Doctoral thesis in Business administration: Online shopping well-being as a consequence of shopping value, trust and impulse buying: A duality approach

i

ABSTRACT

How shopping contributes to shoppers’ quality of life has attracted much attention

from researchers that results in the formation of the shopping well-being concept. In studying

consumers’ shopping well-being, several factors, contexts, and theoretical frameworks are

taken into consideration. Given that, there are some significant gaps in this research topic

that need to be fulfilled. Specifically, although shopping values are the key factors

influencing consumers’ attitude and behavior, how they impact trust attitude and impulse

buying behavior in the online shopping context has not been clear. Besides, while online

shopping well-being has rarely been explained by the dual processes from shopping value,

trust and impulse buying. In addition, moderating effects of extraversion and self-control

traits and differences across the online versus the offline shopping contexts are unexplored.

In addressing these limitations, by adopting the duality approach, this research examines

cognitive and affective associations between shopping values, trust and impulse buying that,

in turn, determine consumers’ shopping well-being. In addition, the study also aims to test

the moderating role of extraversion and self-control trait. Further, the study also compares

the studied relationships across the online and offline shopping contexts.

Two studies have been conducted in Ho Chi Minh City – Vietnam by surveying 648

online consumers (study 1) and 529 online and offline consumers (study 2). The datasets

were used to validate the measures by employing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and

test the proposed relationships among studied constructs by using Structural Equation

Modeling (SEM). The research results validated the dual associations between shopping

values and trust, and between shopping values and impulse buying. Besides, the findings

showed that shopping well-being is determined affectively by trust in the online shopping

ii

context and positively predicted by both cognitive and affective impulse buying. This helps

to prove the positive consequence of impulse buying. In addition, moderating effects of

extraversion and self-control traits were validated. Finally, similarities and differences

between the online and the offline shopping contexts, in term of the studied associations,

were clearly found.

This study contributes to the literature by applying a duality approach to confirm the

significant role of shopping values in determining trust and impulse buying that, in turn,

positively predict shopping well-being. As a result, this study provides a deeper

understanding about if and why online shopping well-being is more affect-based. This

research also introduces an appropriate theoretical framework for studying impulse buying

- the duality approach and validates the positive consequence of this shopping motive. In

addition, the validated moderating role of extraversion and self-control contribute to a better

understanding of consumers’ personalities. Further, the findings provide a clearer picture

illustrating similarities and differences across the two shopping contexts. Thus, several

significant implications can be contributed to academics and practitioners.

iii

TÓM TẮT

Việc mua sắm đóng góp như thế nào vào chất lượng cuộc sống của người tiêu dùng

như thế nào là chủ đề nghiên cứu đã thu hút sự quan tâm từ các nhà nghiên cứu. Theo đó,

khái niệm hạnh phúc trong mua sắm được hình thành và các nhà nghiên cứu đã xem xét

nhiều yếu tố, bối cảnh và khuôn khổ lý thuyết để tìm hiểu về hạnh phúc trong mua sắm. Dù

vậy, trong nền tảng lý thuyết hiện thời, có một số lỗ hổng đáng kể trong chủ đề nghiên cứu

này cần được hoàn thiện. Cụ thể, mặc dù giá trị mua sắm là yếu tố chính ảnh hưởng đến thái

độ và hành vi của người tiêu dùng, nhưng chúng tác động như thế nào đến lòng tin và hành

vi mua sắm tùy hứng trong bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến vẫn chưa được rõ ràng. Bên cạnh

đó, mặc dù hạnh phúc trong mua sắm trực tuyến hiếm khi được giải thích bằng quy trình kép

từ giá trị mua sắm, sự tin tưởng và mua sắm tùy hứng. Ngoài ra, tác động điều tiết của các

đặc điểm hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát, cũng như sự khác biệt giữa bối cảnh mua sắm trực

tuyến so với mua tại cửa hàng vẫn chưa được khám phá. Để khắc phục những hạn chế này,

bằng cách áp dụng cách tiếp cận kép, nghiên cứu này xem xét các mối liên hệ về nhận thức

và cảm xúc giữa các giá trị mua sắm, lòng tin và mua sắm tùy hứng, từ đó xác định hạnh

phúc trong mua sắm của người tiêu dùng. Ngoài ra, nghiên cứu cũng nhằm kiểm tra vai trò

điều tiết của tính hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát. Hơn nữa, nghiên cứu cũng so sánh các mối

quan hệ trên trong bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến và mua tại cửa hàng.

Hai nghiên cứu đã được thực hiện tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh - Việt Nam bằng cách

khảo sát 648 người tiêu dùng trực tuyến (nghiên cứu 1) và 529 người tiêu dùng trực tuyến

và ngoại tuyến (nghiên cứu 2). Các bộ dữ liệu được sử dụng để đánh giá các thang đo bằng

phương pháp phân tích nhân tố khẳng định (CFA) và kiểm tra các mối quan hệ được đề xuất

trong các mô hình nghiên cứu bằng cách sử dụng mô hình cấu trúc tuyến tính (SEM). Kết

quả nghiên cứu đã xác nhận mối liên hệ kép giữa giá trị mua sắm và lòng tin, cũng như giữa

iv

giá trị mua sắm và hành vi mua sắm tùy hứng. Bên cạnh đó, các kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy

rằng hạnh phúc trong mua sắm chịu ảnh hưởng tích cực bởi lòng tin cảm xúc trong bối cảnh

mua sắm trực tuyến và đồng biến với cả mua sắm tùy hứng theo nhận thức và mua sắm tùy

hứng theo cảm xúc. Điều này giúp chứng minh hệ quả tích cực của việc mua sắm tùy hứng.

Ngoài ra, tác động điều tiết của các đặc điểm hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát đã được xác nhận.

Cuối cùng, những điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến và mua

tại cửa hàng đối với các mối quan hệ được đề xuất cũng đã được làm rõ.

Nghiên cứu này đóng góp vào cơ sở lý thuyết thông qua việc vận dụng cách tiếp cận

kép để xác nhận vai trò quan trọng của giá trị mua sắm trong việc xây dựng lòng tin và thúc

đẩy mua sắm tùy hứng và, từ đó, tác động tích cực đến hạnh phúc trong mua sắm. Theo đó,

nghiên cứu này cung cấp một sự hiểu biết sâu sắc hơn về việc nếu và tại sao hạnh phúc trong

mua sắm trực tuyến thiên về mặt cảm xúc nhiều hơn là nhận thức. Nghiên cứu này cũng giới

thiệu một khung lý thuyết thích hợp để nghiên cứu hành vi mua sắm tùy hứng - cách tiếp

cận kép và xác nhận hệ quả tích cực của mua sắm tùy hứng. Ngoài ra, vai trò điều tiết của

tính hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát góp phần giúp hiểu rõ hơn về vai trò của tính cách của

người tiêu dùng. Hơn nữa, những kết quả của nghiên cứu đã cung cấp một bức tranh rõ ràng

hơn minh họa những điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa hai bối cảnh mua sắm. Dựa trên các

kết quả nghiên cứu, một số hàm ý về cả phương diện lý thuyết và thực tiễn đã được đúc kết.

v

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION

I certify that any content in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree at this

or any other institutions.

I also certify that the thesis is prepared by me. Any help that I have received in my research

has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all sources and literature used are

adequately indicated in the reference.

Hồ Trọng Nghĩa

Publications of the research:

1. Nghia, H.T., & Trang, N.T.M. (2019). The impact of shopping values on impulse buying:

The duality approach. Proceedings of the International conference on Business and Finance

2019 - Accounting, Business and Management (ICBF2019), 74-89, ISBN: 978-604-922-764.

2. Nghia, H.T., Olsen, S.V., & Trang, N.T.M. (2020). Shopping value, trust, and online

shopping well-being: A duality approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(5), 545-

558. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2019-0411.

3. Nghia, H.T., Olsen, S.O., & Trang, N.T.M. (2021). A dual process on shopping well-being

across shopping contexts: the role of shopping values and impulse buying. Asia Pacific

Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.

https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2020-0668

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

While PhD is obviously an extremely challenging journey, getting the research

published in ISI journals seems to be an impossible mission, especially for young

researchers. The mission would not have been successfully completed without the supports

and contributions of several kind persons and organizations. First and foremost, I would like

to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Associate professor, Dr. Nguyen Thi Mai

Trang and Associate professor, Dr. Svein Ottar Olsen. They have played crucial role in

guiding and supporting me in refining and completing this research. In addition, I also deeply

appreciate Associate professor, Dr. Nguyen Dinh Tho who is the PhD.ISB coordinator and

Associate professor, Dr. Tran Ha Minh Quan who is the dean of the International School of

Business (ISB), University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH). All the discussions with

them are so encouraging that increases my motivation in doing research.

I would like to thank my ex-colleagues in the School of Management (SOM),

especially Dr. Diep Nguyen, Associate professor, Dr. Bui Thi Thanh and Dr. Cao Quoc Viet,

who have great interests in doing research. In addition, I also would like to give my special

thanks to Board of Dean of ISB and all the colleagues in Faculty team of ISB for their

willingness to cover my daily works every when I need to concentrate in doing the research.

I would like to show my gratitude to UEH, ISB and SOM for all the kind supports I

have received to overcome several obstacles of a PhD student life.

Finally, all my family members significantly contribute to the success of my research

by taking the responsibilities that should be mine and providing great motivations to finish

the PhD journey.

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Overall conceptual model .................................................................................. 31

Figure 2.2: Research models of study 1 and study 2 ........................................................... 31

Figure 3.1: Research model of study 1 ................................................................................ 39

Figure 4.1: Research model of study 2 ................................................................................ 59

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items ............................................................ 45

Table 3.2. Correlations (r) between constructs and their Average variance extracted (AVE)

............................................................................................................................. 46

Table 3.3. Structural paths ................................................................................................... 47

Table 4.1. Participant profile ............................................................................................... 64

Table 4.2. Survey items, respective constructs, and relevant references ............................. 65

Table 4.3. Means, standard deviations, composite reliability, Pearson’s correlations and

validities. ............................................................................................................. 67

Table 4.4. Structural equation model results ....................................................................... 69

Table 4.5. Offline vs Online differences .............................................................................. 70

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 VAB : Value – Attitude - Behavior

 CFA : Confirmatory factor analysis

 SEM : Structural equation modeling

 B2C : Business to consumer

 HCMC : Ho Chi Minh City

 AMOS : Analysis of a moment structures

 CMIN : Chi-square value

 df : Degree of freedom

 CFI : Confirmatory Fit Index

 GFI : Goodness of Fit Index

 TLI : Tucker–Lewis index

 RMSEA : Root mean square error of approximation

 AVE : Average variance extracted

 CR : Critical ratio

 VND : Vietnam dong

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................... i

Tóm tắt .................................................................................................................................. iii

Statement of authentication ................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ vi

List of figures ....................................................................................................................... vii

List of tables ....................................................................................................................... viiii

List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................. ix

Table of contents .................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1. Research necessity ......................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. Research problems ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2. Research gaps .............................................................................................................. 5

1.1.2.1. The association between shopping values and trust, and between shopping values

and impulse buying via the dual processes remains unexamined ........................... 5

1.1.2.2. Shopping well-being has rarely been explained by the dual processes from

shopping value, trust and impulse buying ............................................................... 7

1.1.2.3. Moderating effects of extraversion and self-control trait and differences across

the online versus the offline shopping contexts are unexplored ............................ 10

1.2. Research objectives ..................................................................................................... 12

1.2.1. Research objectives of study 1 ................................................................................... 13

1.2.2. Research objectives of study 2 ................................................................................... 13

1.3. Overall research methods .......................................................................................... 13

xi

1.3.1. Research context ........................................................................................................ 13

1.3.2. Research methods ...................................................................................................... 14

1.4.Research contributions ................................................................................................ 15

1.4.1. Theoretical contributions .......................................................................................... 15

1.4.2. Practical contributions .............................................................................................. 16

1.5.Thesis structure ............................................................................................................ 17

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL ........................ 19

2.1. Research constructs and theoretical background .................................................... 19

2.1.1. Shopping well-being.................................................................................................. 19

2.1.2. Shopping value .......................................................................................................... 20

2.1.3. Consumer trust .......................................................................................................... 22

2.1.4. Impulse buying .......................................................................................................... 25

2.1.5. Extraversion and Self-control .................................................................................. 27

2.1.6. Duality approach ....................................................................................................... 29

2.2. Overall research model ............................................................................................. 30

CHAPTER 3 – STUDY 1: SHOPPING VALUE, TRUST AND ONLINE SHOPPING

WELL-BEING: A DUALITY APPROACH ................................................................... 32

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 32

3.2. Background and Literature review ........................................................................... 35

3.2.1. The positive consequence of online shopping: Online shopping well-

being .................................................................................................................................... 35

3.2.2. Dual shopping values: Utilitarian and hedonic value ............................................. 36

xii

3.2.3. The dual perspective of trust: Cognitive and affective trust .................................... 37

3.2.4. Moderator: Extraversion .......................................................................................... 38

3.3. Model Development and Research Hypotheses ....................................................... 39

3.3.1. Conceptual model ...................................................................................................... 39

3.3.2. Research hypotheses ................................................................................................. 39

3.4. Research methods ....................................................................................................... 42

3.4.1. Research context ....................................................................................................... 42

3.4.2. Procedure and sample ............................................................................................... 43

3.4.3. Measurement ............................................................................................................. 43

3.5. Data Analysis and Results .......................................................................................... 44

3.5.1. Measurement validation ........................................................................................... 44

3.5.2. Common method bias ............................................................................................... 46

3.5.3. Hypotheses testing ..................................................................................................... 47

3.5.4. Discussion and Implications..................................................................................... 48

3.5.4.1. Implications for theory............................................................................................ 49

3.5.4.2. Implications for practice ......................................................................................... 50

3.6. Limitations and Future directions............................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 4 – STUDY 2: A DUAL-PROCESS ON SHOPPING WELL-BEING

ACROSS SHOPPING CONTEXTS: THE ROLE OF SHOPPING VALUES AND

IMPULSE BUYING .......................................................................................................... 53

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 53

4.2. Literature review ........................................................................................................ 55

4.2.1. The duality approach ................................................................................................ 55

xiii

4.2.2. Subjective and shopping well-being ......................................................................... 56

4.2.3. Impulse buying .......................................................................................................... 57

4.2.4. Shopping values ........................................................................................................ 58

4.2.5. Self-control ................................................................................................................ 58

4.3. Research model and hypotheses development ......................................................... 59

4.4. Research methods ....................................................................................................... 63

4.4.1. Research context and sample ................................................................................... 63

4.4.2. Sample characteristics .............................................................................................. 64

4.4.3. Measurement ............................................................................................................. 65

4.5. Data analysis and results ............................................................................................ 66

4.5.1. Measurement validation ........................................................................................... 66

4.5.2. Common method bias ............................................................................................... 67

4.5.3. Hypotheses testing ..................................................................................................... 68

4.6. Discussion and Implications ....................................................................................... 70

4.6.1. Theoretical implications ........................................................................................... 71

4.6.2. Implications for practice ........................................................................................... 73

4.7. Conclusion, limitations and future research directions ............................................. 74

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 75

5.1. Research results and discussion ................................................................................. 75

5.2. Implications ................................................................................................................. 78

5.2.1. Implications for theory ............................................................................................. 78

5.2.2. Implications for practice ........................................................................................... 80

5.3. Limitations and future research directions .............................................................. 82

xiv

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 84

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 103

Appendix 3A – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in English) ...................................... 103

Appendix 3B – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in Vietnamese) ............................... 105

Appendix 3C – Sample characteristics of study 1 ......................................................... 107

Appendix 3D – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 1 .................. 108

Appendix 4A – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in English)

........................................................................................................................................... 110

Appendix 4B – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in English)

........................................................................................................................................... 112

Appendix 4C– Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in

Vietnamese) ...................................................................................................................... 114

Appendix 4D – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in

Vietnamese) ...................................................................................................................... 116

Appendix 4E – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 2 .................. 118

1

1

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1.Research necessity

1.1.1. Research problems

The research topic of subjective well-being has generated great interest among

consumer researchers and has been investigated across several disciplines such as marketing

or psychology in terms of anti- or over-consumption and at the micro or macro level (e.g.,

Lee & Ahn, 2016). Studying shoppers’ subjective well-being based on their shopping

activities has recently emerged as an area of interest (e.g., Ekici, Sirgy, Lee, Grace, &

Bosnjak, 2018), where shopping is considered as a “necessary and an inevitable activity” of

human life (Ekici et al., 2018, p. 335). Its positive contribution has been widely

acknowledged, as shopping results in, for example, pleasure and arousal (Liao, To, Wong,

Palvia, & Kakhki, 2016) or satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016). These positive

consequences contribute significantly to shoppers’ overall quality of life, which is best

represented by the concept of shopping well-being (Ekici et al., 2018).

Note that a duality approach considering two different mental systems – cognition and

affect – has been widely applied in consumer research (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Hofmann,

Friese, & Strack, 2009; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This dual-process perspective has

been used to investigate positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versus

utilitarian shopping motivation (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994), hedonic and utilitarian

dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss, Spangenberg, & Grohmann, 2003) and impulse and

self-control (Hofmann et al., 2009). The duality approach has also helped to explain how

hedonic and utilitarian shopping values influence online shopping preferences, attitudes,

intentions, engagement or behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008; Overby & Lee, 2006). Thus, this

2

approach has strong potential to explain shopping well-being. The literature has indicated

that shopping activities are both work and fun (Babin et al., 1994) or hedonic and utilitarian

(Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In other words, consumers are driven by both utilitarian and

hedonic shopping values and, thus, shopping decisions are made based not only on rational

deliberations for maximizing cost-benefit efficiency or product utility, but also on emotional

benefits like playfulness or pleasure. These cognitive and affective benefits of shopping

significantly contribute to consumers’ shopping well-being (El Hedhli, Zourrig, & Chebat,

2016).

The literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherent risks

(Ariffin, Mohan, & Goh, 2018; Kim & Koo, 2016) signifying the critical role of trust. There

is no universally accepted definition for online trust in existing studies while it is considered

to be multi-faceted and incorporates different dimensions across different research

disciplines (e.g., Punyatoya, 2019). Given that, a lack of trust is consistently reported as one

of the biggest barriers to online purchasing (e.g., Beldad, De Jong, & Steehouder, 2010).

Thus, trust is one of the significant factors facilitating consumers’ participation and

positively determining their satisfaction in online shopping. In fact, almost all previous

studies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influences online attitudes,

satisfaction, intention and behavioural loyalty indicators (Kim & Peterson, 2017).

Besides, impulse buying, considered as unplanned and sudden purchasing behavior

that is strongly promoted by pleasure or excitement (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001), is a

popular shopping motive in online environment (e.g., Wu, Chen, & Chiu, 2016; Akram, Hui,

Khan, Hashim, & Saduzai, 2018). While consumers shop because of shopping values (e.g.,

Babin et al., 1994), these benefits can drive consumers to buy impulsively. For instance,

3

hedonic value has been widely agreed to be a positive determinant of impulse buying (Yu &

Bastin, 2010).

In addition, the impact of this spontaneous shopping motive on consumers remains

controversial while it can be either positive or negative. Specifically, Xiao and Nicholson

(2013) consider impulse buying as a beneficial way of shopping, whereas impulse buying

may lead to “financial problems, post-purchase dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem”

(Boonchoo & Thoumrungroje, 2017, p. 5). It can be inferred that impulse buying can impact

shopping well-being either positively or negatively. Thus, in the online shopping context,

impulse buying’s consequence can be explained by examining its’ association with shopping

well-being. Therefore, in the online shopping context, trust and impulse buying are

potentially mediating factors of the association between shopping value and online shopping

well-being.

As previously noted, online shopping well-being may be significantly determined by

shopping values via mediation of trust and impulse buying. In the extant literature, trust is

mainly considered as a determinant of shopping values (e.g., Chai, Malhotra, & Alpert,

2015), which has led to a lack of studies examining the predicting role of shopping values

for trust. Existing research has noted that treating different facets of values as antecedents of

trust is a possibility (see Kim & Peterson, 2017 for a recent review). Different theoretical

perspectives and theories are also used in different research disciplines such as philosophy,

psychology, management, or marketing to study shopping values and trust (Beldad et al.,

2010; Punyatoya, 2019). For example, Chiu, Wang, Fang, and Huang (2014) use a mean-

end chain theory (Gutman, 1997) and argue that utilitarian and hedonic values are the final

goals that trigger online intention and behaviour. Other studies (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Al-

Debei, Akroush, & Ashouri, 2015) use a value–attitude–behaviour (VAB) framework

4

(Homer & Kahle, 1988) positing that online shopping values flow through attitudes that

influence behaviour. Following this approach, this study argues that trust is a mediator

between shopping values and online shopping well-being. Further, existing studies have

validated the predicting role of hedonic shopping value to impulse buying (e.g., Yu & Bastin,

2010).

The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated in

consumer research (e.g., Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam,

Rahman, & Hollebeek, 2017). For instance, the Big Five traits significantly determine an

individual’s impulse buying tendency (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). In another research,

extraversion, conscientiousness and neuroticism significantly predict impulse buying

tendency while the influences of agreeableness and openness to experience are not

significant (Olsen, Tudoran, Honkanen, & Verplanken, 2016). However, firstly, the

moderating role of personality traits on shopping values in an online shopping context has

rarely been performed existing studies. To the best of our knowledge, the study of Chen and

Lee (2008) is the only research finding that agreeableness and conscientiousness were more

favourable for eliciting utilitarian shopping, whereas consumers with higher levels of

emotional stability, openness and extraversion were more critical in facilitating hedonic

shopping values.

Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is the most important trait

predicting online consumer engagement (Ul Islam et al., 2017) while self-control is of the

key factors driving consumers’ buying behaviors (Yim, 2017) and, thus, it can better explain

impulse buying (Lucas & Koff, 2017). Further, while impulse buying has been intensively

investigated in the offline context, “the online shopping environment is now more conducive

to impulse-buying behavior” (Chan, Cheung, & Lee, 2017, p. 204). In fact, there have been

5

many impulse buying studies taking the online shopping context into consideration. Given

that, existing studies only adopt either the offline (e.g., Sohn & Lee, 2017) or the online

environment (e.g., Lim, Lee, & Kim, 2017) to study this buying motive. This leads to the

lack of studies specifically figuring out the differences of impulse buying between the offline

and the online shopping context.

1.1.2. Research gaps

1.1.2.1. The association between shopping values and trust, and between shopping values

and impulse buying via the dual processes remains unexamined.

In the extant literature, the associations between shopping values and trust have been

inconclusive and require further evaluation (Beldad et al., 2010). In existing studies, trust is

mainly considered as a determinant of shopping values (e.g. Chai et al., 2015), which has

led to a lack of studies examining the predicting role of shopping values for trust. The

research has noted that treating different facets of values as antecedents of trust is a

possibility (see Kim & Peterson, 2017 for a recent review).

On the other hand, the intensive literature on impulse buying has shown that this

buying motive is mainly affect-based (e.g. Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982). Specifically, the

authors consider impulse buying as thoughtless action and argue that such buying motive is

affected by strong emotions. While hedonic value focuses on emotional gain (Babin &

Babin, 2001) from buying or consuming a product, consider impulse buying as an outcome

of hedonic value is a popular approach used in impulse buying studies. For instance, Yu and

Bastin (2010) validate the predicting role of hedonic value to impulse buying. Similarly,

hedonic value is widely proposed to be closely associated with impulse buying behavior of

consumers (Verplanken & Sato, 2011; Chen & Wang, 2016). Recently, while online retailing

6

experiences its prominent proliferation and impulse buying research has changed its

orientation to this emerging channel, few researchers start to adopt such approach for

studying in online shopping context (Chen & Wang, 2016).

Given that, impulse buying is also determined cognitively while “cognitive

deliberation plays a part in the impulse buyers’ decision” (Coley & Burgess, 2003, p. 284).

The authors propose that impulse buying has two components including affective and

cognitive in which cognitive components are cognitive deliberation, unplanned buying and

disregard for the future. In another foundational impulse buying study, Weinberg and

Gottwald (1982) identify three determinants of impulse buying process including reactive,

affective and cognitive component. The cognitive process of impulse buying is also implied

by Rook and Fisher (1995) when they believe that the tendency to make impulsive purchase

is driven by consumers’ past experiences. In another research, Burroughs (1996) argues that

impulse buying decision is more cognitively affected by consumers’ information analyzing

process than previously reported by scholars. Similarly, Chen, Su, and Widjaja (2016) posit

that “although the literature might seem to indicate that impulse buying implies lack of

rationality or alternative evaluation, this is not necessarily true” (p. 60). It is believed that

impulse buying does involve logical decision (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010) and is a

result of cognitive deliberation process (Rook & Fisher, 1995; McNeal, 1973). Impulse

buying is also considered as consequence of information processing (Xiao & Nicholson,

2013; Verhagen & Van Dolen, 2011; Shen & Khalifa, 2012).

In fact, most of existing studies show that the impulse buying is negatively determined

in the cognitive process. For instance, in the context of shopping online, Lee and Lee (2003)

have found that consumers’ buying impulsiveness is negatively affected by utilitarian

browsing. However, the impact of shopping value on impulse buying via the cognitive

7

process is potentially positive, especially in the online shopping context. This emerging

shopping channel is considered as efficient environment for consumers to go shopping due

to various functional benefits such as convenience or time saving (Wolfinbarger & Gilly,

2000; Monsuwé et al., 2004; Kim & Eastin, 2011). As such, Overby and Lee (2006) indicate

that utilitarian value is more strongly related to preference towards a retailer and intentions

to make a purchase online. Besides, consumers inherently rely on cognitive consideration to

analyze the product information before making any purchase (Peter & Olson, 2010). Further,

available information posted in retailing website results in online consumers’ cognitive

judgments (Parboteeah, Valacich, & Wells, 2009) that are important to impulse buying

process (Weinberg & Gottwald, 1982). Note that shopping can meet not only hedonic but

also utilitarian demand of shoppers (Babin et al., 1994). Thus, in the cognitive process of the

duality approach, impulse buying can be positively predicted by shopping value.

Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, existing studies have rarely examined this

positive contribution of shopping value, especially in online shopping.

1.1.2.2. Shopping well-being has rarely been explained by the dual processes from

shopping value, trust and impulse buying.

In existing studies, shopping well-being has been primarily studied by adopting the

bottom-up spillover hierarchy of life satisfaction. For instance, Lee, Sirgy, Gurel-atay, and

Bahn (2014) utilize the bottom-up spillover process to investigate the impact of shopping on

consumers’ life. Similarly, this approach has also been adopted in the research of Ekici et al.

(2018) in which the influence of shopping on shoppers’ overall sense of well-being has been

classified into positive and negative. Besides, existing studies have also identified several

factors determining shopping well-being of consumers including external factors (e.g., store

8

layout or stock-outs), social or cultural attitudes, values, personality or self-related factors

(El Hedhli, Chebat, & Sirgy, 2013; Lee & Sirgy, 2004). Situation factors (retailers’ activity),

personal factors (i.e. attitudes or needs), social and cultural factors have also been the

significant predictors of shopping well-being (Lee et al., 2014). For instance, El Hedhli et

al. (2013) validate the significant impacts of mall’s functionality, convenience, safety,

leisure, atmospherics, and self-identification on shopping well-being.

Note that shopping activities are both work and fun (Babin et al., 1994) or hedonic and

utilitarian (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In other words, consumers are driven by both

utilitarian and hedonic shopping values and, thus, shopping decisions are made based not

only on rational deliberations for maximizing cost-benefit efficiency or product utility, but

also on emotional benefits like playfulness or pleasure. These cognitive and affective

benefits of shopping significantly contribute to consumers’ shopping well-being (El Hedhli,

2016). It can be inferred that online consumers’ shopping well-being can be explained by

cognitive and affective process that is the core logic of the duality approach. This approach

considering two different mental systems – cognition and affect – has been widely applied

in consumer research (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Hofmann et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1988).

Specifically, this dual-process perspective has been used to investigate positive and negative

affect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versus utilitarian shopping motivation (Babin et al.,

1994), hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss et al., 2003) and

impulse and self-control (Hofmann et al., 2009). The duality approach has also helped to

explain how hedonic and utilitarian shopping values influence online shopping preferences,

attitudes, intentions, engagement or behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008; Overby & Lee, 2006).

Given that, this approach has rarely been adopted in studying online shopping well-being,

especially as an outcome of shopping value in the online shopping context. To the best of

9

our knowledge, the associations between shopping value and shopping well-being have been

only examined in the context of mall shopping (e.g. El Hedli, 2016).

Besides, the literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherent

risks (Ariffin et al., 2018; Kim & Koo, 2016) signifying the critical role of trust. A lack of

trust is consistently reported as one of the biggest barriers to online purchasing (e.g., Beldad

et al., 2010). Thus, trust is one of the significant factors facilitating consumers’ participation

and positively determining their satisfaction in online shopping. In fact, almost all previous

studies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influences online attitudes,

satisfaction, intention and behavioural loyalty indicators (Kim & Peterson, 2017). Therefore,

trust potentially helps to enhance the extent to which online shopping positively contributes

to consumers’ overall quality of life. In addition, while online shopping well-being can be

explained by the duality approach, trust also comprises cognitive and affective components

(Ha et al., 2016). Thus, the dual associations between trust and online shopping well-being

are highly potential. Unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of studies

examining the predicting role of trust to shopping well-being in the online shopping context

via cognitive and affective process.

In addition, as previously noted, impulse buying is considered as one of the popular

shopping motives of consumers (Akram et al., 2018) that has been widely investigated in

consumer behavior literature. However, the impact of impulse buying on consumers remains

controversial while it can be either positive or negative. Specifically, impulsive consumers

may experience negative consequences such as financial risk, guilty, and shameful feelings

(Chen & Wang, 2016). Consumers may regret for the products that are impulsively

purchased (Xiao & Nicholson, 2013). Similarly, Boonchoo and Thoumrungroje (2017, p. 5)

argue that the consumers who buy impulsively may suffer “financial problems, post-

10

purchase dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem”. In addition, impulse buying may result in

compulsive buying that is considered as harmful behavior (Pradhan, Israel, & Jena, 2018).

In contrast, impulse buying is considered as a beneficial way of shopping and characterized

by affect-based (e.g., Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan et al., 2017). For instance, making

impulsive purchases provides self-indulgent, good and satisfied feeling to shoppers (Xiao &

Nicholson, 2013). Similarly, impulse buying provides novelty and surprise experience that

make consumers satisfied rather than regretted (Gardner & Rook, 1988). Besides, George

and Yaoyuneyong (2010) shows that consumers who are high in impulse buying tendency

experience less cognitive dissonance phase due to more arousal or pleasure. In addition,

Rook and Fisher (1995) interestingly indicate that there are only 20 percent of their

participants report negative evaluation for their impulse purchases. Consequently, it can be

inferred that the consequence of impulse buying remains unclear in the extant literature. In

addition, in the extent literature, to the best of our knowledge, impulse buying has rarely

been considered as an antecedent of shopping well-being. Therefore, the dual associations

between impulse buying and shopping well-being need further investigations, especially in

the online shopping context.

1.1.2.3. Moderating effects of extraversion and self-control trait and differences across

the online versus the offline shopping contexts are unexplored

The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated in

consumer research (e.g., Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam et al., 2017).

For instance, the Big Five traits significantly determine an individual’s impulse buying

tendency (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). In another research, extraversion,

conscientiousness and neuroticism significantly predict impulse buying tendency while the

11

influences of agreeableness and openness to experience are not significant (Olsen et al.,

2016). Similarly, self-control has been found to be a determinant of impulse buying (e.g.,

Baumeister, 2002; Lo et al., 2016). Unfortunately, the moderating role of personality traits

on shopping values in an online shopping context has rarely been performed existing studies.

To the best of our knowledge, the study of Chen and Lee (2008) is the only research finding

that agreeableness and conscientiousness were more favourable for eliciting utilitarian

shopping, whereas consumers with higher levels of emotional stability, openness and

extraversion were more critical in facilitating hedonic shopping values. Similarly, although

self-control has been found to be a determinant of impulse buying (e.g., Baumeister, 2002;

Lo et al., 2016), to the best of our knowledge, little is known about its moderating role in

impulse buying studies. Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is a

significant factor driving consumer attitude and behavior (e.g., Chen & Lee, 2008; Ul Islam

et al., 2017) while self-control is of the key factors driving consumers’ buying behaviors

(Yim, 2017) and, thus, it can better explain impulse buying (Lucas & Koff, 2017).

On one hand, extraverted consumers are recreational shoppers who are more interested

in hedonic values such as entertainment or enjoyment (Huang & Yang, 2010). Being

emotion-driven, they perceive online shopping to be more emotionally beneficial.

Extraversion also enhances an individual’s willingness to engage in the online environment

(Mai & Olsen, 2015) and results in a positive attitude about online shopping (Huang & Yang,

2010). The extraversion trait can therefore leverage the extent to which hedonic value affects

consumers’ affective trust in e-tailers. Although risks are inherent in the online shopping

context (e.g., Kim & Koo, 2016), extroverts are risk-takers (Nicholson, Soane, Fenton-

O’Creevy, & Willman, 2005) who are less concerned with such threats. Thus, online

shoppers who are extroverts are more willing to be cognitively dependent on e-tailers. It can

12

be inferred that the trait of extraversion can also leverage the extent to which utilitarian value

affects online consumers’ cognitive trust.

On the other hand, the buyers who are low at self-control tend to buy inconsistently to

what have been initially planned. Further, impulse buying is considered as the consequence

of self-control failure (Lo et al., 2016). For instance, the discounted products become more

valuable to the shoppers because of the higher economic benefit (Vohs & Faber, 2007). Thus,

shoppers who are low on self-control are more likely to perceive expensive products

inexpensive. In contrast, strong self-control makes consumers more rational in making

purchase decisions leading to less impulsive buying. Therefore, the dual associations

between shopping values and impulse buying are subject to vary under the moderating effect

of consumers’ self-control.

In addition, note that while impulse buying has been intensively investigated in the

offline context, “the online shopping environment is now more conducive to impulse-buying

behavior” (Chan et al., 2017, p. 204). In fact, there have been many impulse buying studies

taking the online shopping context into consideration. Given that, existing studies only adopt

either the offline (e.g., Sohn & Lee, 2017) or the online environment (e.g., Lim et al., 2017)

to study this buying motive. This leads to the lack of studies specifically figuring out the

differences of impulse buying between the offline and the online shopping context.

1.2.Research objectives

The overall objective of this thesis was to examine the impact of shopping value, trust

and impulse buying on online shopping well-being based on the duality approach. In

addition, the thesis also aimed to examine moderating effects of consumer personality traits

13

in those associations. In so doing, this thesis conducted two main studies: study 1 and study

2.

1.2.1. Research objectives of study 1

Underlined by the duality approach, the study 1 mainly focused on the online shopping

context of Vietnam and aimed to:

 Examine the cognitive and affective associations between shopping values and trust;

Investigate the influences of cognitive and affective trust on online shopping well- 

being; and

 Examine the moderating role of extraversion on the dual relationships between

shopping values and trust.

1.2.2. Research objectives of study 2

The study 2 also adopted the duality approach and focused on both the online and

offline shopping context of Vietnam to:

Investigate the cognitive and affective processes from shopping values to impulse 

buying;

Investigate the impacts of cognitive and affective impulse buying on shopping well- 

being;

 Examine the moderating effect of self-control in the dual relationships between

shopping values and impulse buying; and

 Compare the studied associations in the offline to the online shopping context.

1.3.Overall research methods

1.3.1. Research context

14

This research mainly took the online shopping context of Vietnamese consumers into

consideration, whereas the offline shopping context was also adopted to achieve the research

objectives. Noted that the Vietnamese e-commerce market experienced significant growth,

reaching a high rate of over 32% in 2019, and this growth was estimated to remain high at

over 30% in 2020 (Vietnam E-business Index, 2020). In this context, “e-commerce has

become much more popular, and a frequent shopping channel of a large number of

customers, especially the 9X generation clients in Ho Chi Minh City” (Vietnam E-business

Index, 2020, p.9). Based on the E-Business Index report, Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) was

the leader among all provinces and cities of Vietnam in terms of the B2C component index

in 2019 (Vietnam E-business Index, 2020). This indicated that the consumers in HCMC are

familiar with online purchasing.

On the other hand, the characteristics of shoppers in Vietnam were described as “shop

often, buy little” (McDonald, Darbyshire, & Jevons, 2000). Besides, the high level of

shopping frequency of Vietnamese shoppers was derived from “a genuine enjoy of

shopping” and “a lack of planning” (McDonald et al., 2000, p. 53). This somewhat reflected

the nature of the impulse buying behavior of Vietnamese consumers and proved to the

appropriateness of Vietnam context, represented by Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), in studying

impulse buying behavior.

1.3.2. Research methods

This study adopted existing validated measures that were unidimensional for all

constructs. Specifically, the dual shopping values were measured by scales borrowed from

Voss et al. (2003): five items for utilitarian value and six items for hedonic value. Cognitive

and affective trust were measured by five items each, adopted from Dabholkar, van Dolen,

15

& de Ruyter (2009). Online shopping well-being was measured by three items adopted from

Ekici et al. (2018). Extraversion was measured by eight items, based on Benet-Martínez and

John (1998). Four items measuring cognitive impulse buying and another 4 items measuring

affective impulse buying were borrowed from the scale used by Verplanken and Herabadi

(2001). There were 5 items adopted from Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004) used to

measure self-control.

Convenience sampling and self-administered method were adopted to collect survey

data. To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, this thesis conducted two main studies.

The study 1 was to collect data from online consumers in Ho Chi Minh City (N = 648). This

data set were used to validate the measures of utilitarian value and hedonic value

(antecedents); cognitive trust, affective trust (mediators); extraversion (moderator); and,

online shopping well-being (outcome). On the other hand, the study 2 was to collect data

from 266 offline shoppers and 263 online consumers in Ho Chi Minh City (N = 529). This

data set were used to validate the measures of utilitarian value and hedonic value

(antecedents); cognitive impulse buying, affective impulse buying (mediators); self-control

(moderator); and, shopping well-being (outcome). In both study 1 and study 2, confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) was employed to validate the measures, whereas Structural Equation

Modelling was conducted to test the model and hypotheses.

1.4.Research contribution

1.4.1. Theoretical contributions

This thesis, firstly, contributed to the existing consumer literature by digging deeper

into the processes between shopping values, trust and impulse buying. Specifically, the dual

associations between shopping value and trust, and between shopping value and impulse

16

buying were validated. Therefore, this study is one of the first validating the appropriateness

of the duality approach in explaining consumer value – attitude relationship (Chen & Lee,

2008; Chiu et al., 2014; Overby & Lee, 2006) and in clarifying that impulse buying is not

only an affect-based but a cognition-based shopping behavior as well.

Secondly, this study revealed a significantly positive relationship between affective

trust and online shopping well-being. This strengthens the significance of the hedonic or

affective aspect, rather than the utilitarian or cognitive aspect, of shopping activity. As a

result, this study shed new light and contributes significantly to the extant literature on online

shopping well-being.

In addition, this study clarified the relationship between shopping and consumers’

subjective well-being by proving the positive impact of shopping to subjective well-being.

This is showed by the significant positive association between impulse buying and shopping

well-being via both cognitive and affective process. Note that the consequence of impulse

buying remains controversial in existing research (e.g. Xiao & Nicholson, 2013; Boonchoo

& Thoumrungroje, 2017). Therefore, the research findings also contributed to existing

literature by validating the positive consequence of impulse buying.

Finally, the moderating role of both extraversion and self-control were validated.

While moderating role of consumer traits was understudied, this study is one of the first

studies to validate the moderating effect of both extraversion and self-control to contributes

to the literature on personality traits. Besides, by comparing the offline to the online

shopping contexts, this research demonstrated key differences and similarities among the

associations among shopping value, impulse buying and shopping well-being.

1.4.2. Practical contributions

17

The findings of this study provided valuable insights for policy makers and

practitioners in the e-commerce industry. This study found that shopping values enhance

trust in the online shopping and impulse buying in both online and offline shopping contexts.

Thus, retailers should be aware of increasing both utilitarian and hedonic value to consumers

for successfully building trust and driving consumers to buy more impulsively.

Besides, the results identified that affective trust plays a significant role in online

consumers’ shopping well-being. Thus, e-retailing managers can enhance consumers’

perception of trust by showing their willingness to serve consumers. Besides, e-tailers might

also be encouraged to make use of online consumers’ extraversion because it can leverage

the dual impacts of shopping values on trust. On the other hand, how much impulsive

purchases are increased by shopping values is dependent on self-control trait of consumers

regardless of shopping contexts. Thus, online and offline retailers may need to develop

appropriate solutions to lessen the negative impact of consumers’ self-control in the

influence of shopping values on impulse buying.

1.5. Thesis structure

The first section of the thesis, Chapter 1 – Introduction, generally introduces the

research problems, existing gaps, research methods and overall research contributions.

In Chapter 2, theoretical background of the research is intensively reviewed and

discussed that help to develop the research model. Specifically, the overall research model

presents the proposed associations among shopping value, trust, impulse buying, online

shopping well-being, extraversion and self-control. The 2 sub-models that are separately

investigated in the Study1 and Study2 are also introduced at the end of Chapter 2.

18

The paper of the study 1 published in the Marketing Intelligence and Planning is

presented in the third section of the thesis (Chapter 3). Thus, the chapter 3 includes all the

key contents of a research publication.

Similarly, Chapter 4 presents the latest revision of the study 2 that is submitted for the

2nd reviewing round of the Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics.

In the final section of the thesis, key conclusions of the research are presented.

Specifically, the overall research findings are discussed that is followed by theoretical and

practical implications. At the end of this Chapter 5, some limitations and future research

directions are introduced.

19

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW AND OVERALL MODEL

2.1. Research constructs and theoretical background

2.1.1. Shopping well-being

Subjective well-being has been studied across several research approaches. From the

perspective of hedonism, subjective well-being reflects a situation in which an individual

evaluates all aspects of his or her life positively in a cognitive and/or affective manner

(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Thus, subjective well-being is considered the

individual’s satisfaction with life and is measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener

et al., 1985). However, Pavot and Diener (2008) argue that satisfaction with life solely

represents the cognitive aspect, while the affective aspect also contributes to subjective well-

being. Specifically, these authors identified three main components of subjective well-being,

including life satisfaction, the presence of positive affect or mood and the absence of

negative affect or mood. The extant literature has also introduced several constructs related

to well-being, including happiness and meaningfulness (Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker, &

Garbinsky, 2013), hedonic well-being (hedonia) and eudaimonic well-being (eudaimonia –

Disabato, Goodman, Kashdan, Short, & Jarden, 2016).

In a more specific approach to the individual’s shopping life, El Hedhli et al. (2013)

discuss the construct of shopping well-being, which reflects the contribution of shopping to

shoppers’ overall sense of well-being. Recently, the contribution of shopping has been

clearly classified into positive and negative, which are represented by shopping well-being

and shopping ill-being, respectively (Ekici et al., 2018). The authors define shopping well-

being as the degree to which shopping contributes positively to consumers’ quality of life,

whereas shopping ill-being refers to the negative effects of shopping activity. Although

20

shopping activity may result in different or even opposite outcomes (e.g., Ekici et al., 2018),

the positive consequences of shopping have been repeatedly echoed in the extant literature.

For instance, shopping contributes to pleasure and arousal (Liao et al., 2016), hedonic

enjoyment (Babin et al., 1994), satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) and flow (Bilgihan,

2016). Based on the approach of Ekici et al. (2018), this study considers online shopping

well-being as the positive contribution of online shopping to online shoppers’ quality of life.

Existing shopping well-being research has determined some key predictors, including

external factors (e.g., store layout or stock-outs), social or cultural attitudes, values,

personality or self-related factors (El Hedhli et al., 2013; Lee & Sirgy, 2004). For instance,

El Hedhli et al. (2013) validate the significant impacts of mall’s functionality, convenience,

safety, leisure, atmospherics, and, self-identification on shopping well-being. Among these

factors, shopping values serve as strong possible determinants of shopping well-being. El

Hedhli et al. (2016) provide strong evidence to support the significant influence of shopping

values on shopping well-being in the mall shopping context. Unfortunately, to the best of

our knowledge, this association has seldom been explored in the online shopping context.

This study therefore examines online shopping well-being as the consequence of dual

shopping values (utilitarian and hedonic) in the online shopping context.

2.1.2. Shopping value

Answering the question why people make purchases has attracted much attention from

researchers. While the utility of the purchases has been considered as the primary reason,

the experiential aspects of consumption contribute to a more thorough explanation of such

question. This facet, referred as hedonic consumption, relates to “the multi-sensory, fantasy

and emotive aspects of one’s experience with product” (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982, p.

21

92). In other words, consumers are not only motivated by the maximized utility but also by

their emotional desires. The literature has shown that people buy products because of several

consumption values (Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991). Specifically, the authors identify five

main values including functional value, emotional value, conditional value, social value and

epistemic value. These values reflect cognitive, affective, situational, social and novel

advantages of consumption respectively (Sheth et al., 1991).

In a more specific approach, consumption activities relate to two main types of value

including utilitarian and hedonic value (Babin et al., 1994). These two values are shopping’s

rewards that “maintain a basic underlying presence across consumption phenomena” (Babin

et al., 1994, p. 644). While utilitarian value represents for the “work” aspect, hedonic value

refers to the “fun” side of shopping. Specifically, utilitarian value serves as the cognitive

benefits of shopping resulted from “conscious pursuit of an intended consequence” (Babin

et al., 1994, p. 645). Consumers who target to the utilitarian value will pay much attention

to the shopping’s utility. On the other hand, hedonic value reflects “shopping's potential

entertainment and emotional worth” (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646). It can be inferred that,

during the shopping process, shoppers are not only driven by owning the products, but are

also aroused by emotional attractions (Chen & Wang, 2016). In other words, consumers go

shopping for both utilitarian and hedonic value. Thus, buyers’ perception and behaviors vary

dependent on the values they desire to gain from shopping process. This influential role of

shopping values can be explained by the Value – Attitude – Behavior (VAB) framework

(Homer & Kahle, 1988). In general, the model shows that people are driven by their values

to justify their attitudes and then, decide what they do based on such attitudes (Maio & Olson,

1994). It can be inferred that, in online shopping, different ultimate shopping goals lead to

different perception about making purchase online that, in turn, result in diverse buying

22

behaviors (Voss et al., 2003; Mai & Olsen, 2015). As such, online consumers’ trusting

attitude and impulse buying behavior can be significantly explained by their shopping

values.

The significance of these shopping values has been highlighted in several recent

studies (e.g., Giovanis & Athanasopoulou, 2017; Sarkar, Sarkar, Sreejesh, & Anusree, 2018;

Varshneya, Das, & Khare, 2017). These are the main dual processes used in several studies

(e.g., Kesari & Atulkar, 2016). In addition, the extant literature has shown that hedonic

versus utilitarian shopping values, identified by the duality approach, are used to explain

both offline (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) and online (Chiu et al., 2014) shopping motivations

and behaviour. For example, Batra and Ahtola (1991, p. 159) argue that “consumers

purchase goods and services and perform consumption behaviours for two basic reasons: (1)

consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification (from sensory attributes), and (2)

instrumental, utilitarian reasons concerned with expectations of consequences”. Thus, in the

online shopping context, this study considers utilitarian and hedonic shopping values as

cognitive and affective benefits of online shopping.

2.1.3. Consumer trust

Trust is believed to be one of the most important factors in marketing (Morgan & Hunt,

1994; Walsh & Mitchell, 2010) that reflects the dependences among parties in a relationship.

In other words, trust serves as the willingness of a person to be vulnerable due to the actions

of others, irrespective of the ability to monitor and control the latter (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995). It can be inferred that trust is people’s behavioral reliance on others on a

condition of risk (Curral & Judge, 1995). The extant literature shows that trust is a multi-

faceted attitude construct (e.g., Beldad et al., 2010; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985) in

23

which two distinctive forms: cognition-based and affect-based trust have been widely agreed

among researchers (McAllister, 1995; Morrow, Hansen, & Pearson, 2004). These are

cognitive and affective component of trust (Ha, John, John, & Chung, 2016). On one hand,

trust is considered as the outcome of cognitive process in which individuals rely on their

rational appraisals to decide whether to trust a party or not (Hansen, Morrow, & Batista,

2002; Lewis & Weigert, 1985). This knowledge-driven trust (Johnson & Grayson, 2005) is

considered more objective because it is based on rational and methodological judgment on

a partner’s reliability (Hansen et al., 2002). On the other hand, affective component of trust

attitude refers to the emotional bond that is considered reciprocal to the cognitive trust

(Lewis & Weigert, 1985). Trust is formed not only based on cognitive appraisals of an

individual regarding another party but based on emotional bond in the relationship

(McAllister, 1995). Accordingly, the emotional investments help to reduce complexity and

uncertainty that result in more confident a party perceives about the other’s good will (Basso,

Goldberg, Greenspan, & Weimer, 2001). This affective trust is based on the trustors’ mood,

feelings or emotion when assessing the partner in the association (Hansen et al., 2002). Thus,

affective trust is emotion-driven and more subjective that does not rely on evidence or reason

for trusting the other. In other word, this trust type is not derived from rational consideration,

but from the extent to which an individual feels secured and comfortable about his/her

dependence on the trustee (Komiak & Benbasat, 2004; Karimov, Brengman, & Hove, 2011).

In shopping activity, consumers’ cognitive trust is typically defined as their rational

expectation about the retailers’ competence, reliability and predictability (Chopra &

Wallace, 2003; Johnson & Grayson, 2005). While the consumers cognitively assess the

ability of the retailer in fulfilling its obligations, they also expect the sellers to perform

consistent behaviors across situations that reflect their reliability. Thus, the cognitive trust

24

reflects consumers’ confidence that retailers are “honest, accurate, and dependable, and

keeps promises” (Dabholkar et al., 2009, p. 149) that is formed based on consumers’ rational

expectations (Punyatoya, 2019). On the other hand, Punyatoya (2019) also argues that trust

is also built on the basis of positive affect that reflects the emotional attachment between

buyers and providers. It is the emotion-driven component of trust that is based on the positive

feeling the consumers have experienced through purchasing transaction with the retailers

(Johnson & Grayson, 2005). For instance, affective trust is formed when consumers feel that

the retailers are willing to act beneficially to them (Chhetri, 2014).

In the online shopping context, consumers inherently face risks that are caused by the

uncertain behaviours of e-tailers and/or the uncertain environment (Kim & Koo, 2016). For

instance, risks related to payment, product, information, time and psychology can have a

negative impact on online shoppers’ purchase intention (Ariffin et al., 2018). Fortunately,

the literature shows that trust not only significantly reduces perceived risks (Kim & Koo,

2016), but also leverages online consumers’ purchase intention, satisfaction or loyalty (Kim

& Peterson, 2017). Thus, trust is critically important for online consumers that is considered

as an attitude (Beldad et al., 2010). Adopting the duality perspective in the online shopping

context, trust reflects the willingness of online consumers to be cognitively and affectively

dependent on e-tailers. Specifically, cognitive trust is formed based on online consumers’

rational evaluations of e-tailers, including the assessment of reputation (Mansour, Kooli, &

Utama, 2004). Affective trust is the online shoppers’ emotional base that increases their

positive perception about the e-tailers’ trustworthiness (McCole, Ramsey, & Williams,

2010). In this study, cognitive and affective trust are considered two separate components of

online consumers’ willingness to be dependent on e-tailers.

25

2.1.4. Impulse buying

Impulse buying, considered as a popular shopping motive (e.g., Akram et al., 2018),

has been referred to an unplanned buying behavior. Specifically, it refers to the situation that

consumers make purchase because of an immediate, powerful and persistent urge instead of

prepared purchasing plan (Rook, 1987). Thus, impulse buying is a reactionary behavior

when consumers confront with various stimulus (external and internal). Further, it is

considered as unreflective and sudden buying decision that is less relied on “a great deal of

evaluation” (Jones, Reynolds, Weun, & Beatty, 2003, p. 506). Given the variations in these

definitions, impulse buying is consistently characterized by intense feelings driving shoppers

to buy spontaneously. Therefore, impulse purchases are dominantly driven by emotions like

pleasure feeling or excitement. This affect-based characteristic of impulse buying is widely

agreed by scholars (e.g., Vohs & Faber, 2007; Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan, Yuan, &

Han, 2017) and is best reflected by the construct of affective impulse buying (Verplanken &

Herabadi, 2001).

Although impulse buying is mainly affect-based, “cognitive deliberation plays a part

in the impulse buyers’ decision” (Coley & Burgess, 2003, p. 284). The cognitive process of

impulse buying has been noted in the extant literature. For instance, impulse buying does

involve logical decision (Hawkins & Mothersbaugh, 2010) and is not free from individual’s

deliberation and cognitive process (Rook & Fisher, 1995; Shen & Khalifa, 2012). Similarly,

Xiao and Nicholson (2013) argue that impulse buying is the consequence of cognitively

information processing. Thus, impulse buying is also driven by shoppers’ cognition. This

cognitive aspect of impulse buying is best represented by the construct of cognitive impulse

buying that refers to the absence of deliberation, thinking, and planning (Verplanken &

Herabadi, 2001).

26

The extant literature has indicated that online channel serves as an efficient

environment for consumers to go shopping due to various functional benefits such as

convenience or time saving (Wolfinbarger & Gilly, 2000; Monsuwé, Dellaert & De Ruyter,

2004; Kim & Eastin, 2011). As such, Overby and Lee (2006) indicate that utilitarian value

is more strongly related to preference towards a retailer and intentions to make a purchase

online. Besides, consumers inherently rely on cognitive consideration to analyze the product

information before making any purchase (Peter & Olson, 2010). As such, available

information posted in retailing website results in online consumers’ cognitive judgments

(Parboteeah et al., 2009) that are important to impulse buying process (Weinberg &

Gottwald, 1982). This argument is strongly evidenced by a recent literature review analysis

of online impulse buying (Chan et al., 2017). By adopting the Stimulus – Organism –

Response framework, the authors indicate that cognitive and affective reactions are two

types of organism reflecting consumers’ internal evaluation under the impacts of stimulus.

While emotional responses after being exposed to the triggers are affective reactions such as

pleasure or enjoyment, cognitive reactions are identified as mentally assessments on the

constraints online consumers have to deal with to buy impulsively (Parboteeah et al., 2009;

Chan et al., 2017). Cognitive product involvement, cognitive state, normative evaluations,

perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are examples of cognitive reactions that can

both stimulate or deter impulsive buying decision (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991).

Chan et al. (2017) also prove the influence of cognitive reactions on the emotional

response theoretically and empirically. This relationship is underlined by the logic that

consumers first analyze the information provided by the retailing website and then their

affective appraisals are formed (Parboteeah et al., 2009). It is consistent with the findings of

some previous research (Chih, Wu, & Li, 2012; Verhagen & Van Dolen, 2011). On the other

27

hand, by analyzing the impulse buying definitions of existing studies, Chan et al. (2017)

figure out an approach in which the authors highlight the effects of cognitive reactions on

impulse buying. Consequently, it can be inferred that, to some extent, the deliberate

considerations are associated to impulse buying, especially in online shopping context.

Based on existing theoretical foundations, in the online shopping context, this study

considers impulse buying as the outcome of both cognitive and affective processes and takes

its’ two separate components, cognitive impulse buying and affective impulse buying, into

consideration. These two components of impulse buying are adopted in some studies (e.g.,

Coley & Burgess, 2003; Sohn & Lee, 2017). For instance, in the context of shopping at duty-

free shop, Sohn and Lee (2017) find that positive and negative emotions of tourists

significantly influence their cognitive and affective impulse buying.

2.1.5. Extraversion and Self-control

The literature on individual differences suggests that personality traits help to

determine a person’s cognitive, affective and behavioural style (Ul Islam et al., 2017).

Among personality traits, extraversion determines an individual’s interest in social

interactions (e.g., Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extroverts are characterized as

sociable, talkative, active and enthusiastic. In the shopping context, extraversion is a

prominent factor predicting consumers’ shopping attitude and behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008;

Ul Islam et al., 2017). For instance, Chen and Lee (2008) show that extraversion is highly

relevant in explaining consumers’ hedonic-seeking behaviour. Consumers who are

extroverts pay more attention to the excitement and stimulation of shopping activity.

Compared to other personality traits, extraversion has the strongest influence on consumer

28

engagement in the online brand community context (Ul Islam et al., 2017). Extraversion is

also positively related to online consumers’ attitude and shopping (Huang & Yang, 2010).

Extraverted consumers prefer to look for hedonic values (Chen & Lee, 2008),

positively evaluate online purchases (Huang & Yang, 2010) and willingly participate in an

online environment (Mai & Olsen, 2015). It can be inferred that, in the online shopping

context, shopping values and attitude potentially vary due to consumers’ extraversion.

Because it is a personality trait that is more stable in nature, extraversion is potentially a

significant moderator, as has been supported by Chen and Lee (2008). These authors found

that extraverted consumers were more critical in facilitating hedonic shopping values. This

study attempts to examine the moderating effects of extraversion on the cognitive and

affective associations between shopping values and trust in the online shopping context.

Besides, self-control is considered as a personality trait (Sela, Berger, & Kim, 2017)

that is defined as “conscious efforts to alter behavior, especially restraining impulses and

resisting temptations” (Baumeister, 2002, p. 129). This trait reflects the conscious process

in which an individual has complete power in controlling his/her desires. In other words,

self-control serves as an individual’s ability in adjusting his or her behavior. For instance,

because of this trait, a person can convert from what he/she “wants” to what he/she “should”

(Sela et al., 2017). Similarly, under the impact of self-control, the decision is less underlined

by personal desires or temporary interests. Instead, the chosen option is well-fitted to

external constraints and long-term orientations. As a result, self-control is considered as one

of key factors driving individual’s choices (Sela et al., 2017).

In shopping, self-control reflects the shoppers’ capacity of controlling their purchasing

behaviors that helps to keep their planned buying list unchanged (Yim, 2017). It can be

inferred that low self-control buyers tend to make purchases inconsistently to what have been

29

initially planned. In contrast, consumers having a high level of self-control manage their

purchases well. Thus, impulse buying is potentially driven by self-control trait of shoppers.

This trait has been studied in a few impulse buying studies (e.g., Baumeister, 2002; Lo et al.,

2016) in which its predicting role has been validated. However, to the best of our knowledge,

there is a lack of empirical evidence for its moderating effect in the current impulse buying

literature. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the moderating role of this trait in the

cognitive and affective linkages between shopping values and impulse buying.

2.1.6. Duality approach

The duality approach takes two different processes of human behavior into

consideration. There have been different views and, thus, different labels are assigned to

these two processes. Given that, the authors consistently agree that these two processes are

distinctive in terms of cognitive consciousness (Evans, 2008). Specifically, the first process

is considered as “unconscious, rapid, automatic, and high capacity” while the second is

characterized by “conscious, slow, and deliberative” (Evans, 2008, p. 256). Thus, the first

process reflects the cognitive aspect of human being while the second process refers to

individuals’ affective aspect. In other words, the duality approach takes both cognition and

affect mental system of individuals into consideration to explain their behavior.

This approach has been adopted in several studies across different research disciplines.

For instance, in a psychology view, Evans (2008) adopts it to explain individual’s thinking,

reasoning, decision-making and behavior. In the consumer behavior literature, the duality

approach has been utilized for studying positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988),

approach and avoidance (Elliot, 1999), trust in B2C exchanges (Johnson & Grayson, 2005),

consumer engagement (Dessart, Veloutsou, & Morgan-Thomas, 2016) or hedonic and

30

utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss et al., 2003). It has also been applied in

the context of online shopping to examine the impacts of utilitarian and hedonic elements on

shoppers (Bridges & Florsheim, 2008). Further, the duality approach is utilized to distinguish

between hedonic versus utilitarian shopping motivation (Babin et al., 1994). Among these

studies, it has been widely agreed that the cognitive and affective dimensions of the studied

constructs result in different impact on consumers. Therefore, the cognitive and affective

processes are considered as “two parallel relational processes” (Dabholkar et al., 2009, p.

146).

The extant literature has shown that shopping value, impulse buying and trust relate to

both affective and cognitive processes of consumers (e.g., Coley & Burgess, 2003; Chan et

al., 2017; Babin et al., 1994; Dabholkar et al., 2009). Therefore, the duality approach may

be an appropriate theoretical foundation in studying the associations among them.

Unfortunately, researchers rarely utilize this promising framework to study impulse buying,

whereas several theoretical foundations have been adopted (e.g., Xiao & Nicholson, 2013;

Chan et al., 2017). Thus, this study serves as the first examining both cognitive and affective

processes of shopping value, trust and impulse buying that potentially determine shopping

well-being.

2.2. Overall research model

This study adopted a duality approach to propose the associations among consumers’

shopping value, trust, impulse buying and shopping well-being. These associations were

investigated from both cognitive and affective process since they inherently co-exist and

underline consumers’ tendency (Kim & Eastin, 2011), attitude (Sparks & Browning, 2011),

or choice (Pai & Arnott, 2012). Specifically, both utilitarian and hedonic value determined

31

consumers’ cognitive and affective trust that, in turn, influenced their cognitive and affective

impulse buying. In addition, this study also considered shopping well-being as the

consequence of the dual trust and dual impulse buying. In addition, in the research model,

extraversion and self-control personality traits were also included that potentially moderated

the relationships among shopping value, trust and impulse buying (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Overall conceptual model

In order to meet the research objectives, the overall research model are divided into

several studies. Among them, there were two main studies including the study 1 and study 2

investigating the two sub-models presented in figure 2.2 below:

Figure 2.2: Research models of study 1 and study 2

32

CHAPTER 3 – STUDY 1: SHOPPING VALUE, TRUST AND ONLINE SHOPPING

WELL-BEING: A DUALITY APPROACH

3.1. Introduction

Subjective well-being has received much attention of consumer researchers in which

studying shoppers’ subjective well-being based on their shopping activities has recently

emerged as an area of great interest (e.g. Ekici et al., 2018). Shopping is considered as a

“necessary and an inevitable activity” of human life (Ekici et al., 2018, p. 335) and its

positive contribution has been widely acknowledged such as pleasure and arousal (Liao et

al., 2016) or satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016). These positive consequences contribute

significantly to shoppers’ overall quality of life, which is best represented by the concept of

shopping well-being (Ekici et al., 2018).

Note that the duality approach considering two different mental systems – cognition

and affect – has been widely applied in consumer research (e.g. Chen & Lee, 2008; Hofmann

et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1988). This approach has been used to investigate positive and

negative affect (Watson et al., 1988), hedonic versus utilitarian shopping motivation (Babin

et al., 1994), hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitudes (Voss et al., 2003)

and impulse buying and self-control (Hofmann et al., 2009). The approach has also helped

to explain how hedonic and utilitarian shopping values influence online shopping

preferences, attitudes, intentions, engagement or behaviour (Chen & Lee, 2008; Overby &

Lee, 2006). The literature has indicated that shopping activities are both work and fun (Babin

et al., 1994) or hedonic and utilitarian (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). In other words,

consumers are driven by both utilitarian and hedonic shopping values and, thus, shopping

decisions are made based not only on rational deliberations for maximizing cost-benefit

33

efficiency or product utility, but also on emotional benefits like playfulness or pleasure.

These cognitive and affective benefits of shopping significantly contribute to consumers’

shopping well-being (El Hedhli et al., 2016). However, to the best of our knowledge, the

duality approach has not been adopted to study shopping well-being as an outcome of

shopping value, especially in the online shopping context.

The literature has indicated that online shopping is characterized by inherent risks

(Ariffin et al., 2018; Kim & Koo, 2016), and lack of trust is one of the biggest barriers to

online purchasing (e.g. Beldad et al., 2010). It is also problematic that there is no universally

accepted definition for online trust, which is considered to be multi-faceted and incorporates

different dimensions across different research disciplines (e.g. Punyatoya, 2019). Further,

almost all previous studies of trust in e-commerce have focused on how trust influences

online attitudes, satisfaction, intention and behavioural loyalty indicators (Kim & Peterson,

2017). This study contributes to the existing literature on online shopping by studying the

impacts of dual trust (cognitive and affective) on online shopping well-being.

As previously noted, online shopping well-being may be significantly determined by

shopping values and trust. However, studies on the associations between shopping values

and trust have been inconclusive and require further evaluation (Beldad et al., 2010). In the

extant literature, trust is mainly considered as a determinant of shopping values (e.g. Chai et

al., 2015), which has led to a lack of studies examining the predicting role of shopping values

for trust. Existing research has noted that treating different facets of values as antecedents of

trust is a possibility (see Kim & Peterson, 2017 for a recent review). Different theoretical

perspectives are also used in different research disciplines such as philosophy, psychology,

management, or marketing to study shopping values and trust (Beldad et al., 2010;

Punyatoya, 2019). For example, Chiu et al. (2014) use a mean-end chain theory and argue

34

that utilitarian and hedonic values are the final goals that trigger online intention and

behaviour. Other studies (e.g. Chen & Lee, 2008; Al-Debei et al., 2015) use a value–attitude–

behaviour (VAB) framework positing that online shopping values flow through attitudes that

influence behaviour. Following this approach, this study argues that trust is a mediator

between shopping values and online shopping well-being.

The predictive role of the Big Five personality traits has been strongly validated in

consumer research (e.g. Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Ul Islam et al., 2017).

Besides, the moderating role of consumers’ personalities has been investigated in the offline

purchasing context (e.g. Menidjel, Benhabib, & Bilgihan, 2017). Unfortunately, to the best

of our knowledge, this role of consumer traits has seldom been examined in the online

shopping context, especially on the association between online shopping values and trust.

Note that among the Big Five personalities, extraversion is a significant factor explaining

online consumer beliefs toward hedonic value (e.g. Chen & Lee, 2008). Furthermore,

extraversion is the most important trait predicting consumer engagement in online brand

communities and determines online shopping intention (Ul Islam et al., 2017).

This study adopts the duality approach and focuses on the online shopping context

of an emerging economy – Vietnam – to: (1) examine the cognitive and affective associations

between shopping values and trust; (2) investigate the influences of cognitive and affective

trust on online shopping well-being; and (3) explore the moderating role of extraversion on

the dual relationships between shopping values and trust. Using Structural Equation

Modelling (SEM), this study validates the dual associations between shopping values and

trust that, in turn, positively predict online shopping well-being. The remainder of the paper

presents the theoretical background, hypotheses, research method, data analysis, and results

followed by discussions and implications.

35

3.2. Background and Literature Review

3.2.1. The positive consequence of online shopping: Online shopping well-being

Subjective well-being has been studied across several research approaches. From the

perspective of hedonism, subjective well-being reflects a situation in which an individual

evaluates all aspects of his or her life positively in a cognitive and/or affective manner

(Diener et al., 1985). Thus, subjective well-being is considered the individual’s satisfaction

with life and is measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985). However,

Pavot and Diener (2008) argue that satisfaction with life solely represents the cognitive

aspect, while the affective aspect also contributes to subjective well-being. Specifically,

these authors identify three main components of subjective well-being: life satisfaction, the

presence of positive affect or mood and the absence of negative affect or mood.

In a more specific approach to the individual’s shopping life, El Hedhli et al. (2013)

discuss the construct of shopping well-being, which reflects the contribution of shopping to

shoppers’ overall sense of well-being. Recently, the contribution of shopping has been

clearly classified into positive and negative (Ekici et al., 2018). The authors define shopping

well-being as the degree to which shopping contributes positively to consumers’ quality of

life, whereas shopping ill-being refers to the negative effects of shopping activity. Although

shopping activity may result in even opposite outcomes (e.g. Ekici et al., 2018), the positive

consequences of shopping have been repeatedly echoed in the extant literature. For instance,

shopping contributes to pleasure and arousal (Liao et al., 2016), hedonic enjoyment (Babin

et al., 1994), satisfaction (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016) and flow (Bilgihan, 2016). Based on the

approach of Ekici et al. (2018), this study considers online shopping well-being as the

positive contribution of online shopping to online shoppers’ quality of life.

36

Existing shopping well-being research has determined some key predictors,

including external factors (e.g. store layout or stock-outs), social or cultural attitudes, values,

personality or self-related factors (El Hedhli et al., 2013; Lee & Sirgy, 2004). Among these

factors, shopping values serve as strong possible determinants of shopping well-being. El

Hedhli et al. (2016) provide strong evidence to support the significant influence of shopping

values on shopping well-being in the mall shopping context. Unfortunately, to the best of

our knowledge, this association has seldom been explored in the online shopping context.

This study therefore examines online shopping well-being as the consequence of dual

shopping values (utilitarian and hedonic) in the online shopping context.

3.2.2. Dual shopping values: Utilitarian and hedonic value

During the shopping process, shoppers are driven by both the products and emotional

attractions (Chen & Wang, 2016). In other words, consumers go shopping for both utilitarian

and hedonic value. Utilitarian value consists of the cognitive benefits characterized by

consumers’ conscious pursuit of an intended consequence, while hedonic value refers to

affective states (e.g. fun, playfulness) that may result from making a purchase. Hirschman

& Holbrook (1982) indicate that, along with primary utilitarian benefits, consumers also

have a demand for feeling, aesthetics, emotion and enjoyment. Voss et al. (2003) classify

consumer attitudes into utilitarian and hedonic dimensions, which reflect the functions

performed by the product and the sensation of experiencing the product, respectively. The

significance of these dual shopping values has been highlighted in several recent studies (e.g.

Giovanis & Athanasopoulou, 2017; Sarkar et al., 2018; Varshneya et al., 2017).

The extant literature has shown that hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values,

identified by the duality approach, are used to explain both offline (Kesari & Atulkar, 2016)

37

and online (Chiu et al., 2014) shopping motivations and behaviour. For example, Batra and

Ahtola (1991, p. 159) argue that “consumers purchase goods and services and perform

consumption behaviours for two basic reasons: (1) consummatory affective (hedonic)

gratification (from sensory attributes), and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons concerned

with expectations of consequences”. Thus, in the online shopping context, this study

considers utilitarian and hedonic shopping values as cognitive and affective benefits of

online shopping.

3.2.3. The dual perspective of trust: Cognitive and affective trust

Trust reflects an individual’s willingness to depend on the behaviours of the partner

in a relationship and is a multi-faceted attitude construct (e.g. Beldad et al., 2010; Ha et al.,

2016). In fact, researchers have widely agreed that trust has two distinctive forms: cognition-

based and affect-based trust (McAllister, 1995; Morrow et al., 2004); trust is a dual construct

consisting of a cognitive and an affective component (Ha et al., 2016). Applying this

approach to shopping activity, the first component, cognitive trust, reflects consumers’

confidence that retailers are “honest, accurate, and dependable, and keeps promises”

(Dabholkar et al., 2009, p. 149). In fact, trust is formed based on consumers’ rational

expectations, whereas positive affect reflecting the emotional attachment between buyers

and providers also builds trust (Punyatoya, 2019). The second component, affective trust,

refers to the positive feeling consumers have during an experience with the retailers (Johnson

& Grayson, 2005).

In the online shopping context, consumers inherently face risks caused by the

uncertain behaviours of e-tailers and/or the uncertain environment (Kim & Koo, 2016). For

instance, risks related to payment, product, information, time and psychology impact online

38

shoppers’ purchase intention negatively (Ariffin et al., 2018). Fortunately, trust not only

significantly reduces perceived risks (Kim & Koo, 2016), but also leverages online

consumers’ purchase intention, satisfaction or loyalty (Kim & Peterson, 2017). Thus, trust

is critically important for online consumers. Adopting the duality perspective, trust reflects

the willingness of online consumers to be cognitively and affectively dependent on e-tailers.

Specifically, cognitive trust is formed based on online consumers’ rational evaluations of e-

tailers, including the assessment of reputation (Mansour et al., 2004). Affective trust is the

online shoppers’ emotional base that increases their positive perception about the e-tailers’

trustworthiness (McCole et al., 2010). In this study, cognitive and affective trust are

considered two separate components of online consumers’ willingness to be dependent on

e-tailers.

3.2.4. Moderator: Extraversion

Personality traits determine a person’s cognitive, affective and behavioural styles (Ul

Islam et al., 2017). Among the Big Five traits, extraversion refers to an individual’s interests

in social interactions (e.g. Choi et al., 2015; Costa & McCrae, 1992), thus extroverts are

characterised as sociable, talkative, active and enthusiastic. In the online shopping context,

extraversion is a prominent factor explaining consumers’ shopping values, attitudes and

behaviours (Chen & Lee, 2008; Ul Islam et al., 2017). For instance, extraverted consumers

are more critical in searching for hedonic shopping values that, in turn, result in a positive

attitude toward online shopping (Chen & Lee, 2008). Further, among personality traits,

extraversion has the strongest influence on consumer engagement in an online brand

community, leading to more online purchase intention (Ul Islam et al., 2017). Thus, online

consumers’ expected shopping values and attitudes may vary due to their extraversion.

39

Consequently, extraversion is potentially a significant factor moderating the cognitive and

affective associations between shopping values and trust in the online shopping context.

3.3. Model Development and Research Hypotheses

3.3.1. Conceptual model

Drawing upon the duality approach in the online shopping context, this study

explores the dual associations between shopping values and trust. Specifically, cognitive

trust in online retailers may be predicted mainly by utilitarian value, whereas hedonic value

primarily influences consumers’ affective trust. Both cognitive and affective components of

trust are hypothesized to positively affect online shopping well-being. Extraversion is

proposed as a moderator of the dual associations between shopping values and trust. The

conceptual model presented in Figure 3.1 illustrates these relationships.

