91 Chapter 5 rise (Coleman, Royne, & Pounders, 2019), although the influence of message frames on impulse buying within this context remained unexplored. Moreover, previous studies on advertising frames are divided on whether self-benefit versus other-benefit frames elicit stronger persuasive outcomes (e.g., Yadav, 2016; Jäger & Weber, 2020). Chapter 3 provided further insights into the advantages of other-benefit frame usage. Mediated mindfulness cues In contrast to the effects of phygital and CSR advertising cues, we did not find a significant effect of mediated mindfulness cues on impulse buying, nor did we find a correlation between trait mindfulness and impulse buying urges (Chapter 4). This absence of significant results is interesting, since we did find a significant correlation between trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait. The latter finding is consistent with other studies on mindfulness and impulse buying tendencies (e.g., Dhandra, 2020). The negative relationship between trait mindfulness and impulse buying trait, which was found multiple times in both Chapter 4 of this dissertation and previous literature, gave rise to the idea that mindfulness could help limit impulse purchases. However, when critically looking at the theoretical overlap between the definitions of mindfulness and impulse buying, the opposite could also be argued. However, the effects of mindfulness on impulse buying were not measured in previous research, making it impossible to know for certain what role, if any, mindfulness plays in impulse buying. Therefore, Chapter 4 adds to the literature on mindfulness and impulse buying by 1) measuring impulse buying urges and impulse buying behavior (rather than just general traits), and 2) by measuring the effect of state mindfulness on impulse buying (rather than just the relationship between trait mindfulness and impulse buying). Self-inference processes In addition to studying the effect of three contemporary, understudied, media cues on impulse buying, this dissertation provides insights into three self-inference processes relevant to these relationships. We showed that both self-agency and self-justification drive impulse purchasing. Furthermore, we argued why self-presentation bias is a realistic risk in research on impulse buying. Here we respond to Pham et al.’s (2017) notion that internal (self-inference) processes relevant to impulse buying are not yet fully understood, while they hold the potential to offer important insights into the phenomenon of impulse buying. Self-agency We studied self-agency as a mediator in the effect of interactive screens (phygital cues) on impulse buying urges. In Chapter 2, we built on the agency model of customization by Sundar (AMC; Sundar, 2008), which suggests that interactive techniques may have the potential to enhance a person’s sense of self-agency, which, in turn, could lead to more positive attitudes toward the displayed content. We contributed to this suggestion by providing evidence that high (versus low) levels of interactivity indeed increase self-agency, and that self-agency, in turn, positively affects impulse buying urges. The present work is the first to show that self-agency is one of the inner psychological factors that affects impulse buying urges.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw