78 The Urge to Splurge Results. First, we conducted a manipulation check. A one-way ANOVA showed that participants exposed to the experimental condition were indeed more mindful on the 7-point scale (M = 4.9, SD = 1.16) than those exposed to the control condition (M = 4.2, SD = 1.16, F (1, 442) = 47.94, p <.001). Thus, this manipulation was successful. Subsequently, we checked whether a negative correlation between trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait also existed within the sample in Study 3 (H1). Consistent with the other studies, it does (Pearson correlatioN = -.22, p = <.001). Thereafter, we measured the effect of state mindfulness on impulse buying behavior (H4). Most people, independent of their level of state mindfulness, chose to receive credits for their participation, as opposed to buying a product with it. Only 3.7% of the participants in the experimental group (versus 3.5% of the participants in the control group) wanted to buy a product with their otherwise received credit. A Chi2-test showed no significant effect of state mindfulness on impulse buying behavior (Chi2 = 4.68, p = .456). Hypothesis 4 is rejected. Since the low percentage of people who chose to buy a product with otherwise earned credit, we could not calculate the effect of mindfulness on the type of product (sustainable vs. unsustainable) participants could choose. Moreover, a one-way ANOVA did not show any effects of state mindfulness on how people would spend 500 Euros (impulse buying urges). Participants, independent of the condition they were exposed to, would set a somewhat equal amount aside (Mmindful = 262,06 Euros, SD = 184,14; Mcontrol = 238,99, SD = 176,75, F (1, 442) = 1.82, p = .179) and, thus, would also spend an equal part impulsively on the products of their choice. The amount of fictional money spend on the various products did not differ significantly between mindful and less mindful people (clothes: F (1, 442) = .82, p = .366; shoes: F (1, 442) = .99, p = .320; restaurants: F (1, 442) = 3.03, p = .082; city trips = (F (1, 442) = .17, p = .680; recreatioN = F (1, 442) = 1.24, p = .265; culture = F (1, 442) = .09, p = .769; media = F (1, 442) = .802, p = .371; interior = F (1, 442) = .52, p = .470; treats = F (1, 442) = 2.62, p = .106; presents = F (1, 442) = 2.21, p = .138; jewelry = F (1, 442) = .03, p = .872; charity = F (1, 442) = .49, p = .482; hobbies = F (1, 442) = .06, p = .813). Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Exploratively, the separate roles of attention, awareness, present focus, and acceptance in impulse buying were further examined. Attention appeared to be the only construct of trait mindfulness that (negatively) related to impulse buying trait (β = -.26, t (439) = -.4,75, p <.001). This corresponds to the results of Studies 1 and 2. None of the four dimensions of either trait or state mindfulness were related to 1) how people would spend 500 Euros (impulse buying urge) or 2) impulse buying behavior. Table 5 overviews each hypothesis and its outcomes. See Table 6 for an overview of all (exploratively) found results. Discussion. Study 3 shows, in line with the results of Study 1 and Study 2, that trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait are related. Attention seems to be the construct of mindfulness that drives this relationship. However, no effect of state mindfulness on impulse buying urges or on impulse buying behavior were found. Study 3 indicates that mindfulness, in contrast to its seemingly promising potential (e.g., Park & Dhandra, 2017; Geiger, Grossman, & Schrader, 2019;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw