81 Chapter 4 This study discusses the possibility that the negative relationship found between trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait may result from self-presentation bias, considering both the self-completion theory (Gollwitzer, Wicklund, & Hilton, 1982) and the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). Moreover, this study theoretically underpins that mindfulness may not have the expected negative effect on actual impulse buying behavior. In fact, we argue why mindfulness could have a positive effect on impulse buying. Although we do not find such a positive relationship, we do show that mindful people who claim to have low general impulse buying tendencies, actually are equally as likely to buy on impulse as people who are less mindful. This applies to both sustainable and unsustainable items. This study contributes valuable insights into the interplay between mindfulness (as operationalized) and impulse buying, enriching the literature on consumer behavior, impulse buying, mindfulness, and sustainable consumption. Herewith, it offers an ethical perspective on consumer research, which is increasingly important (Ma et al., 2024). Limitations and direction for future research In the existing literature, the role of mindfulness in impulse buying has not undergone thorough examination, thus hindering the ability to draw conclusive findings on whether mindfulness can effectively mitigate impulse buying across various product categories. This study represents the first step in this direction. Although we found a relationship between trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait four times, there seems to be no relationship between mindfulness (in its entirety) and impulse buying urge and no effect of state mindfulness on impulse buying urges and behaviors. Therefore, we recommend future research on mindfulness and impulse buying to measure impulse buying directly. Preferably, actual impulse buying behavior will be measured. However, if this is not possible, it is suggested that at least product-specific impulse buying urges are measured to limit the risk of self-presentation bias. Moreover, we also encourage researchers to explore the nuanced roles played by each dimension of mindfulness. Such a thorough investigation is crucial for obtaining a more profound insight into the underlying mechanisms driving the potential relationship between mindfulness and impulse buying. Although this study provides insights in the relationship between mindfulness and impulse buying, the results should be interpreted with caution and appropriate criticism. First, in Study 3, the experimental group’s state mindfulness level was -although significantly different- relatively close to that of the control group (4.9 versus 4.2 on a 7-point scale). Perhaps when the levels of mindfulness differed more strongly, significant results would have been found. Therefore, we encourage future studies to replicate Study 3 with stimulus materials that increase the level of mindfulness between the experimental and control groups. Second, in Study 3 we measure impulse buying urge with a question on how the participant would spend 500 Euros, which they unexpectedly received. However, it is not excluded that participants already wanted some of the presented product categories, which makes that we might not have measured impulsive buying urges. Nevertheless, we also measure impulse buying urge by presenting participants pictures of specific products that were unlikely to already been on their wish list (Study 2). Moreover, we measure impulse buying behavior as well
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw