The approach-inhibition theory and the social distance theory of power support different predictions on the question of how power affects impulse buying. However, there is no empirical research directly testing the above two theories thus far. Therefore, the present research aimed to explore the influence of power and buying impulsiveness trait on impulse buying to answer the basic research question of “Having or Lacking Power Leads to Impulse Buying?”. From the perspective of self-control, we hypothesize that lacking power would lead to impulse buying, even for the individuals with low buying impulsiveness trait. Furthermore, based on the approach-inhibition theory of power, we hypothesize that although having power is not directly related to impulse buying, it can facilitate the conversion of consumers' buying impulsiveness trait into real impulse buying behavior. That is, when having power, the consumers with high buying impulsiveness trait would show more impulse buying behaviors than the consumers with low buying impulsiveness trait.
Three studies were conducted to test our hypotheses. Study 1 explored the correlation between individuals' trait sense of power and willingness to make impulse buying. A total of 106 college students participated in the study, and the results showed a negative correlation between participants' scores on the sense of power scale and their willingness to purchase in an impulse buying situation(r = -.23, p < .05). The results of the regression analysis showed that, after controlling for the effect of cost of living and gender, the results remained significant (β = -.237, SE = .10, p < .05, 95%CI = [-.43, -.04]).
In Study 2, we manipulated the power (high vs. baseline vs. low) by the recalling method, measuring the number of products bought and money spent by participants in a more implicit impulse buying scenario. After controlling the potential influences of the trait sense of power and cost of living and gender, the results for 173 participants showed that the low-power participants spent more money, F(2, 167) = 2.88, p = .059, ηp2 = .033, and bought more products, F(2, 167) = 5.55, p < .01, ηp2 = .062. The results of study 1 and 2 showed that low power promotes consumers' impulse buying.
Study 3 introduced buying impulsiveness trait to explore its interaction with power on impulse buying. Power was manipulated through the role-play imagination. Consistent with Study 2, the results showed that the low-power group spent more money (β = -14.793, SE = 4.13, p < .001, 95%CI = [-22.96, -6.62]) and bought more products (β = -2.002, SE = .53, p < .001, 95%CI = [-3.04, -.96]) than the high-power group. In addition, the interaction between power and buying impulsiveness trait was significant on the quantity of purchase indicator (β = 1.917, SE = .83, p < .05, 95%CI = [.27, 3.56]), low-power individuals regardless of buying impulsiveness traits made more impulse buying(β = -.398, SE = .62, p > .05, 95%CI = [-1.63, .83]); impulsive buying traits of high-powered individuals can predict impulse buying(β = 1.518, SE = .56, p < .01, 95%CI = [.41, 2.67]).
Our hypotheses were supported. The current research clarifies, for the first time, that it is low power that leads to impulse buying, which demonstrates that the social distance theory of power has more explanatory power on the directional issue of power affecting impulse buying. Furthermore, from the perspective of approach-inhibition theory, although the findings showed that high power does not promote impulse buying, it can facilitate the conversion of consumers' buying impulsiveness trait into real impulse buying behavior. That is, when having power, the consumers with high buying impulsiveness trait would show more impulse buying behaviors than the consumers with low buying impulsiveness trait.
Key words
power /
sense of power /
impulse buying /
buying impulsiveness trait /
approach-inhibition theory /
social distance theory
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 陈婕, 李信, 刘彤, 陈毅文. (2018). 权力感对补偿消费的影响及其修复方式探究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 26(5), 847-851.
[2] 韩玉娟, 朱廷劭. (2019). 自我建构对冲动购买倾向的影响: 调节定向的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 27(1), 153-157.
[3] 江红艳, 刘邦舜, 孙配贞. (2018). 权力感对消费行为的影响及其理论解释. 心理科学进展, 26(1), 156-168.
[4] 靳菲, 朱华伟. (2016). 消费者的权力感与冲动购买. 心理学报, 48(7), 880-890.
[5] 王艳芝, 卢宏亮. (2019). 权力感对拟人化产品购买意愿的影响. 心理科学, 42(3), 660-666.
[6] 朱翊敏, 张洁敏. (2021). 时间压力对网络冲动性购买的影响研究: 交易效用和感知风险的调节. 商业经济与管理, 7, 55-66.
[7] Amos C., Holmes G. R., & Keneson W. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 86-97.
[8] Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 511-536.
[9] Anderson C., John O. P., & Keltner D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313-344.
[10] Bargh J. A., Raymond P., Pryor J. B., & Strack F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power→sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5), 768-781.
[11] Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(4), 497-509.
[12] Carney D. R., Cuddy A. J., & Yap A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363-1368.
[13] Chen S., Lee-Chai A. Y., & Bargh J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173-187.
[14] DeWall C. N., Baumeister R. F., Mead N. L., & Vohs K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 47-65.
[15] Dubois D., Rucker D. D., & Galinsky A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047-1062.
[16] Ent M. R., Baumeister R. F., & Vonasch A. J. (2012). Power, leadership, and self-regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(8), 619-630.
[17] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[18] Fujita K., Trope Y., Liberman N., & Levin-Sagi M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351-367.
[19] Galinsky A. D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Magee J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 453-466.
[20] Garbinsky E. N., Klesse A. K., & Aaker J. (2014). Money in the bank: Feeling powerful increases saving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 610-623.
[21] Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 237-252.
[22] Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492-507.
[23] Iyer G. R., Blut M., Xiao S. H., & Grewal D. (2020). Impulse buying: A meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 384-404.
[24] Joshi, P. D., & Fast, N. J. (2013). Power and reduced temporal discounting. Psychological Science, 24(4), 432-438.
[25] Kacen J. J., Hess J. D., & Walker D. (2012). Spontaneous selection: The influence of product and retailing factors on consumer impulse purchases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 578-588.
[26] Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
[27] Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.
[28] Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158-186.
[29] Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 102-111.
[30] Rodrigues R. I., Lopes P., & Varela M. (2021). Factors affecting impulse buying behavior of consumers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 697080.
[31] Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199.
[32] Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305-313.
[33] Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257-267.
[34] Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 549-555.
[35] Schmid Mast M., Jonas K., & Hall J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 835-850.
[36] Smith P. K., Jostmann N. B., Galinsky A. D., & van Dijk, W. W. (2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychological Science, 19(5), 441-447.
[37] Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578-596.
[38] Sun G., Han X., Wang H. W., Li J., & Wang W. S. (2021). The Influence of face loss on impulse buying: An experimental study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 700664.
[39] Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547.
[40] Weinberg, P., & Gottwald, W. (1982). Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions. Journal of Business Research, 10(1), 43-57.
[41] Zhang Y. L., Winterich K. P., & Mittal V. (2010). Power distance belief and impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 945-954.
PDF(1356 KB)
