et al., 2020). For each measured variable, the “average variance
extracted” (AVE) should be above 0.50. The goodness of fit indices for the measurement
model are acceptable as CMIN/df ¼ 2.889, p # 0.00, GFI ¼ 0.891, AGFI ¼ 0.887, NFI ¼
0.871, CFI ¼ 0.938 and RMSEA ¼ 0.077. Results of the measurement model showed
(Table 1) that the factor load for each item exceeded the threshold value of 0.50 are shown.
The average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct is greater than 0.50, composite
reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha for each construct is greater than 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017).
The results are in favour of convergent validity (AVE > 0.50) and reliability (CR > 0.70)
(Sarwar et al., 2019). For the assessment of discrimination validity, the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) criterion is used. The results are in support of the establishment of discriminant
validity (Table 2) as the square root of AVE of each latent variable is higher than their
respective correlation value.

4.2 Results of hypothesis testing

Satisfactory results for the measurement model are an indication to proceed towards the
structural model for hypotheses testing. Structural path analysis is performed to test the
proposed relational path. The results of the hypotheses testing are presented in Table 3 and
Figure 1. The results of path coefficients indicated that perceived playfulness has a
significant impact on online impulsive buying (b ¼ 0.202, p < 0.01), supporting H1.The
 Factor Average variance Composite
Role of
Construct Items loading extracted (AVE) reliability (CR) consumer
innovation
Perceived playfulness PP1 0.796 0.62 0.83
PP2 0.763
PP3 0.813
Consumer innovativeness CI1 0.678 0.56 0.79
CI2 0.801
CI3 0.761
Product involvement P1 0.749 0.52 0.81
P2 0.728
P3 0.685
P4 0.709
Self-image congruence SIC1 0.701 0.51 0.75
SIC2 0.756
SIC3 0.687
Self-gratification SG1 0.745 0.55 0.76
SG2 0.731
SG3 0.567
Online impulse buying OIB1 0.796 0.58 0.87
OIB2 0.763
OIB3 0.813
OIB4 0.736
OIB5 0.698
Purchase regret R1 0.660 0.529 0.77
R2 0.741
Table 1.
R3 0.695
Results of
Notes: CMIN/df ¼ 2.889; p ¼ 889; df ¼ 2.891; AGFI ¼ 0.887; NFI ¼ 0.871; CFI ¼ 0.938; RMSEA ¼ 0.077 confirmatory factor
Source: Authors’ own work analysis

SQRT
CR AVE AVE PP CI P SIC SG OIB REG

PP 0.83 0.62 0.79 (0.79)

CI 0.79 0.56 0.75 0.035 (0.75)
P 0.81 0.52 0.72 0.523** 0.463** (0.72)
SIC 0.75 0.51 0.71 0.011 0.022 0.270** (0.71)
SG 0.76 0.55 0.71 0.418** 0.446** 0.434** 0.288** (0.71)
OIB 0.87 0.58 0.76 0.219** 0.230** 0.318** 0.105 0.413** (0.76)
REG 0.77 0.52 0.70 0.497** 0.316** 0.570** 0.262** 0.625** 0.416** (0.70)
Table 2.
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); PP = Perceived playfulness; CI = Consumer Fornell–Larcker
innovativeness; P = Product involvement; SIC = Self-image congruence; SG = Self-gratification; OIB = Online
impulse buying; REG = regret; Square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is shown on the diagonal of discriminant validity
the matrix; inter-construct correlations are shown below the diagonal and correlation
Source: Authors’ own work analysis

results of path coefficients indicated that consumer innovativeness has a significant impact
on online impulsive buying (b ¼ 0.158, p < 0.05), supporting H2. The results of path
coefficients indicated that product involvement has a significant impact on online impulsive
buying (b ¼ 0.072, p < 0.05), supporting H3.The results of path coefficients indicated that
IJIS self-image congruence has a significant impact on online impulsive buying (b ¼ 0.384, p <
0.01), supporting H4. However, the results of path coefficients indicated that self-
gratification has no significant impact on online impulsive buying (b ¼ 0.065, p > 0.05), not
in support of H5. The results of path coefficients indicated that online impulsive buying has
a significant impact on consumer purchase regret (b ¼ 0.624, p < 0.01), supporting H6.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study attempted to provide an in-depth understanding by providing empirical results
about purchase regret and determining the precursors of online impulse buying. The study
also provides some significant contributions to the literature on online impulse buying and
its related paradigms. The underlying purpose was to determine the essential dimensions of
hedonic and experiential consumption towards online impulse buying and how they can
result in consumer purchase regret. Generally, results are consistent with the propositions of
the theory of regret.
The factors chosen for this study are personal or internal (perceived playfulness, product
involvement, consumer innovativeness, self-congruity and self-gratification), primarily

Proposed relational path Estimate p Result

Perceived playfulness ! Online impulse buying 0.202 0.002 H1 Supported

Consumer innovativeness ! Online impulse buying 0.158 0.019 H2 Supported
Product involvement ! Online impulse buying 0.072 0.029 H3 Supported
Self-image congruence ! Online impulse buying 0.384 0.001 H4 Supported
Self-gratification ! Online impulse buying 0.065 0.358 H5 Not Supported
Table 3.
Online impulse buying ! Purchase regret 0.624 0.001 H6 Supported
The regression path
coefficient and its Notes: CMIN/df ¼ 2.064; p # 0.00; GFI ¼ 0.903; AGFI ¼ 0.871; NFI ¼ 0.880; CFI ¼ 0.933; RMSEA ¼ 0.058
significance Source: Authors’ own work

Figure1.
Structural model
based on consumer hedonic and experiential consumption motivation. Kwortnik and Ross Role of
(2007) argue that the pleasure of consumption can be commenced before the act of consumer
consuming actually, as the consumer feels the excitement in anticipation of actual use and is
also followed by the experience of browsing and strolling sites. Hedonic shopping is related
innovation
to the fulfilment of a person’s desires and is an expression of experiential consumption
(Cardoso and Pinto, 2010). Therefore hedonic and experiential consumption can be
interrelated with each other (Bloch et al., 1986).
Based on the existing literature and theories in the field, six hypotheses were proposed
for analysis and results. After analyzing the data obtained from the target audience, it was
found that five hypotheses were supported and one rejected, and the model fit within the
established criteria. The results confirmed that chosen motivators (perceived playfulness,
product involvement, consumer innovativeness and self-image congruence) based on
hedonic or experiential consumption are significantly related to online impulse buying
behaviour. But self-gratification has no effect on online impulsive buying. And finally, such
instant action of online impulsive buying results in occurring purchase regret.

5.1 Theoretical implications

Our findings indicate that hedonic shopping motivations as an internal stimulus also play
an important role in impulse buying behaviour and consumer innovation. Consumers were
found to be more stimulated, curious and excited; have a fantasy motivation; and have
novelty-seeking behaviour towards unplanned purchases (Sarwar et al., 2018). These
findings are in line with some previous research studies such as hedonic perspectives
(Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Cardoso and Pinto, 2010; Ozen and Engizek, 2014), peer
communication and product involvement (Huang, 2016; Jones and Kim, 2010), self-concept
or self-image congruence and individual innovativeness (Han et al., 1991). Customers feel
pleasure in buying online because the comparison of choices is relatively easy and
convenient, it has been found to be an important and optimistic indicator of online impulsive
buying, and this study findings are in line with published literature (Huang et al., 2017).
Online impulse buying also satisfies the need for innovativeness as customers can buy new
and modern stuff from all global brands, and this finding is an inline study by Chauhan et al.
(2019). According to Lee et al. (2017), high involvement in the product also stimulates one
purchase as a buyer can explore the features and variety of the product easily. Customers
carry their self-image and express themselves through their buying taste, and it motivates
them to buy such self-image products online. This finding is in line with the findings of Liu
and Sutanto (2012). As per findings, self-gratification did not affect online impulsive buying,
which indicates that when buying online, buyers have doubts about the information
provided on the website. It means that unsureness affects customers’ buying decisions, as
after receiving information from online retailers,’ customers may change their purchasing
decisions because instead of feeling pleasure, they feel dissatisfied. These results are again
supported by the findings of Li et al. (2019). An incorrect purchasing decision will lead
customers to think more before subsequent online purchases. Whenever people want to buy
a brand, they make a purchase that also optimizes their sense of fulfillment and usefulness
by selecting a choice that protects against negative feelings. Cognitive dissonance thus
affects consumer satisfaction negatively, and that results in purchase regret. This finding is
in line with the study by Sharifi and Esfidani (2014). Dwivedi and Chaturvedi (2020) have
also reported similar results as the current study, that impulsive buying can have adverse
post-purchase consequences for customers, i.e. purchase regret and also generate cognitive
dissonance due to regret and customers do not repurchase. It indicates that failure to meet
buyers’ expectations may result in purchase regret. Negative emotions, such as regret for
IJIS consumers, may arise when the product performance is less than expected before
consumption. The findings of these results are in line with the viewpoint of prior research
(Gabler et al., 2017; Tsiros and Mittal, 2000). Regret relates to preference and the very
essence of the preferred means that other options should have been preferred over the
selected one (Sarwar et al., 2020; Zeelenberg and Pieters, 2004). It has also been observed that
consumers compare product performance with alternatives, and if there is a discrepancy,
they feel purchase regret, and such feelings have a negative effect on repurchase intentions.
In realizing that other options would have led to a better result, a customer regrets his/her
decisions and therefore switches to alternative for the next purchase (Colgate and Lang,
2001). It has been observed that in such cases, people may not complain but switch brands
(where chosen brand performs worse than the ones not chosen), resulting in low repurchase
(Tsiros and Mittal, 2000).

5.2 Managerial implications

It can be concluded that online impulse buying has now been recognized as an
important phenomenon because of digital media and enormous social networking tools
over the internet. Therefore, online consumers can be intended towards more impulse
buying, depending on the most dominant hedonic or experiential motivational factor.
Secondly, online sellers must reduce cognitive dissonance to enhance customer
satisfaction, thus promoting their loyalty so that purchase regret can be minimized.
Therefore, online websites may lead their efforts and policies to retain and maintain
customers and take care of them; for example, for consumers before and following
purchases, certain factors, such as price, colour, size and material of goods, must be the
same. Consumers’ deep involvement, self-determination, escapism and illusions all
designate to cherish the shopping experience hedonically. Additionally, the importance
of motivational factors can vary depending on personal involvement and specific
buying situations (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).

5.3 Future implications and limitations

The findings of the study also provide some valuable insights for applications in
marketing management and online retailing. Understanding impulsive buying
practices is essential for online retailers to make efficient use of the available resources
and boost their profit margin. Although technology can amplify access to retail outlets,
specific factors behind what goes towards an impulse purchase may also have to do
with the characteristics of the individuals. For reducing purchase regret, the marketing
managers are mindful of the significant strategic advantage of being able to reduce
dissatisfaction effectively. To attract more target audiences and to pull them to
repurchase, online retailers can put efforts into reducing the level of regret that may
occur due to some discomforts regarding online business. Moreover, noting the
significant effect of hedonic and experiential influences on online impulse buying,
retailers must continually create friendly and smooth shopping sites with exciting
demonstrations, attractive colour schemes and delightful browsing. Future studies
should study alternative, both positive and negative, factors on impulsive purchase,
such as materialism and behavioural control (Lim et al., 2020).
Finally, this study has certain limitations. First, this research is quantitative in nature as
survey methods were used for data collection. Furthermore, the results reflect data from a
country focused primarily on young people. The findings are limited to customers with a
shopping experience with different fashion retailers. Future works with different sample
sizes can also be carried out on foreign markets. Finally, we investigated the direct effect of
experiential or hedonic values on online impulse buying that resulted in purchase regret. To Role of
further investigate the effect, additional studies can be carried out with particular regard to consumer
certain moderating or mediating variables, such as brand identification and satisfaction,
respectively.
innovation

References
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79
No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Awang, Z. (2015), SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling,
MPWS Rich Publication Sdn. Bhd, Selangor.
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 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
Badgaiyan, A.J., Verma, A. and Dixit, S. (2016), “Impulsive buying tendency: measuring important
relationships with a new perspective and an indigenous scale”, IIMB Management Review,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 186-199.
Bakırtas , H. and Divano glu, S.U. (2013), “The effect of hedonic shopping motivation on consumer
satisfaction and consumer loyalty”, International Journal of Asian Social Science, Vol. 3,
pp. 1522-1534.
Bandyopadhyay, N. (2016), “The role of self-esteem, negative affect and normative influence in impulse
buying: a study from India”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 523-539.
Bekoglu, F.B., Ergen, A. and Inci, B. (2016), “The impact of attitude, consumer innovativeness and
interpersonal influence on functional food consumption”, International Business Research, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 79-87.
Bellini, S., Cardinali, M.G. and Grandi, B. (2017), “A structural equation model of impulse buying
behaviour in grocery retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 164-171.
Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D.L. and Ridgway, N.M. (1986), “Consumer search: an extended framework”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 119-126.
Cardoso, P.R. and Pinto, S.C. (2010), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations among Portuguese
young adult consumers”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 38,
pp. 538.
Cavazos-Arroyo, J. and Máynez-Guaderrama, A.I. (2022), “Antecedents of online impulse buying: an
analysis of gender and centennials’ and millennials’ perspectives”, Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 122-137.
Chang, H.J., Yan, R.-N. and Eckman, M. (2014), “Moderating effects of situational characteristics on
impulse buying”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 4,
p. 298.
Chauhan, V., Yadav, R. and Choudhary, V. (2019), “Analyzing the impact of consumer innovativeness
and perceived risk in internet banking adoption”, International Journal of Bank Marketing.,
Vol. 37 No. 1.
Choi, J., Madhavaram, S.R. and Park, H.Y. (2020), “The role of hedonic and utilitarian motives on the
effectiveness of partitioned pricing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 251-265.
Chung, N., Song, H. and Lee, H. (2017), “Consumers’ impulsive buying behavior of restaurant products
in social commerce”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 709-731.
Cinjarevic, M., Tatic, K. and Petric, S. (2011), “See it, like it, buy it! Hedonic shopping motivations and
impulse buying”, Economic Review: Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 9, pp. 3-15.
Colgate, M. and Lang, B. (2001), “Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the
financial services industry”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 332.
IJIS Davvetas, V. and Diamantopoulos, A. (2017), “Regretting your brand-self?’ the moderating role of
consumer-brand identification on consumer responses to purchase regret”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 80, pp. 218-227.
Dwivedi, S. and Chaturvedi, R.K. (2020), “An empirical study of impulse buying tendency and
consumer personalities”, Studies in Indian Place Names, Vol. 40, pp. 1880-1888.
Gabler, C.B., Landers, V.M. and Reynolds, K.E. (2017), “Purchase decision regret: negative
consequences of the steadily increasing discount strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 76,
pp. 201-208.
Gohary, A. and Hanzaee, K.H. (2014), “Personality traits as predictors of shopping motivations and
behaviors: a canonical correlation analysis”, Arab Economic and Business Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 166-174.
Habib, M.D. and Qayyum, A. (2018), “Cognitive emotion theory and Emotion-Action tendency in online
impulsive buying behavior”, Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 86-99.
Hair, J.F., JR, Babin, B.J. and Krey, N. (2017), “Covariance-based structural equation modeling in the
Journal of Advertising: Review and recommendations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 163-177.
Han, Y.K., Morgan, G.A., Kotsiopulos, A. and Kang-Park, J. (1991), “Impulse buying behavior of apparel
purchasers”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 15-21.
Hausman, A. (2000), “A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse buying
behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 403-426.
Hoch, S.J. and Loewenstein, G.F. (1991), “Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 492-507.
Hoonsopon, D. and Puriwat, W. (2016), “The effect of reference groups on purchase intention: evidence
in distinct types of shoppers and product involvement”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ),
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 157-164.
Hride, F.T., Ferdousi, F. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2022), “Linking perceived price fairness, customer
satisfaction, trust, and loyalty: a structural equation modeling of Facebook-based e-commerce in
Bangladesh”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 41-54.
Hsieh, S.H. and Tseng, T.H. (2017), “Playfulness in mobile instant messaging: examining the influence of
emoticons and text messaging on social interaction”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 69, pp. 405-414.
Huang, L.-T. (2016), “Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 2277-2283.
Huang, M., Ali, R. and Liao, J. (2017), “The effect of user experience in online games on word of mouth: a
pleasure-arousal-dominance (PAD) model perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75,
pp. 329-338.
Husain, R., Ahmad, A. and Khan, B.M. (2022), “The role of status consumption and brand equity: a
comparative study of the marketing of Indian luxury brands by traditional and social-media”,
Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 48-67.
Jones, C. and Kim, S. (2010), “Influences of retail brand trust, off-line patronage, clothing involvement
and website quality on online apparel shopping intention”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 627-637.
Jopp, R., Kalantari, H., Lim, W.M., Wee, L.L.M. and Lim, A.L. (2021), “Tourist segments of eco-cultural
destinations”, Current Issues in Tourism, Vol. 25 No. 14, pp. 1-16.
Jürgensen, K. and Guesalaga, R. (2018), “Young consumers’ innovativeness in apparel choices: a model
including consumer self-confidence”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 255-263.
Kamboj, S., Matharu, M., Lim, W.M., Ali, F. and Kumar, S. (2022), “Consumer adoption of green hotels:
understanding the role of value, innovation, and involvement”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing
and Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1-31.
Kang, Y.S., Hong, S. and Lee, H. (2009), “Exploring continued online service usage behavior: the roles of Role of
self-image congruity and regret”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 111-122.
consumer
Kim, H.-S. (2006), “Using hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations to profile inner city consumers”,
Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 13, pp. 57-79. innovation
Kumar, S., Lim, W.M., Pandey, N. and Christopher Westland, J. (2021), “20 Years of electronic commerce
research”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Kwon, K.-N. and Jain, D. (2009), “Multichannel shopping through nontraditional retail formats: variety-
seeking behavior with hedonic and utilitarian motivations”, Journal of Marketing Channels,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-168.
Kwortnik Jr, R.J. and Ross Jr, W.T. (2007), “The role of positive emotions in experiential decisions”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 324-335.
Ladhari, R., Gonthier, J. and Lajante, M. (2019), “Generation Y and online fashion shopping: orientations
and profiles”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 48, pp. 113-121.
Lebo, H. (2003), “The UCLA Internet report: surveying the digital future, year three”, UCLA Center for
Communication Policy, Los Angeles, Retrieved December, 15, 2003.
Lee, S.-H. and Workman, J.E. (2018), “Consumer tendency to regret, compulsive buying, gender, and
fashion time-of-adoption groups”, International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and
Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 265-276.
Lee, W.-I., Cheng, S.-Y. and Shih, Y.-T. (2017), “Effects among product attributes, involvement, word-of-
mouth, and purchase intention in online shopping”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 223-229.
Li, S., Phang, C.W. and Ling, H. (2019), “Self-gratification and self-discrepancy in purchase of digital
items”, Industrial Management and Data Systems., Vol. 119 No. 8.
Liao, C., Lin, H.-N., Luo, M.M. and Chea, S. (2017), “Factors influencing online shoppers’ repurchase
intentions: the roles of satisfaction and regret”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 5,
pp. 651-668.
Liao, C., To, P.-L., Wong, Y.-C., Palvia, P. and Kakhki, M.D. (2016), “The impact of presentation mode and product
type on online impulse buying decisions”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 17, p. 153.
Lim, S.H., Lee, S. and Kim, D.J. (2017), “Is online consumers’ impulsive buying beneficial for e-commerce
companies? An empirical investigation of online consumers’ past impulsive buying behaviors”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 85-100.
Lim, W.M., Phang, C.S.C. and Lim, A.L. (2020), “The effects of possession- and social inclusion-defined
materialism on consumer behavior toward economical versus luxury product categories, goods
versus services product types, and individual versus group marketplace scenarios”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 56, p. 102158.
Lim, W.M., Aggarwal, A. and Dandotiya, R. (2022a), “Marketing luxury services beyond affluence in
the new normal: insights from fine dining during the coronavirus pandemic”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 66, p. 102936.
Lim, W.M., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Verma, D. and Kumar, D. (2022b), “Evolution and trends in
consumer behaviour: insights from Journal of Consumer Behaviour.”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour., Vol. 22 No. 1.
Lin, C.-T., Chen, C.-W., Wang, S.-J. and Lin, C.-C. (2018), “The influence of impulse buying toward
consumer loyalty in online shopping: a regulatory focus theory perspective”, Journal of Ambient
Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1-11.
Liu, Y. and Sutanto, J. (2012), “Buyers’ purchasing time and herd behavior on deal-of-the-day group-
buying websites”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 83-93.
Meng, F., Zhang, P., Li, H. and So, K.K.F. (2019), “Modeling precursors of impulsive tourist shopping
behavior: evidence from long-haul Chinese outbound tourists”, International Journal of Tourism
Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 344-358.
IJIS Muruganantham, G. and Bhakat, R.S. (2013), “A review of impulse buying behavior”, International
Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 149.
Nam, J., Lee, Y., Youn, N. and Kwon, K.M. (2016), “Nostalgia’s fulfillment of agentic and communal
needs: how different types of self-concepts shape consumer attitudes toward nostalgia”, Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
Nasir, J., Ibrahim, R.M., Sarwar, M.A., Sarwar, B., Al-Rahmi, W.M., Alturise, F., Al-Adwan, A.S. and
Uddin, M. (2022), “The effects of transformational leadership, organizational innovation, work
stressors, and creativity on employee performance in SMEs”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13,
p. 772104, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.772104.
Nasir, J., Ibrahim, R.M., Sarwar, M.A. and Sabir, R.I. (2020), “Impact of high involvement work practices
on employee performances in health sector, Pakistan”, The Journal of Management Theory and
Practice (JMTP), Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 22-32.
Ozen, H. and Engizek, N. (2014), “Shopping online without thinking: being emotional or rational?”, Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, p. 78.
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N. and Lekakos, G. (2017), “The interplay of online
shopping motivations and experiential factors on personalized e-commerce: a complexity theory
approach”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 730-742.
Park, J.E. and Yoon, S.-J. (2017), “Antecedents of consumer animosity and the role of product
involvement on purchase intentions”, American Journal of Business, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 42-57.
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 No. 11,
pp. 1583-1589.
Parsons, A.G. (2002), “Non-functional motives for online shoppers: Why we click”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, p. 380.
Pebrianti, W. (2016), “Web attractiveness, hedonic shopping value and online buying decision”,
Pertanika International Journal of Economic and Management (IJEM), Vol. 10,
pp. 123-134.
Prashar, S., Parsad, C. and Vijay, T.S. (2017), “Segmenting young Indian impulsive shoppers”, Journal
of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-47.
Proyer, R.T., Tandler, N. and Brauer, K. (2019), “Playfulness and creativity: a selective review”,
Creativity and Humor, Elsevier, Cham.
Rezaei, S., Ali, F., Amin, M. and Jayashree, S. (2016), “Online impulse buying of tourism products”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 60.
Richard, M.-O. and Chebat, J.-C. (2016), “Modeling online consumer behavior: preeminence of emotions
and moderating influences of need for cognition and optimal stimulation level”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 541-553.
Roe, D. and Bruwer, J. (2017), “Self-concept, product involvement and consumption occasions:
exploring fine wine consumer behaviour”, British Food Journal, Vol. 119 No. 6,
pp. 1362-1377.
Ryu, S. and Park, J. (2020), “The effects of benefit-driven commitment on usage of social media for
shopping and positive word-of-mouth”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 55,
p. 102094.
S
anchez-García, I. and Curr
as-P
erez, R. (2011), “Effects of dissatisfaction in tourist services: the role of
anger and regret”, Tourism Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 1397-1406.
Sarwar, M.A., Awang, Z. and Habib, M.D. (2019), “Consumer purchase regret: a systematic review”,
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 9,
pp. 403-425.
Sarwar, M.A., Awang, Z., Habib, M.D., Nasir, J. and Hussain, M. (2020), “Why did I buy this? Purchase Role of
regret and repeat purchase intentions: a model and empirical application”, Journal of Public
Affairs, Vol. 22 No. 1, p. e2357. consumer
Sarwar, B., Sarwar, A., Zulfiqar, S., Aziz, S. and Chandia, K.E. (2018), “Cultivating online social innovation
resources to enhance entrepreneurial learning: providing new insights into trust repairing”, US-
China Education Review, Vol. 8, pp. 114-133.
Scheinbaum, A.C., Shah, P., Kukar-Kinney, M. and Copple, J. (2020), “Regret and nonredemption of
daily deals: individual differences and contextual influences”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 535-555.
Sharifi, S.S. and Esfidani, M.R. (2014), “The impacts of relationship marketing on cognitive dissonance,
satisfaction, and loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 42, p. 553.
Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B. and Marshall, R. (2010), “Exploring impulse buying and variety seeking
by retail shoppers: towards a common conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 473-494.
Simpson, P.M., Siguaw, J.A. and Cadogan, J.W. (2008), “Understanding the consumer propensity to
observe”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 1/2, p. 196.
Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.-J., Grace, B.Y., Gurel-Atay, E., Tidwell, J. and Ekici, A. (2016), “Self-expressiveness in
shopping”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 292-299.
Sivakumar, A. and Gunasekaran, A. (2017), “An empirical study on the factors affecting online
shopping behavior of millennial consumers”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 16,
pp. 219-230.
Sofi, S.A. and Najar, S.A. (2018), “Impact of personality influencers on psychological paradigms: an
empirical-discourse of big five framework and impulsive buying behaviour”, European Research
on Management and Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 71-81.
To, P.-L., Liao, C. and Lin, T.-H. (2007), “Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on utilitarian
and hedonic value”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 774-787.
Tsiros, M. and Mittal, V. (2000), “Regret: a model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer
decision making”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 401-417.
Vuorela, T., Alatalo, S. and Oikarinen, E.-L. (2019), “Playfulness in online marketing: challenges and
opportunities”, International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 24-36.
Wadera, D. and Sharma, V. (2018), “Impulsive buying behavior in online fashion apparel shopping: an
investigation of the influence of the internal and external factors among Indian shoppers”, South
Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 25, p. 55.
Wang, X., Tauni, M.Z., Zhang, Q., Ali, A. and Ali, F. (2020), “Does buyer-seller personality match
enhance impulsive buying? A green marketing context”, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), “The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.
Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2004), “Beyond valence in customer dissatisfaction: a review and new
findings on behavioral responses to regret and disappointment in failed services”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 445-455.

Further reading
Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995), “To be or not to be. . . credible that is:: a model of reputation and
credibility among competing firms”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 24-33.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004), “Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time
has come”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 14-26.
IJIS Lim, W.M. (2017), “Untangling the relationships between consumer characteristics, shopping values,
and behavioral intention in online group buying”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7,
pp. 547-566.
Lim, W.M. (2020), “An equity theory perspective of online group buying”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 54, p. 101729.
Park, H.J. and Dhandra, T.K. (2017), “Relation between dispositional mindfulness and impulsive buying
tendency: role of trait emotional intelligence”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 105,
pp. 208-212.
Zeelenberg, M. and Pieters, R. (2007), “A theory of regret regulation 1.0”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-18.

Corresponding author
Ali Abbas can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]