Figure 3.1: Research model of study 1

3.3.2. Research hypotheses

The associations between online shopping values and trust have been underlined by

the VAB framework (Homer & Kahle, 1988), which argues for close connections between

individuals’ values and attitudes. These authors assert that the values people pursue drive

40

how they perceive and, ultimately, behave in certain circumstances. Adapting this logic to

the online shopping context, consumer attitudes about e-tailers potentially depend on

shopping values. Both utilitarian and hedonic features of a retailing website can increase

online shoppers’ trust (Bilgihan, 2016). Similarly, the associations between shopping values

and trust have been supported by a recent meta-analysis (Kim & Peterson, 2017) in which

online consumers’ trust in e-tailers can be significantly determined by different values (e.g.

perceived quality or usefulness). Within the duality approach, it can therefore be proposed

that utilitarian values enhance online consumers’ cognitive trust, whereas hedonic values are

positively associated with online consumers’ affective trust.

Although the cognitive and affective components of a construct may highly correlate

with each other, they are different in how they predict or are influenced by other factors and

behaviour (e.g. Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994). This is because cognitive linkages are

cognition-based, whereas affective associations are emotion-driven. Even when including

both the cognitive and affective component of a construct in a research model, researchers

may wish to consider them separately (Herbst, Gaertner, & Insko, 2003). In this study, the

cross-over effects of shopping values and online consumer trust (i.e. utilitarian value–

affective trust, and hedonic value–cognitive trust) are proposed to be non-significant. The

associations between shopping values and trust, based on the duality approach, in online

shopping are therefore hypothesized as follows:

H1. Utilitarian value positively affects cognitive trust

H2. Hedonic value positively affects affective trust

H3. The impact of utilitarian value on affective trust is non-significant

H4. The impact of hedonic value on cognitive trust is non-significant

41

In online shopping, trust is a crucial factor that positively influences consumers’

evaluations of their online purchases (Kim & Peterson, 2017). Online shoppers with a higher

level of trust perceive online shopping to be more beneficial (e.g. Kim, Xu, & Gupta, 2012).

Similarly, online shopping is also considered positive in terms of both cognitive and

affective aspects of trust (Ha et al., 2010), and more trust is associated with reduced risk and

more transaction intention (Kim & Koo, 2016). Furthermore, satisfaction and loyalty are

prominent outcomes of online trust (Kim & Peterson, 2017), implying that once trust has

been successfully built, online shopping becomes more advantageous to online consumers.

In other words, trust can cognitively and affectively leverage the extent to which online

shopping positively determines consumers’ quality of life. Therefore, adopting the duality

approach, this study proposes that cognitive and affective trust significantly contribute to

online shopping well-being.

H5. Cognitive trust positively affects online shopping well-being

H6. Affective trust positively affects online shopping well-being

Extraversion determines the extent to which an individual is interested in social

interactions and looks for excitement and stimulation (e.g. Choi et al., 2015; Costa &

McCrae, 1992). Although previous studies have largely adopted extraversion as a

determinant (e.g. Ul Islam et al., 2017), its moderation on the associations between shopping

values and trust attitude in the online shopping context is highly potential. Extraverted

consumers are recreational shoppers who are more interested in hedonic values such as

entertainment or enjoyment (Chen & Lee, 2008). Compared to other traits in the well-known

Big Five, extraversion is the most influential factor determining consumer engagement in

online brand communities, which in turn determines online purchase intention (Ul Islam et

al., 2017). Further, extraversion is a significant emotion-related factor (Watson & Clark,

42

1997) explaining online consumer attitudes toward hedonic value (e.g. Chen & Lee, 2008).

Being emotion-driven, extraverted consumers prefer to look for hedonic value, which

positively predicts affective trust. Consequently, extraversion can leverage the extent to

which hedonic value affects consumers’ affective trust in e-tailers. In addition, although risks

are inherent in the online shopping context (e.g. Kim & Koo, 2016), extroverts are risk-

takers (Nicholson et al., 2005) who are less concerned with such threats. Thus, online

shoppers who are extroverts are more willing to be cognitively dependent on e-tailers.

Therefore, extraversion can also leverage the extent to which utilitarian value affects online

consumers’ cognitive trust. Based on these arguments, this study proposes that the cognitive

and affective associations between shopping values and trust are moderated by extraversion.

Specifically,

H7. Extraversion positively moderates the impact of utilitarian value on cognitive

trust.

H8. Extraversion positively moderates the impact of hedonic value on affective trust.

3.4. Research methods

3.4.1. Research context

The Vietnamese e-commerce market has reached a high growth rate of over 25% in

2017 that is estimated to remain high in following years (Vietnam E-business Index, 2018).

In this context, the growth rate of business-to-consumer (B2C) sales remarkably reached

35% in 2017. Thus, online shopping has been widespread and become a popular shopping

channel for Vietnamese consumers. Based on the E-Business Index report, Ho Chi Minh

City (HCMC) is the leader among all provinces and cities of Vietnam in terms of the B2C

43

component index in 2017 (Vietnam E-business Index, 2018). This indicates that the

consumers in HCMC are quite familiar with online purchasing.

3.4.2. Procedure and sample

A self-administered survey using convenience sampling was conducted in HCMC –

Vietnam. Specifically, a hard copy of the questionnaire was delivered to consumers. A

screening question was included for selecting appropriate respondents (i.e., online

consumers had purchased at least once in three months). See Appendix 3A for the English

and Appendix 3B for the Vietnamese version of the questionnaire. A total of 950

questionnaires were distributed and 872 online consumers responded, resulting in a response

rate of 91.80%. This preliminary data set was then refined and 224 questionnaires were

excluded due to missing more than 10% of values. The final dataset, including 648

completed questionnaires, was used for further analysis. This sample consisted of 65.70%

females and 34.30% males. Most of the participants were between 25 and 40 years of age,

accounting for 51.10% of respondents, while 46.70% participants were 25 years old or

younger and 2.20% of participants were over 40 years of age (Appendix 3C). This survey

data were employed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and to

test the model and hypotheses by SEM.

3.4.3. Measurement

This study adopted existing validated measures that were unidimensional for all

constructs, including utilitarian value, hedonic value, cognitive trust, affective trust, online

shopping well-being and extraversion. Dual shopping values were measured by scales

borrowed from Voss et al. (2003): five items for utilitarian value and six items for hedonic

value. Cognitive and affective trust were measured by five items each, adopted from

44

Dabholkar et al. (2009). Online shopping well-being was measured by three items adopted

from Ekici et al. (2018). Extraversion was measured by eight items, based on Benet-Martínez

and John (1998). See Appendix 3D for the measurement scales adopted. A 7-point Likert-

type scale (1, strongly disagree, and 7, strongly agree) was used for the items measuring

cognitive trust, affective trust and online shopping well-being. A 7-point semantic

differential scale was used for items measuring utilitarian shopping value, hedonic shopping

value and extraversion. These items were randomly placed in the questionnaire. The use of

different scaling methods and random assignments sought to reduce the agreement bias

tendency.

3.5. Data Analysis and Results

3.5.1. Measurement validation

CFA was employed to validate the measures, and the results indicated that the

saturated model yielded an acceptable fit to the data: χ2(df=379) = 690.53, χ2/df = 1.82 (p <

.001), GFI = .94, CFI = .98, TLI = .97 and RMSEA = .04, and all items possessed high CFA

factor loadings (λ ≥ .59; p < .001; See Table 3.1). The average variance extracted (AVE) of

constructs was also high (AVE ≥ .50), except for affective trust (AVE = .49). Note that an

item measuring utilitarian value was deleted due to its low factor loadings (λ < .50). Thus,

the constructs’ unidimensionality and convergent validity were achieved. Table 3.2 shows

the details for the construct discriminant validity test, where the AVE for each construct in

any pair of constructs was higher than the corresponding correlation (Fornell & Larcker,

1981).

45

Item

Factor loading

Hedonic value: CR = .91; AVE = .63

Dull/exciting Not delightful/delightful

.81 .87

Enjoyable/unenjoyable Not playful/playful

.90 .85

Amusing/not amusing Not sensuous/sensuous

.62 .68

Utilitarian value: CR = .87; AVE = .63

Effective/ineffective

.66

Helpful/unhelpful Functional/not functional

.84 .90

Handy/not handy

.75

Cognitive trust: CR = .90; AVE = .65 In my opinion, X is an online retailer that…

Provides accurate information Keeps the promises

.76 .74

Provides consistent services and quality Is very dependable

.81 .86

Is sincere

.87

Affective trust: CR = .83; AVE = .49

In all circumstances, X is ready to offer me assistance and support When providing products and services, X is concerned about my welfare

.63 .78

I trust X because it seems to care about me I can depend on X to buy important things

.79 .69

In general, X is willing to serve its customers

.59

Shopping well-being: CR = .80; AVE = .57

I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to my own personal well-being I feel that online shopping makes me happy

.75 .79

I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to my quality of life overall

.73

Extraversion: CR = .91; AVE = .55

I see myself as someone who…

.78

Is outgoing, sociable

.67 .68

Is talkative Has an assertive personality

.75 .80

Generates a lot of enthusiasm Is full of energy

.73 .77

Is reserved Is sometimes shy, inhibited

.73

Tends to be quiet

Table 3.1. Standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 Hedonic Value

.63

2 Utilitarian Value

.60*

.63

3 Cognitive Trust

.14*

.15*

.65

4 Affective Trust

.25*

.56*

.49

5

Shopping Well-being

.16*

.19*

.37*

6 Extraversion

.57*

.18* -.01NS .51*

.18*

.20*

.57 .09 NS

.55

Table 3.2. Correlations (r) between constructs and their Average variance extracted (AVE)

3.5.2. Common method bias

The participants completed all questions at the same time through a self-report

method that allowed for the possibility of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To

minimize this bias, in the design phase, the constructs were measured with either a Likert-

type or semantic differential scale randomly placed in the questionnaire, and the construct

“novelty seeking” was also included in the questionnaire as a marker variable.

Three different tests were conducted to examine whether common method bias was

a major issue in the research: CFA Harman’s single-factor test, marker variable analysis and

t-test of mean difference. First, the CFA single-factor model yielded a very poor fit to the

data (χ2/(df=393) = 4001.22, χ2/df = 10.18, GFI = .68, CFI = .71, TLI = .66 and RMSEA =

.12) compared to the trait factor model (χ2(df=379) = 690.53, χ2/df = 1.82, GFI = .94, CFI

= .98, TLI = .97 and RMSEA = .04). Second, the difference of the correlation estimates of

the constructs before and after including the marker was .002. This result provides evidence

that the marker did not account for the correlations between constructs (Lindell & Whitney,

2001). Third, t-test analysis comparing the correlations of the two models (e.g. with and

without the marker) revealed that there was no difference (p > .97). These results indicate

that even if a common method bias were present, it did not pose a serious threat in this study.

47

3.5.3. Hypothesis testing

In this study, extraversion was proposed as a moderator to the cognitive and affective

associations between shopping values and trust. A single-step estimation approach that was

considered more conceptually and operationally straightforward (Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap,

2001) was therefore adopted. Two interaction terms were first calculated by multiplying

mean-deviated values of the corresponding constructs (utilitarian value and hedonic value

by extraversion) to avoid multicollinearity (Cronbach, 1987). These interactions were then

included in the SEM model, and all variables were analysed simultaneously. Maximum

likelihood estimates for structural paths are shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Structural paths

Hypothesis Structural paths

β

p-value

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8

Utilitarian value  Cognitive trust Hedonic value  Affective trust Utilitarian value  Affective trust Hedonic value  Cognitive trust Cognitive trust  Shopping well-being Affective trust  Shopping well-being Utilitarian value x Extraversion  Cognitive trust Hedonic value x Extraversion  Affective trust

.19 .28 .06 .07 .01 .39 .16 .21

.001 .00 .28 .20 .83 .00 .00 .00

Note: β: Standardized estimate

The SEM results indicate that the proposed model showed acceptable fit to the data:

χ2(242) = 703.21 (p = .000), GFI = .92, CFI = .95, TLI = .94 and RMSEA = .05. The results

also suggest that all hypotheses were statistically significant, except for H5. Specifically,

H1, proposing a positive relationship between utilitarian value and cognitive trust, was

supported (p < .001). The positive impact of hedonic value on affective trust was also

significant (p < .001), supporting H2. For both H3 and H4, the estimates were not statistically

significant (p > .26 and p > .20), reflecting no associations between utilitarian value and

affective trust or between hedonic value and cognitive trust. The positive influence of

48

affective trust on online shopping well-being was also found, supporting H6 (p < .001). The

effect of the interaction between utilitarian value and extraversion on cognitive trust was

significant (p < .001), supporting H7. Similarly, H8, which proposed a moderating effect of

extraversion on the association between hedonic value and affective trust was validated due

to a significant p-value (p < .001). Finally, the proposed influence of cognitive trust on online

shopping well-being was not supported. Thus, H5 was rejected.

3.5.4. Discussion and Implications

Adopting the duality approach, in the online shopping context, this study examined

the effects of shopping values on trust which, in turn, influenced online shopping well-being

of consumers; and tested the moderating role of extraversion on shopping values - trust

associations. First, the findings revealed that utilitarian and hedonic shopping values are

positive determinants of the cognitive and affective trust, respectively. Generally, how

online shopping is favourably evaluated is dependent on the benefits consumers gaining

from e-tailers. These results are consistent with previous research (e.g. Bilgihan, 2016; Kim

& Peterson, 2017) and contribute to a more thorough understanding of the shopping values

– trust relationships. Second, although affective trust was shown to be a positive and

significant influencer of online shopping well-being, cognitive trust was not. Therefore,

online shopping well-being is determined affectively rather than cognitively; it is worth

noting that online shopping well-being has rarely been examined as the consequence of trust

in the extant literature. Third, extraversion positively moderated the dual associations

between shopping values and trust. This finding is somewhat consistent with the previous

study of Chen and Lee (2008). Finally, this study significantly contributes to the related

theory and practice.

49

3.5.4.1. Implications for theory

Theoretically, the research findings contribute to the existing consumer value–

attitude literature (Chen & Lee, 2008; Chiu et al., 2014; Overby & Lee, 2006) by digging

deeper into the processes between shopping values and trust of online consumers. First,

utilitarian value enhances cognitive trust and hedonic value positively influences affective

trust. This highlights the cognitive and affective effects of shopping values on trust in online

shopping. Note that while the general value–attitude link has been widely accepted, the

duality approach has rarely been adopted in studying it. These findings therefore serve as

initial evidence supporting the dual associations between shopping values and trust. The

research results also show that while utilitarian value positively predicts cognitive trust, it

does not influence affective trust. Similarly, hedonic value helps to increase affective trust,

but does not affect cognitive trust. These results indicate that shopping values influence trust

via separate processes – either cognitive or affective – validating the dual associations

between them. Related studies have neither clarified the cognitive and affective associations

between utilitarian and hedonic benefit and trust (Bilgihan, 2016) nor investigated the direct

relationship between utilitarian value and hedonic value and trust. This study therefore

establishes the duality approach for the associations between shopping values and trust both

theoretically and empirically.

Second, in the online shopping context, while consumer trust produces many positive

outcomes (e.g. Kim & Koo, 2016; Kim & Peterson, 2017), how it affects online shopping

well-being remains unclear. This gap has initially been addressed, as this study revealed a

significantly positive relationship between affective trust and online shopping well-being.

This strengthens the significance of the hedonic or affective aspect, rather than the utilitarian

or cognitive aspect, of shopping activity. In other words, the “fun” side of shopping enhances

50

the extent to which online shopping positively contributes to consumers’ quality of life. As

a result, this study sheds new light and significantly contributes to the extant literature on

online shopping well-being.

The moderating role of extraversion has also been validated. For a more extraverted

consumer, the impact of utilitarian shopping value on his or her cognitive trust and of

hedonic shopping value on his or her affective trust has been strengthened. While this role

of extraversion has rarely been investigated in existing studies, the present result provides

direct evidence to highlight the significance of the extraversion trait, especially in online

shopping.

3.5.4.2. Implications for practice

The findings of this study provide valuable insights for policy makers and

practitioners in the e-commerce industry. For e-tailers, the results identified that affective

trust plays a significant role in enhancing online consumers’ shopping well-being. Thus, e-

retailing managers should build their consumers’ affective trust, for instance, by showing

their care and willingness in serving their consumers. Besides, they need to assist and support

their consumers in a timely manner. These help to show their concern about consumers’

welfare. Second, this study found that hedonic shopping value enhances affective trust in

online shopping. Therefore, e-tailers should also pay attention to increase the hedonic

benefits provided to online shoppers. For instance, they may design a rich and immersive

retailing website for creating memorable and meaningful shopping experiences to online

consumers. In doing so, consumers are likely to immerse themselves in hedonically

enjoyable shopping activities to fulfil their meaningful goals (Sirgy, Lee, Grace, Gurel-Atay,

Tidwell, & Ekici, 2016). This fosters consumers’ shopping-life balance, leading to higher

51

consumer quality of life (Eikici et al., 2018). Further, e-tailers also need to ensure the

utilitarian values for consumers, for example, by ensuring products’ quality and/or providing

competitive price. These benefits help to level up consumers’ trust in online shopping.

E-tailers might also be encouraged to make use of online consumers’ extraversion

because it can leverage the dual impacts of shopping values on trust. While shopping values

are less effective in increasing the trust attitudes of more introverted consumers, e-tailers

need supplementary actions to increase these consumers’ level of trust. Using social

networks, for example, to spread positive information may be an effective solution (e.g. Ha

et al., 2016).

For consumer advocacy organisations and policy makers, the findings of this study

suggest that educational programmes providing online consumers with knowledge about

financial literacy and the shortcomings of over-indebtedness are necessary for enhancing

consumers’ shopping-life balance. This will assist consumers in overcoming overspending

or distress in online shopping. In addition, policy makers may issue official regulations for

better facilitating online B2C retailing. For example, a standard set for retailing websites can

help to ensure website quality that significantly impacts consumers’ online buying behaviour

(Akram et al., 2018). E-tailers clearly know how their retailing websites should be, whereas

online shoppers can gain benefits by purchasing with standard-complied websites. Such

solutions make online channels more beneficial for both shoppers and e-tailers.

3.6. Limitations and Future Directions

A limitation of this study is the consideration of online shopping well-being only

under the predictive role of cognitive and affective trust. It could be helpful to examine other

predictors on shopping well-being in order to better understanding the conditions of

52

promoting shopping well-being. For instance, website attributes enhance the levels of

satisfaction and purchase intention (Hsu et al., 2012), thus, potentially determine online

shopping well-being. Future studies to re-examine the association between cognitive trust

and online shopping well-being are also recommended. This may help confirm or refute the

impact of cognitive trust on online shopping well-being in the context of online shopping.

53

CHAPTER 4 – STUDY 2: A DUAL-PROCESS ON SHOPPING WELL-BEING

ACROSS SHOPPING CONTEXTS: THE ROLE OF SHOPPING VALUES AND

IMPULSE BUYING

4.1. Introduction

Shopping is an inevitable activity in people’s lives, and the effect of shopping on

subjective well-being is a research topic of great interest. Ni and Ishii (2019) call for further

research to explore the impact of shopping on subjective well-being. Shopping helps

consumers to not only complete their daily purchasing task (i.e., utilitarian shopping value)

but also to relax, have fun, and enjoy novelty, surprise, excitement, and pleasure (i.e.,

hedonic shopping value) (Babin et al., 1994) that contributes to individual well-being (i.e.,

shopping well-being) (Ekici et al., 2018). However, impulse buying could potentially result

in harmful consequences (Akram et al., 2018; Iyer, Blut, Xiao, & Grewal, 2019) such as

“financial problems, post-purchase dissatisfaction, and lower self-esteem” (Boonchoo &

Thoumrungroje, 2017, p. 5). It could also offer benefits such as “feeling self- indulgent,

good, and satisfied” (Xiao & Nicholson, 2013, p. 15). However, whether the consequences

of impulse buying are positive or negative has not been clearly concluded by existing studies.

Therefore, there is a gap in the existing literature regarding the role of impulse buying in

shopping well-being or ill-being (Ekici et al., 2018).

Impulse buying is strongly promoted by pleasure and excitement (Verplanken &

Herabadi, 2001) but “is not free from cognitive processing” (Shen & Khalifa, 2012, p. 400).

Thus, it can be better explained by examining both cognitive and affective processes. As

utilitarian value (cognitive benefits) and hedonic value (affective benefits) drive consumer

purchases (Babin et al., 1994), they are potential impulse buying determinants. Accordingly,

54

the duality approach, considering both cognition and affect mental systems, has a high

potential for determining the associations between shopping values and impulse buying.

The recent impulse buying research has been focused on consumer traits such as

sensation seeking, impulse buying tendency, and self-identity (Iyer et al., 2019). Among

these, self-control drives consumer buying behavior (Yim, 2017) and is validated as a

determinant (Lo et al., 2016) or mediator (Iyer et al., 2019) of impulse buying. The

moderating role of self-control is implied in the reflective-impulsive model (Hofmann et al.,

2009); however, to our knowledge, it is rarely adopted as a moderator in empirical impulse

buying research.

In addition, existing studies on impulse buying only adopt either the offline

environment (Pornpitakpan et al., 2017; Pradhan et al., 2018) or the online environment

(Chen et al., 2020; Lo et al., 2016), resulting in a lack of research comparing impulse buying

in these two shopping contexts. Comparing impulse buying behavior in both offline and

online settings contributes to a wider or deeper understanding of this buying motive

(Aragoncillo & Orus, 2018).

To bridge the identified research gaps, this study adopts the duality approach to: (1)

investigate the impact of cognitive and affective impulse buying on shopping well-being; (2)

investigate the cognitive and affective processes from shopping values to impulse buying;

(3) examine the moderating effect of self-control on shopping values and impulse buying;

and (4) compare the studied associations between offline and online shopping contexts. Our

empirical findings support most of the hypotheses, contributing to the literature in four main

ways. First, the study provides a better understanding of the role of both cognitive and

affective impulse buying in enhancing consumers’ shopping well-being. Second, this study

extends the impulse buying literature by utilizing the duality approach. Third, self-control is

55

validated as a significant moderator, highlighting the influence of consumers’ personality on

shopping. Finally, this study compares the examined associations between offline and online

shopping contexts.

4.2. Literature review

4.2.1. The duality approach

In the extant literature, the duality approach has served as a theoretical framework

for studying approach and avoidance (Elliot, 1999), trust in business-to-consumer exchanges

(Johnson and Grayson, 2005), and shopping motivation (Babin et al., 1994; Kesari &

Atulkar, 2016). These two parallel processes are distinctive in terms of individuals’ cognitive

consciousness (Evans, 2008). Specifically, the first process is “conscious, slow, and

deliberative” whereas the second is “unconscious, rapid, automatic, and high capacity”

(Evans, 2008, p. 256). The duality approach, thus, includes both the cognitive and affective

systems of human beings that contribute to a better understanding of consumer impulse

behavior and well-being (Iyer et al., 2019; Ozen & Engizek, 2014; Verplanken & Herabadi,

2001).

Besides, “consumers purchase goods and services and perform consumption

behaviors for two basic reasons: (1) consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification (from

sensory attributes), and (2) instrumental, utilitarian reasons.” (Batra & Ahtola, 1990, p.159).

Meanwhile, impulse buying is also related to both cognitive and affective processes (see

Chan et al., 2017 for a recent review). Furthermore, the reflective-impulsive model

(Hofmann et al., 2009) validates the influences of reflective and impulsive processes on

behavior that is moderated by dispositional factors (for example, self-control and working

56

memory capacity). These findings make the duality approach a promising theoretical

foundation for studying impulse buying and shopping well-being.

4.2.2. Subjective and shopping well-being

Subjective well-being can be defined as an individual’s overall satisfaction with life,

reflecting his/her positive evaluations regarding various aspects of it (Diener et al., 1985).

Subjective well-being relates to and can be built by an individual’s state of well-being in

several domains of life, such as social life, leisure and recreation, family life, work life, and

health and safety, among others (Sirgy, Kruger, Lee, & Yu, 2011). Shopping is a “necessary

and an inevitable activity” (Ekici et al., 2018, p. 335) in several such domains. Consumer

researchers have shown great interest in discovering the impact of shopping on consumers’

quality of life (Ekici et al., 2018; Ni & Ishii, 2019).

In this research stream, shopping well-being is a facet of individuals’ overall

subjective well-being or quality of life (El Hedhli et al., 2013). It is defined as “the degree

to which consumers experience hedonic enjoyment and satisfaction of self-expressive needs

through their shopping activities” (Lee et al., 2014, p. 28). Ekici et al. (2018) characterize

shopping well-being as the positive contribution of shopping to shoppers’ quality of life.

This study adopts the definition of Ekici et al. (2018) and considers shopping well-being as

a component or facet of subjective well-being.

Shopping well-being is determined by several factors, including the shopping mall’s

functionality, convenience, safety, leisure, atmospherics, self-identification (El Hedhli et al.,

2013), utilitarian value and hedonic value (El Hedhli et al., 2016). However, to our

knowledge, the impacts of impulse buying on shopping well-being have been rarely

investigated.

57

4.2.3. Impulse buying

Impulse buying is defined as an unreflective and sudden buying decision that is less

reliant on “a great deal of evaluation” (Jones et al., 2003, p. 506). Verplanken and Herabadi

(2001) view impulse buying as rooted in an individual’s personality, which is characterized

as “relatively stable, highly consistent, and responsible for exerting a generalized causal

effect on behavior [ ...] a general tendency to purchase items of all product categories

(without reason) on impulse” (Jones et al., 2003, p. 506). Recognizing that buying tendency

plays a significant role in predicting impulse buying behavior (Iyer et al., 2019), this study

adopts the definition and measures of impulse buying tendency used by Verplanken and

Herabadi (2001). Specifically, Verplanken and Herabadi (2001) develop an impulse buying

tendency model that includes both cognitive and affective aspects. The affect-based

characteristic of impulse buying is widely agreed upon by scholars (Chan et al., 2017;

Pornpitakpan et al., 2017). Further, impulse buying is not free from individual deliberation

and cognitive processes (Rook & Fisher, 1995; Shen & Khalifa, 2012; Xiao & Nicholson,

2013).

The extant literature on impulse buying has some key gaps. First, as previously noted,

impulse buying consequences are controversial because they are associated with both ill-

being and well-being. Shoppers who buy impulsively can experience regret, negative effect

on self-image (Xiao & Nicholson, 2013), “financial problems, post-purchase dissatisfaction,

and lower self-esteem” (Boonchoo & Thoumrungroje, 2017, p. 5). On the positive side,

impulse buying is related to novelty, surprise, “feeling self- indulgent, good and satisfied”

(Xiao & Nicholson, 2013, p. 15). Second, while more online impulse buying studies are

demanded (Zafar, Qiu, & Shahzad, 2020), existing empirical studies rarely compare impulse

buying between offline and online shopping contexts. In-store marketing activities (e.g. shelf

58

placements, attractive displays, and promotions) are determinants of impulse purchasing

behavior (see Iyer et al., 2019 for a recent review), whereas ease of access, less social

pressure, and excitement of online shopping (see Chan et al., 2017; Akram et al., 2018 for

impulse buying literature analysis) drive shoppers to buy impulsively. Thus, both online and

offline shopping contexts have advantageous features that facilitate impulse buying.

4.2.4. Shopping values

The reason behind why people shop can be more thoroughly explained by both the

utility and experiential benefits of purchases (Varshneya et al., 2017). The core idea is that

in shopping, consumers are not only motivated by desire to maximize utility, but also by

their emotional desires. This facet of shopping relates to “the multi-sensory, fantasy, and

emotive aspects of one’s experience with the product” (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982, p.

92). Similarly, consumption activities relate to two main types of value (utilitarian and

hedonic) serving as shopping’s rewards that “maintain a basic underlying presence across

consumption phenomena” (Babin et al., 1994, p. 644). Utilitarian value serves as the

cognitive benefit of shopping because it represents the “work” aspect. Hedonic value,

considered as the “fun” side of shopping, reflects “shopping's potential entertainment and

emotional worth” (Babin et al., 1994, p. 645–646). This study adopts both utilitarian and

hedonic values to examine the dual associations between shopping value and impulse

buying.

4.2.5. Self-control

Self-control, considered a personality trait (Sela et al., 2017), is defined as “conscious

efforts to alter behavior, especially restraining impulses and resisting temptations”

(Baumeister, 2002, p. 129). Self-control is one of the key factors driving an individual’s

59

conversion from what he/she “wants” to what he/she “should” (Sela et al., 2017); thus, the

decision is well-fitted to external constraints or long-term orientations instead of personal

desires or temporary interests.

In the shopping context, self-control reflects shoppers’ capacity to resist arrestable

urges that result in impulse purchases (Iyer et al., 2019). Self-control also helps consumers

keep their planned buying list unchanged (Yim, 2017). It can be inferred that buyers with

low self-control are more likely to purchase impulsively, whereas those with high-self-

control manage their purchases well. The predictive and mediating roles of self-control have

been validated in several studies (Iyer et al., 2019; Lo et al., 2016). However, to the best of

our knowledge, there is a lack of empirical evidence in the impulse buying literature

regarding the moderating effect between shopping values and impulse buying.

4.3. Research model and hypotheses development

Adopting the duality approach, this study proposes that shopping values significantly

predict impulse buying via the dual process (cognitive and affective), which, in turn,

determines shopping well-being. In addition, the dual relationship between shopping values

and impulse buying may vary depending upon self-control. The proposed associations are

illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Research model of study 2

60

Impulse buying is considered a beneficial way of shopping (Chan et al., 2017;

Pornpitakpan et al., 2017) because it provides feelings of self-indulgence, positivity, and

satisfaction for shoppers (Xiao & Nicholson, 2013). Rook and Fisher (1995) indicate that

only 20% of the participants in their study reported negative evaluations after impulsive

buying. Further, consumers who have a high impulse buying tendency experience more

arousal or pleasure (George & Yaoyuneyong, 2010). Therefore, the dual process indicates

that impulse buying positively predicts shopping well-being.

The impact of cognitive and affective impulse buying on shopping well-being may

vary due to the shopping context (offline vs. online). Compared to offline shopping, online

shopping is more efficient for shoppers because of various functional benefits, such as

convenience, cost-effectiveness, and the time saved (Nielsen, 2014). Cognitive impulse

buying leads to more online impulse purchases (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001) because the

products purchased still function advantageously. Further, in the conventional shopping

context, retailers and shoppers can directly interact and easily build social relationships; thus,

offline shoppers are more emotionally influenced by providers (Chang, Eckman, & Yan,

2011). The impacts of cognitive and affective impulse buying on shopping well-being across

shopping contexts are hypothesized as follows:

H1a. Cognitive impulse buying is positively associated with shopping well-being in

both offline and online shopping contexts.

H1b. Affective impulse buying is positively associated with shopping well-being in

both offline and online shopping contexts.

H1c. The impact of cognitive impulse buying on shopping well-being is stronger online

than it is in the offline shopping context.

61

H1d. The impact of affective impulse buying on shopping well-being is stronger offline

than it is in the online shopping context.

Utilitarian and hedonic values drive consumer shopping behavior (Babin et al.,

1994), implying their potential influence on impulse buying. Underlined by the duality

approach, cognitive impulse buying and affective impulse buying are considered the

consequences of utilitarian value and hedonic value, respectively. Although impulse buying

is characterized by few rational deliberations (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001), it can benefit

consumers by providing convenience, product utility, or lower price. These utilitarian

benefits make consumers more comfortable with impulse purchases. For instance, Chan et

al. (2017) show the positive influence of cognitive reactions on impulse buying although

they are mainly based on and result in hedonic benefits to shoppers, such as excitement or

joy, pleasure, or positive arousal (Chan et al., 2017; Xiao & Nicholson, 2013), which, in

turn, drive consumers to buy more impulsively (Ozen & Engizek, 2014).

Online shopping is characterized by utilitarian benefits, such as convenience, cost-

effectiveness, and time saving (Nielsen, 2014). Online shopping is also impersonal (Zhou &

Tian, 2010), reflecting a lack of physical interaction between buyers and providers. In

contrast, offline shopping is characterized by the richness of personal communication and

interactions, and is thus more affective (Chang et al., 2011). Therefore, one may expect that

utilitarian value is more powerful in influencing cognitive impulse buying in the online

shopping context, whereas hedonic value has a stronger impact on affective impulse buying

in the offline shopping context.

Consequently, the dual associations between shopping values and impulse buying

across shopping contexts are hypothesized as follows:

62

H2a. Utilitarian value is positively associated with cognitive impulse buying in both

offline and online shopping contexts.

H2b. Hedonic value is positively associated with affective impulse buying in both

offline and online shopping contexts.

H2c. The impact of utilitarian value on cognitive impulse buying is stronger online than

it is in the offline shopping context.

H2d. The impact of hedonic value on affective impulse buying is stronger offline than

it is in the online shopping context.

Self-control is a personality trait driving an individual to convert from what he/she

“wants” to what he/she “should” (Sela et al., 2017). Therefore, shoppers with high self-

control keep their planned buying list unchanged (Yim, 2017) and resist their impulsive

buying urges (Iyer et al., 2019). Self-control failure, by contrast, drives shoppers to buy

discounted products impulsively and even consider expensive products as inexpensive,

resulting in impulse purchases (Lo et al., 2016; Vohs & Faber, 2007).

It can be inferred that shopping values subjectively determine impulse buying based

on how well consumers control their buying desire. High self-control ability can mitigate the

impact of shopping values on impulse buying because shoppers are more rational in buying.

On the other hand, consumers with low self-control are more likely to buy impulsively to

gain more utilitarian and hedonic benefits. For instance, sales promotion and website design

(navigation and visual appeal for example) weaken self-control and, thus, increase the

possibility of impulse buying (Lo et al., 2016). Consequently, this study proposes that the

dual associations between shopping values and impulse buying are subject to variation under

the moderating effect of consumer self-control in the offline and online shopping contexts,

as follows:

63

H3a. Self-control negatively moderates the relationship between utilitarian value and

cognitive impulse buying in both offline and online shopping contexts.

H3b. Self-control negatively moderates the relationship between hedonic value and

affective impulse buying in both offline and online shopping contexts.

4.4. Research methods

4.4.1. Research context and sample

The characteristics of shoppers in Vietnam have been described as “shop often, buy

little” (McDonald et al., 2000, p. 53), which is derived from “a genuine joy of shopping” and

“a lack of planning” (McDonald et al., 2000, p. 53). This reflects the nature of the impulse

buying behavior of Vietnamese consumers. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) is the

leading city in terms of the 2019 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) transaction index (Vietnam

E-business Index, 2019). Thus, consumers in HCMC actively engage in online purchasing,

making them appropriate participants for studying impulse buying in both offline and online

shopping contexts.

Adopting a convenience sampling method, a self-administered survey was conducted

to collect data from two groups of consumers: offline and online shoppers in HCMC. The

survey questionnaires were translated into Vietnamese and, after a pretest to ensure

understandability, were distributed conveniently to the participants. The questionnaires

included the same statements but targeted either offline shopping or online shopping by

asking the participants to first specify an e-tailer or a supermarket they most frequently

purchased from within the last three months. See Appendix 4A and 4B for the English and

Appendix 4C and 4D for the Vietnamese versions of the questionnaire. A target sample size

of 300 was established for each consumer group. For the offline shopper group, 278 of 300

64

distributed questionnaires were returned; for the online shopper group, 272 of 300 distributed

questionnaires were returned. The elimination of incomplete and missing responses resulted

in a sample size of 266 offline and 263 online shoppers. The characteristics of the online and

offline consumer groups are listed in Table 4.1.

Offline

Online

Total

Profile

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male

105

39.5

121

46

226

42.7

Female

161

60.5

142

54

303

57.3

Age

25 or under

86

32.3

83

31.6

169

31.9

26 - 39

170

63.9

173

65.8

343

64.8

40 or above

10

3.8

7

2.7

17

3.2

Shopping frequency (per month)

1 or 2

117

44.0

174

66.2

291

55.0

3 or 4

101

38.0

77

29.3

178

33.6

More than 4

48

18.0

12

4.5

60

11.4

Income (per month)

Under VND 5m

7

2.6

17

6.5

24

4.5

VND 5m - under VND 10m

121

45.5

124

47.1

245

46.3

VND 10m - under VND 15m

93

35.0

79

30.0

172

32.5

VND 15m or above

45

16.9

43

16.4

88

16.7

Education

High school

8

3.0

23

8.7

31

5.9

College

40

15.0

45

17.1

85

16.1

University and graduate

218

82.0

195

74.2

413

77.9

Note: N = 529 (Offline 266, Online 263)

Table 4.1. Participant profile

4.4.2. Sample characteristics

The offline group consisted of 60.50% female and 39.50% male shoppers, who were

mostly between 26 and 39 years of age (accounting for 63.90%). Most of these consumers

made purchases from retailers once or twice per month (44%) and earned a monthly income

of approximately VND 5 million to VND 10 million (45.50%).

65

The sample of online consumers was mainly female (54.00%) aged 26 to 39 years

(65.80%). Most of them made online purchases once or twice per month (66.2%) and earned

a monthly income of around VND 5 million to VND 10 million (47.10%).

4.4.3. Measurement

The survey questionnaire measured six constructs: utilitarian value, hedonic value,

cognitive impulse buying, affective impulse buying, shopping well-being, and self-control.

The scales measuring utilitarian and hedonic values were borrowed from Voss et al. (2003)

and included six items for each value. Four items measuring cognitive impulse buying and

four more measuring affective impulse buying were borrowed from the scale developed by

Verplanken and Herabadi (2001). Shopping well-being was operationalized using five items

borrowed from Ekici et al. (2018). Five items were adopted from Tangney et al. (2004) to

measure self-control. Table 4.2 lists all the survey items.

This study used both a 7-point Likert scale and a 7-point semantic differential scale.

The 7-point Likert scale was used to measure cognitive impulse buying, affective impulse

buying, shopping well-being, and self-control, whereas utilitarian value and hedonic value

were measured using the 7-point semantic differential scale. This was aimed at reducing the

potential agreement bias, with the items measured by different scaling methods randomly

positioned in the questionnaire.

Construct items

References

Hedonic value (HV)

1 Dull/exciting

2 Not delightful/delightful

3 Enjoyable/unenjoyable

Voss et al. (2003)

4 Not playful/playful

5 Amusing/not amusing

6 Not sensuous/sensuous

Table 4.2. Survey items, respective constructs, and relevant references

66

Construct items

References

Utilitarian value (UV)

1 Effective/ineffective

2 Helpful/unhelpful

3 Functional/not functional

Voss et al. (2003)

4 Handy/not handy

5 Problem solving/not problem solving

6 Reliable/notreliable

Cognitive impulse buying (CI)

1

I usually think carefully before I buy something (R)

2

It is not my style to just buy thing (R)

Verplanken and Herabadi (2001)

3

I am used to buy thing on the spot

4

I often buy things without thinking

Affective impulse buying (AI)

1

I sometimes cannot supress of wanting to buy something

2

If I see something new, I want to buy it

Verplanken and Herabadi (2001)

3

4

I am a bit reckless in buying things I sometimes buy things because I like buying thing, rather than because I need them

Shopping wellbeing (SW)

1

2

Thinking about shopping, I feel that my shopping contributes significantly to my own personal well-being. Thinking about shopping, my quality of life would diminish significantly if I don’t shop.

Ekici et al. (2018)

3 Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping makes me happy.

4

Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping contributes significantly to my quality of life overall.

5 The quality of life of my family would diminish significantly if I don’t shop.

Self control (SC)

1

I am good at resisting temptation.

2 People would say that I have iron self- discipline.

Tangney et al. (2004)

3

I have trouble concentrating.

4

I often act without thinking through all the alternatives.

5

I am lazy.

4.5. Data analysis and results

4.5.1. Measurement validation

This study employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the measurement

instruments. Specifically, the performed saturated model indicated good indices: χ2(322) =

684.27 (p = 0.000), GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.05. Compared to

the thresholds (χ2/df ≤ 3; GFI, CFI, NFI, and TLI > 0.90; and RMSEA < 0.08) suggested

67

by Hu and Bentler (1998), Hair et al. (2010), and Kline (2011), the saturated model was well

fitted to the data. Two items measuring affective impulse buying and self-control were

deleted because of their low factor loadings (λ < 0.50). All CFA factor loadings of the other

items were above 0.5, and statistically significant (λ ≥ 0.54; p < 0.001), indicating that all

constructs possessed unidimensionality and convergent validity (Steenkamp and van Trijp,

1991). See Appendix 4E for the details. In addition, the discriminant validity test (Table 4.3)

yielded satisfactory results because the correlation estimates of any pair of constructs were

lower than the average variance extracted for each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Table 4.3. Means, standard deviations, composite reliability, Pearson’s correlations and

Construct

Mean

SD

CR

1

5

6

2

3

4

1. Hedonic value

4.73 1.39 0.93

0.68

2. Utilitarian value

4.92 1.55 0.86

0.58 (0.34)

0.52

3. Cognitive impulse buying

3.12 1.76 0.82

0.19 (0.04)

0.09 (0.01)

0.53

4. Affective impulse buying

4.00 1.73 0.68

0.25 (0.06)

0.13 (0.02)

0.67 (0.45)

0.42

5. Shopping well-being

4.51 1.61 0.92

0.30 (0.09)

0.22 (0.05)

0.36 (0.13)

0.46 (0.21)

0.70

6. Self-control

5.06 1.29 0.78

0.07 (0.00)

0.03 (0.00)

-0.15 (0.02)

-0.21 (0.04)

0.06 (0.00)

0.47

validities.

4.5.2. Common method bias

Common method bias potentially occurs in studies using a self-report, in which

participants answer all questions at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, this study

adopted several remedies to control and assess this issue. First, either a Likert or a semantic

differential scale was adopted to measure the studied constructs that were placed randomly

in the questionnaire in order to minimize potential bias. Second, a Harman test (Podsakoff

et al., 2003) was also conducted that resulted in poor fit indices, indicating that the CFA

single factor model was not well fit to the data: χ2(350) = 5028.11 (p = 0.000), GFI = 0.49,

CFI = 0.42, TLI = 0.37, and RMSEA = 0.16, in comparison to the indexes of the CFA trait

68

model. Third, a marker variable (habit, measured by three items adopted from Hsu, Chang,

and Chuang (2015) that was theoretically unrelated to the studied constructs was included in

the questionnaire. The marker analysis showed that the difference in correlation estimates of

the constructs before and after the appearance of the marker variable was 0.004 (Malhotra,

Kim, and Patil (2006). Thus, the marker did not account for correlations between the studied

constructs (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). A t-test analysis was also conducted to compare the

correlation coefficients of the constructs between the model with the marker and the model

without the marker. The results indicated that the correlations between the two models were

not statistically different (p = 0.936). Thus, even when a common method bias existed, this

was not a serious problem in this study.

4.5.3. Hypotheses testing

This study incorporated the moderator (i.e., self-control) in the theoretical model,

following Cortina et al. (2001). Specifically, this study employed one indicator for the

interaction between each shopping value (i.e., utilitarian value and hedonic value) and self-

control. Utilitarian value, hedonic value, and self-control were unidimensional constructs.

The composite value of these constructs was calculated by averaging the corresponding

items (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). Note that the mean-deviated value was used for the

interaction to avoid multicollinearity (Cronbach, 1987).

The results of the SEM analysis (Table IV) showed that the model possessed

satisfactory fit indexes: χ2(286) = 905.27 (p = 0.000), CMIN/DF = 2.59, GFI = 0.89, CFI =

0.95, TLI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.06. In addition, H1a (p < 0.000) and H1b (p = 0.000)

were statistically significant, supporting the positive association between impulse buying

and shopping well-being. H2a (p = 0.011) and H2b (p < 0.000) were also supported,

69

reflecting the positive influence of utilitarian value and hedonic value on cognitive impulse

buying and affective impulse buying, respectively. The results also supported both H3a (p =

0.006) and H3b (p = 0.045), validating the moderating effects of self-control on the dual

associations between shopping values and impulse buying.

t-

p-

Hypotheses Structural paths

B

SE

Results

β

value

value

H1a

Cognitive impulse buying => Shopping well-being

0.194

0.047

0.199

4.094

H1b

Affective impulse buying => Shopping well-being

0.432

0.069

0.373

6.300

H2a

Utilitarian value => Cognitive impulse buying

0.157

0.062

0.131

H2b

Hedonic value => Affective impulse buying

0.285

0.053

0.309

H3a

Utilitarian value x Self-control => Cognitive impulse buying

-0.056

0.02

-0.234

H3b

Hedonic value x Self-control => Affective impulse buying

-0.038

0.019

-0.179

*** Suppported *** Suppported 2.533 0.011* Suppported *** Suppported 5.336 -2.75 0.006* Suppported -2.001 0.045* Suppported

Notes: *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001

Table 4.4. Structural equation model results

To compare the proposed relationships between offline and online shopping contexts,

multigroup analysis with structural equation modeling was employed, and separate data sets

were used for the identified shopping contexts. By releasing the structural model path by

path and then comparing the χ2 of the constrained model to the χ2 of the unconstrained

model, the hypotheses for moderation of the shopping context were statistically tested. H1c

(p = 0.017) validated that the impact of cognitive impulse buying on shopping well-being

was statistically different and stronger in the online shopping context. However, the

association between affective impulse buying and shopping well-being (H1d) was not

significantly different between the two shopping contexts (p = 0.607). Similarly, a significant

difference was not found in the influence of utilitarian value on cognitive impulse buying

between the offline and the online shopping contexts (H2c, p = 0.272) and in the impact of

hedonic value on affective impulse buying (H2d, p = 0.071). The details of the multigroup

analysis are presented in Table 4.5.

70

Effect of

On

P value

Hypotheses

Offline unstandardized (standardized) estimates

Online unstandardized (standardized) estimates

Is difference significant ?

Cognitive impulse buying

Shopping well-being

0.051 (0.055)

0.312 (0.309)

0.017*

yes

H1c (supported)

Affective impulse buying

Shopping well-being

0.468 (0.492)

0.388 (0.272)

0.607ns

No

H1d (not supported)

Utilitarian value

Cognitive impulse buying

0.085 (0.071)

0.216 (0.205)

0.272ns

No

H2c (not supported)

Hedonic value

Affective impulse buying

0.400 (0.389)

0.202 (0.225)

0.071ns

No

H2d (not supported)

Notes: ns, non-significant. *p < 0.05.

Table 4.5. Offline vs Online differences

4.6. Discussion and implications

The findings show that both cognitive and affective impulse buying are positively

associated with shopping well-being. This is contradictory to Silvera et al. (2008), which

showed that the cognitive facet of impulse buying was negatively associated with subjective

well-being, while affective impulse buying and subjective well-being were unrelated. Note

that existing studies mainly consider impulse buying as an affect-based behavior, ignoring

its cognitive aspect (Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan et al., 2017) and dominantly adopt the

stimulus-organism-response (SOR) to study impulse buying (Chan et al., 2017). Therefore,

this research contributes to the existing literature by validating both the affective and

cognitive processes of impulse buying and introducing an appropriate approach for studying

impulse buying tendencies - the duality framework. In addition, self-control is a significant

factor moderating the dual associations between shopping values and impulse buying. While

self-control’s predictive and mediating roles have been widely examined (Iyer et al., 2019;

Lo et al., 2016), this study underlines the significance of self-control traits in understanding

impulse buying tendency.

Finally, the impact of cognitive impulse buying on shopping well-being is stronger

in the online shopping context than in the offline shopping context. This result differs from

71

previous studies that generally suggest that online shopping is less impulsive than offline

shopping (Aragoncillo & Orus, 2018). Although physical interactions in conventional

shopping can effectively influence shopping enjoyment, the online environment also makes

shopping enjoyable. For instance, website displays affect consumers’ pleasure and arousal

(Chen et al., 2020), and parasocial relationships with digital celebrities can drive online

impulse buying (Zafar et al., 2020). In addition, while online shopping is more convenient,

cost-effective, and timesaving (Nielsen, 2014), in-store shopping allows shoppers to

practically test product functions. These advantages of each shopping context may result in

insignificant differences in the remaining associations between offline and online shopping

contexts. While most impulse buying studies adopt either the offline (Pornpitakpan et al.,

2017; Pradhan et al., 2018) or the online shopping context (Chen et al., 2020; Lo et al., 2016),

this research is among the first to compare offline and online impulse buying. These findings

serve as the basis for theoretical and practical implications.

4.6.1. Theoretical implications

First, existing studies show controversial consequences of impulse buying that are

either negative (Boonchoo & Thoumrungroje, 2017) or positive (Chan et al., 2017; Xiao &

Nicholson, 2013). Further, Ni and Ishii (2019) call for further exploration of the influence

of shopping on subjective well-being. As a result, this study contributes to the existing

literature by supporting the positive consequences of impulse buying and validating the

positive contribution of shopping.

Second, this study indicates that utilitarian value enhances cognitive impulse buying

and hedonic value positively affects affective impulse buying. This result highlights the dual

process of impulse buying from shopping values, proving that impulse buying is both affect-

72

based and cognition-based. Scant evidence is available on how cognitive processes influence

impulse buying, as most existing studies focus on the affect-based characteristics of impulse

buying (Chan et al., 2017; Pornpitakpan et al., 2017). This finding also validates the

appropriateness of the duality approach in studying impulse buying behavior. While the SOR

framework is dominantly adopted (see Chan et al., 2017 for a recent review), this study

introduces a new highly potential theoretical foundation for studying impulse buying.

Third, the influence of shopping values on impulse buying via dual processes was

found to be negatively moderated by self-control. Existing impulse buying studies only

examine the predicting or mediating role of the self-control trait (Baumeister, 2002; Iyer et

al., 2019; Lo et al., 2016), ignoring its moderating effect. This study is among the first

impulse buying studies that validates the moderating effect of self-control, highlighting the

significant role of self-control as a general personality trait (Tangney et al., 2004) in impulse

buying research.

Fourth, by comparing offline and online shopping contexts, this research has

demonstrated key differences and similarities among the studied associations. Specifically,

the association between cognitive impulse buying and shopping well-being is stronger in the

online shopping context than in the offline shopping context (0.31 vs 0.06). None of the

other studied associations were significantly different across these shopping contexts. Note

that existing studies have generally studied impulse buying in either the offline

(Pornpitakpan et al., 2017; Pradhan et al., 2018) or the online shopping context (Lo et al.,

2016; Chen et al., 2020). Therefore, these results point to a new path for future research on

impulse buying in different shopping environments.

73

4.6.2. Implications for practice

The positive impact of shopping values on impulse buying implies that providing

more utilitarian and hedonic values helps to increase impulsive purchases. Thus, both in-

store retailers and e-tailers should provide more utilitarian value (e.g. convenience, cost, and

time saving) and/or experiential benefits (e.g. enjoyment and pleasure) to encourage

consumers to buy more impulsively. This is somewhat consistent with the managerial

implications of some studies conducted in developed countries (Yi & Jai, 2020; Cornish,

2020), which indicate that retailers should provide value for money (Cornish, 2020) and an

enjoyable purchasing experience (Yi & Jai, 2020).

The shopping well-being of online shoppers is more influenced by cognitive impulse

buying than that of in-store consumers. Therefore, leveraging the cognitive impulse buying

of online shoppers by increasing utilitarian value can significantly enhance the positive

contributions of their purchases. For instance, increasing the functional benefits, such as

convenience, cost saving, and timesaving, is a potential option for e-tailers to increase

cognitive impulse buying. Similarly, in the context of Taiwan, adding more website

functions (e.g. recommender systems) is recommended for facilitating online impulsive

purchases (Chen et al., 2020).

The extent to which impulsive purchases increase based on shopping value is also

dependent on self-control. While self-control is an individual trait that tends to be stable,

retailers or e-tailers can only design solutions to mitigate its negative moderating effect. For

instance, displaying related products on the same shelves or building good recommender

functions of retailing websites (introduce related products appropriately to encourage

consumers’ buying impulsiveness) can be a great way to encourage impulsive buying (Chen

et al., 2020).

74

4.7. Conclusions, limitations and future research directions

This study fills some key gaps in the existing literature by validating the positive

contribution of shopping to subjective well-being inferred by the positive consequences of

impulse buying. In addition, by adopting the duality approach, this study proves that impulse

buying is determined by shopping values both cognitively and affectively. This finding

validates the dual process of impulse buying and proves the appropriateness of the duality

approach in studying this shopping motive. The moderating effects of self-control on

shopping values—impulse buying linkages—are also evident. Finally, some key differences

and similarities in the relationships among shopping values, impulse buying, and shopping

well-being between shopping contexts (offline vs. online) are clarified. Consequently, this

study represents a novel work on consumer behavior.

A limitation of this study is that it only partially examines the impact of shopping

and subjective well-being, which is based on investigating impulse buying and shopping

well-being associations. There are potentially other shopping motives besides impulse

buying that future research should adopt to address the research issue more thoroughly. This

study also provides additional evidence for the positive consequences of impulse buying.

Future research on this topic should adopt a meta-analysis method to provide a more

conclusive answer. Furthermore, although the survey approach is appropriate, it cannot

explain the causal relationship between shopping values and impulse buying. Therefore,

future research can adopt other methods (for example, experiments) to better examine the

causalities between shopping values and impulse buying.

75

CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION

5.1.Research results and discussion

Adopting the duality approach, this study aimed to examine the effects of shopping

values on trust and shopping values on impulse buying. Besides, investigating the predicting

role of both trust and impulse buying to shopping well-being was also an objective of the

study. In addition, the research attempted to validate the moderating role of extraversion on

the shopping values - trust associations, and the moderating role of self-control on the dual

relationships between shopping values and impulse buying. Further, the similarities and

differences between the online and the offline shopping contexts, in terms of the associations

among shopping values, impulse buying, shopping well-being and self-control, were also

taken into consideration.

To meet the overall objectives, this research included two main studies. The study 1

attempted to validate the dual associations between shopping values and trust that, in turn,

positively predict online shopping well-being. Specifically, underlined by the duality

approach and focusing on the online shopping context, study 1 aimed to examine the

cognitive and affective associations between shopping values and trust; investigate the

influences of cognitive and affective trust on online shopping well-being; and explore the

moderating role of extraversion on the dual relationships between shopping values and trust.

The findings of the study 1 showed that utilitarian and hedonic shopping values are positive

determinants of the cognitive and affective components of a trusting attitude, respectively.

Besides, affective trust was a positive and significant influencer of online shopping well-

being, whereas cognitive trust was not. In addition, extraversion positively moderated the

dual associations between shopping values and trust.

76

On the other hand, the study 2 attempted to: examine the dual processes of impulse

buying on shopping well-being in order to explain the relationship between shopping and

subjective well-being; investigate the cognitive and affective processes lead to impulse

buying by examining the dual associations between shopping values and impulse buying;

examine the moderating effect of self-control in these dual relationships; and, provide a more

thorough understanding of impulse buying by adopting both the online and offline shopping

contexts. The findings of the study 2 validated the impact of both cognitive and affective

impulse buying on shopping well-being, whereas utilitarian and hedonic value positively

enhanced cognitive and affective impulse buying respectively. Besides, self-control served

as a significant moderator influencing the dual associations between shopping values and

impulse buying. Study 2 also indicated that the impact of cognitive impulse buying on

shopping well-being in the online shopping context is stronger than in the offline shopping

context. Further, the impact of hedonic value on affective impulse buying; of affective

impulse buying on shopping well-being; and of utilitarian value on cognitive impulse buying

were not significantly different between these two shopping environments. In addition,

moderating impact of self-control on the dual relationships between shopping values and

impulse buying were not significantly different between these shopping contexts.

Therefore, in overall, the research results indicated that, in the online shopping

context, utilitarian and hedonic shopping values are positive determinants of the cognitive

and affective components of a trusting attitude respectively. Generally, how online shopping

is evaluated favourably is dependent on the benefits consumers gain from e-tailers. These

results are consistent with previous research (e.g. Bilgihan, 2016; Kim & Peterson, 2017)

and contribute to a more thorough understanding of the shopping values – trust relationships.

77

Besides, utilitarian and hedonic value positively enhance cognitive and affective impulse

buying respectively validating the cognitive process of impulse buying.

Second, although affective trust was shown to be a positive and significant influencer

of online shopping well-being, cognitive trust was not. Therefore, online shopping well-

being is determined affectively rather than cognitively; it is worth noting that online

shopping well-being has rarely been examined as the consequence of trust in the extant

literature. This study is one of the first to determine online shopping well-being that is

primarily emotion-driven. Besides, both cognitive and affective impulse buying were

validated to be positive determinants of shopping well-being. Thus, shopping well-being is

positively determined by impulse buying not only affectively but also cognitively. This is

somewhat contradicted to the findings of Silvera et al. (2008) in which cognitive facet of

impulse buying is negatively associated with subjective well-being, whereas affective

impulse buying and subjective well-being are unrelated.

Third, extraversion positively moderated the dual associations between shopping

values and trust in the online shopping context. This finding is somewhat consistent with the

previous study of Chen and Lee (2008). Further, self-control served as a significant

moderator influencing the dual associations between shopping values and impulse buying.

Four, the research showed that the impact of cognitive impulse buying on shopping

well-being in the online shopping context is stronger than in the offline shopping context;

and. Besides, the impact of hedonic value on affective impulse buying; of affective impulse

buying on shopping well-being; and of utilitarian value on cognitive impulse buying were

not significantly different between these two shopping environments. In addition,

moderating impact of self-control on the dual relationships between shopping values and

78

impulse buying were not significantly different between these shopping contexts. These

findings serve as the base for some theoretical and practical implications.

5.2.Implications

5.2.1. Implications for theory

Theoretically, the research findings contribute to the existing consumer value–

attitude literature (Chen & Lee, 2008; Chiu et al., 2014; Overby & Lee, 2006) by digging

deeper into the processes between shopping values, trust and impulse buying. Specifically,

utilitarian value enhances cognitive trust and hedonic value positively influenced affective

trust. This highlighted the cognitive and affective effects of shopping values on trust in

online shopping. Note that while the general value–attitude link is widely accepted, the

duality approach has rarely been adopted in studying it. These findings therefore serve as

initial evidence supporting the dual associations between shopping values and trust. The

research results also show that while utilitarian value positively predicts cognitive trust, it

does not influence affective trust. Similarly, hedonic value helps to increase affective trust,

but does not affect cognitive trust. These results indicate that shopping values influence trust

via separate processes – either cognitive or affective – validating the dual associations

between them. Related studies have neither clarified the cognitive and affective associations

between utilitarian and hedonic benefit and trust (Bilgihan, 2016) nor investigated the direct

relationship between utilitarian value and hedonic value and trust. This study therefore

establishes the duality approach for the associations between shopping values and trust both

theoretically and empirically. On the other hand, this study validates the dual-process of

shopping values to impulse buying. This proves to the cognitive aspect of impulse buying

since the findings supported that utilitarian value enhances cognitive impulse buying,

79

whereas hedonic value positively impacts affective impulse buying. Thus, impulse buying

is driven by both cognitive and affective processes. Further, the appropriateness of the

duality approach in studying impulse buying behavior is evidenced. Therefore, this study is

one of the first adopting the duality approach to indicate that impulse buying is not only an

affect-based but a cognition-based shopping behavior as well.

Second, in the online shopping context, while consumer trust produces many positive

outcomes (e.g. Kim & Koo, 2016; Kim & Peterson, 2017), how it affects online shopping

well-being remains unclear. This gap is initially addressed, as this study reveals a

significantly positive relationship between affective trust and online shopping well-being.

This strengthens the significance of the hedonic or affective aspect, rather than the utilitarian

or cognitive aspect, of shopping activity. In other words, the “fun” side of shopping enhances

the extent to which online shopping positively contributes to consumers’ quality of life. As

a result, this study sheds new light and contributes significantly to the extant literature on

online shopping well-being. In addition, this study clarifies the relationship between

shopping and consumers’ subjective well-being. While Ni and Ishii (2019, p. 184–185) argue

that “the current relationship between shopping and subjective well-being needs further

exploration”, this study shows that shopping positively impacts subjective well-being. This

is supported by the significant positive association between impulse buying and shopping

well-being via both cognitive and affective process. These findings also provide an evidence

supporting the positive role of impulse buying. Note that the consequence of impulse buying

remains controversial in existing research (e.g. Xiao & Nicholson, 2013; Boonchoo &

Thoumrungroje, 2017). Therefore, the research findings contribute to existing literature by

validating the positive consequence of impulse buying that is explained both affectively and

cognitively.

80

The moderating role of both extraversion and self-control are validated. For a more

extraverted consumer, the impact of utilitarian shopping value on his or her cognitive trust

and of hedonic shopping value on his or her affective trust has been strengthened. While this

role of extraversion has rarely been investigated in existing studies, the present result

provides direct evidence to highlight the significance of the extraversion trait, especially in

online shopping. On the other hand, consumers who are high on self-control better

administer their impulse buying under the impacts of shopping values via the dual-process.

Note that existing impulse buying studies only examine the predicting role of self-control

trait (e.g. Baumeister, 2002; Iyer et al., 2019; Lo et al., 2016). This study is one of the first

studies to examine the moderating effect of self-control and, thus, contributes to the literature

on personality traits in impulse buying research.

Fourth, by comparing the offline to the online shopping contexts, this research

demonstrates key differences and similarities among the studied associations. Specifically,

the association between cognitive impulse buying and shopping well-being is stronger in the

online than in the offline shopping contexts (0.312 vs 0.051). All the other studied

associations are not significantly different across these shopping contexts. Note that existing

studies have generally studied impulse buying in either the offline (e.g. Pradhan et al., 2018)

or the online shopping contexts (e.g. Akram et al., 2018) without discussing the differences

across the shopping contexts. Therefore, these results shed new light for future research

working on the consequences of cognitive impulse buying.

5.2.2. Implications for practice

The findings of this study provide valuable insights for policy makers and

practitioners in the e-commerce industry. This study finds that shopping values enhance trust

81

in the online shopping and impulse buying in both online and offline shopping contexts.

Thus, retailers must make every attempt to increase both utilitarian and hedonic value to

consumers. For example, e-tailers should design rich and immersive website environments

that create memorable and meaningful shopping experiences for online consumers.

Similarly, both online and offline retailers can provide more utilitarian value (e.g.

convenience, cost and time saving) and/or experiential benefits (e.g. enjoyment, pleasure) to

drive consumers to buy more impulsively. In doing so, consumers are likely to immerse

themselves in hedonically enjoyable shopping activities to fulfil their meaningful goals

(Sirgy, Lee, Grace, Gurel-Atay, Tidwell, & Ekici. 2016).

Besides, the results identify that affective trust plays a significant role in online

consumers’ shopping well-being. Thus, e-retailing managers can enhance consumers’

perception of trust by showing their willingness to serve consumers. Moreover, they should

pay attention to providing consumers with assistance and support in a timely manner. This

fosters consumers’ shopping-life balance, leading to higher consumer quality of life (Eikici

et al., 2018).

E-tailers might also be encouraged to make use of online consumers’ extraversion

because it can leverage the dual impacts of shopping values on trust. While shopping values

are less effective in increasing the trust attitudes of more introverted consumers, e-tailers

need supplementary actions to increase these consumers’ level of trust. Using social

networks, for example, to spread positive information may be an effective solution (e.g. Ha

et al., 2016). On the other hand, how much impulsive purchases are increased by shopping

values is dependent on self-control trait of consumers regardless of shopping contexts. Thus,

online and offline retailers may need to develop appropriate solutions to lessen the negative

impact of consumers’ self-control in the influence of shopping values on impulse buying.

82

For instance, displaying some products that are related to the items browsed in retailing

website can be a great way to encourage online shoppers to buy impulsively. Similarly,

displaying relevant products in the same shelfs is highly potential to drive offline consumers

make more impulsive purchases.

Compared to the offline shopping context, shopping well-being of online shoppers is

more influenced by cognitive impulse buying than in-store consumers. Therefore, leveraging

cognitive impulse buying of online shoppers can significantly enhance the positive

contributions of their purchases. For instance, increasing the functional benefits, such as

convenience or cost- and time-saving, of online purchases is one of the potential options for

e-tailers to leverage cognitive impulse buying.

5.3.Limitations and future research directions

A major limitation of this study is the consideration of shopping well-being, in the

online shopping context, only under the predictive role of trust. There are other potential

predictors that future studies should examine to better explain the formation of shopping

well-being. For instance, website attributes, for example, enhance the levels of satisfaction

and purchase intention (Hsu, Chang, & Chen, 2012) and potentially contribute to online

shopping well-being. Future studies to re-examine the association between cognitive trust

and online shopping well-being are also recommended. This may help to confirm or refute

the impact of cognitive trust on online shopping well-being in the context of online shopping.

Besides, this study only provides an additional evidence for the positive consequence

of impulse buying. To have a more conclusive answer about whether impulse buying’s

consequence is positive or negative, a future research adopting meta-analysis method should

be conducted.

83

In addition, by investigating the impulse buying – shopping well-being association,

this study has partially examined the relationship between shopping and subjective well-

being. There are potentially some other shopping motives than impulse buying that may

significantly influence consumer subjective well-being. Thus, future research should take

other shopping motives to address the research issue more thoroughly.

84

REFERENCES

Akram, U., Hui, P., Kaleem K.M., Tanveer, Y., Mehmood, K. & Ahmad, W. (2018). How

website quality affects online impulse buying: Moderating effects of sales promotion

and credit card use. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(1), 235-256.

Al-Debei, M.M., Akroush, M.N., & Ashouri, M.I. (2015). Consumer attitudes towards

online shopping: The effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web quality.

Internet Research, 25(5), 707-733.

Aragoncillo, L. & Orus, C. (2018). Impulse buying behaviour: An online-offline

comparative and the impact of social media. Spanish Journal of Marketing, 22(1), 42-

62.

Ariffin, S.K., Mohan, T., & Goh, Y.N. (2018). Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on

consumers’ online purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,

12(3), 309-327.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.

Basso, A., Goldberg, D., Greenspan, S., & Weimer, D. (2001). First impressions: Emotional

and cognitive factors underlying judgments of trust e-commerce. Proceedings of the

3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, Tampa, Florida, 137–143.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O.T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer

attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.

Baumeister, R.F. (2002). Ego depletion and self-control failure: An energy model of the

self’s executive function. Self and Identity, 1(2), 129-136.

85

Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., Aaker, J.L., & Garbinsky, E.N. (2013). Some key differences

between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6),

505-516.

Beldad, A., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the

intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human

Behavior, 26(5), 857-869.

Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O.P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic

groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis

of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588.

Bilgihan, A. (2016). Gen Y customer loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model of

trust, user experience and branding. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 103-113.

Boonchoo, P., & Thoumrungroje, A. (2017). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of

transformation expectations on impulse buying and conspicuous consumption. Journal

of International Consumer Marketing, 29(3), 194-205.

Bridges, E., & Florsheim, R. (2008). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: The online

experience. Journal of Business Research, 61(4), 309-314.

Burroughs, J.E. (1996). Product symbolism, self-meaning, and holistic matching: The role

of information processing in impulsive buying. Advances in Consumer Research, 23,

463–469.

86

Chai, J.C.Y., Malhotra, N.K., & Alpert, F. (2015). A two-dimensional model of trust–value–

loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 23-

31.

Chan, T.K.H., Cheung, C.M.K., & Lee, Z.W.Y. (2017). The state of online impulse-buying

research: A literature analysis. Information and Management, 54(2), 204–217.

Chang, H.J., Eckman, M., & Yan, R.N. (2011). Application of the Stimulus-Organism-

Response model to the retail environment: The role of hedonic motivation in impulse

buying behavior. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer

Research, 21(3), 233–249.

Chen, W.K., Chen, C.W., & Lin, Y.C. (2020). Understanding the influence of impulse

buying toward consumers’ post-purchase dissonance and return intention: An

empirical investigation of apparel websites. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and

Humanized Computing, 1-14.

Chen, J.V., Su, B.C., & Widjaja, A.E. (2016). Facebook C2C social commerce: A study of

online impulse buying. Decision Support Systems, 83, 57-69.

Chen, S.H., & Lee, K.P. (2008). The role of personality traits and perceived values in

persuasion: An elaboration likelihood model perspective on online shopping. Social

Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(10), 1379-1399.

Chen, Y.F., & Wang, R.Y. (2016). Are humans rational? Exploring factors influencing

impulse buying intention and continuous impulse buying intention. Journal of

Consumer Behaviour, 15(2), 186-197.

87

Chhetri, P. (2014). The role of cognitive and affective trust in the relationship between

organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A conceptual

framework. Business: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 170–178.

Chih, W.H., Wu, C.H.J., & Li, H.J. (2012). The Antecedents of Consumer Online Buying

Impulsiveness on a Travel Website: Individual Internal Factor Perspectives. Journal

of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 29(5), 430–443.

Chiu, C.M., Wang, E.T.G., Fang, Y.H., & Huang, H.Y. (2014). Understanding customers’

repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic

value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85–114.

Choi, D., Oh, I.S., & Colbert, A.E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A

meta-analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and

culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1542-1567.

Chopra, K., & Wallace, W.A. (2003). Trust in electronic environments. Proceedings of the

36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2003, 1–

10.

Coley, A., & Burgess, B. (2003). Gender differences in cognitive and affective impulse

buying. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,

7(3), 282–295.

Cortina, J.M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W.P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:

Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research

Methods, 4(4), 324-360.

88

Cornish, L.S. (2020). Why did I buy this? Consumers' post‐impulse‐consumption experience

and its impact on the propensity for future impulse buying behaviour. Journal of

Consumer Behaviour, 19(1), 36-46.

Costa, P.T.Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and

Individual Differences, 13(6), 653-665.

Crites, S.L.Jr., Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive

properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619-634.

Cronbach, L.J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently

proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 414-417.

Curral, S.C., & Judge, T.A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role

persons. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 151–170.

Dabholkar, P.A., van Dolen, W.M., & de Ruyter, K. (2009). A dual-sequence framework for

B2C relationship formation: Moderating effects of employee communication style in

online group chat. Psychology & Marketing, 26(2), 145-174.

Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing consumer engagement:

Duality, dimensionality and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-

6), 399-426.

Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

89

Disabato, D.J., Goodman, F.R., Kashdan, T.B., Short, J.L., & Jarden, A. (2016). Different

types of well-being? A cross-cultural examination of hedonic and eudaimonic well-

being. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 471-482.

Ekici, A., Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J., Grace, B.Y., & Bosnjak, M. (2018). The effects of shopping

well-being and shopping ill-being on consumer life satisfaction. Applied Research in

Quality of Life, 13(2), 333-353.

El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J.C., & Sirgy, M.J. (2013). Shopping well-being at the mall:

Construct, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 856-

863.

El Hedhli, K., Zourrig, H., & Chebat, J.C. (2016). Shopping well-being: Is it just a matter of

pleasure or doing the task? The role of shopper’s gender and self-congruity. Journal

of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 1-13.

Elliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.

Evans, J.S.B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social

cognition. Annual Review Psychology, 59, 255-278.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),

39-50.

Gardner, M.P., & Rook, D.W. (1988). Effects of impulse purchases on consumers' affective

states. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(1), 127-130.

90

George, B.P., & Yaoyuneyong, G. (2010). Impulse buying and cognitive dissonance: A

study conducted among the spring break student shoppers. Young Consumers: Insight

and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 11(4), 291–306.

Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development

incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,

25(2), 186-192.

Giovanis, A., & Athanasopoulou, P. (2017). Gen Y-ers’ brand loyalty drivers in emerging

devices. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(6), 805-821.

Gutman, J. (1997). Means-ends chains of goal hierarchies. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6),

545-560.

Ha, H.Y., Janda, S., & Muthaly, S.K. (2010). A new understanding of satisfaction model in

e-re-purchase situation. European Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 997-1016.

Ha, H.Y., John, J., John, J.D., & Chung, Y.K. (2016). Temporal effects of information from

social networks on online behavior: The role of cognitive and affective trust. Internet

Research, 26(1), 213-235.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis:

A Global Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hansen, M.H., Morrow, J.L., & Batista, J.C. (2002). The impact of trust on cooperative

membership retention, performance, and satisfaction: An exploratory study.

International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 5(1), 41–59.

Hawkins, D.I., & Mothersbaugh, D.L. (2010). Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing

Strategy. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

91

Herbst, K.C., Gaertner, L., & Insko, C.A. (2003). My head says yes but my heart says no:

Cognitive and affective attraction as a function of similarity to the ideal self. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1206-1219.

Hirschman, E.C., & Holbrook, M.B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts,

methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-

Control. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 492–507.

Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self-control from a dual-systems

perspective. Perspectives on psychological science, 4(2), 162-176.

Homer, P.M., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior

hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638-646.

Hsu, C.L, Chang, K.C., & Chen, M.C. (2012). The impact of website quality on customer

satisfaction and purchase intention: Perceived playfulness and perceived flow as

mediators. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(4), 549-570.

Hsu, M.H., Chang, C.M., & Chuang, L.W. (2015). Understanding the determinants of online

repeat purchase intention and moderating role of habit: The case of online group-

buying in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 35(1), 45-56.

Hsu, M.H., Chuang, L.W., & Hsu, C.S. (2014). Understanding online shopping intention:

The roles of four types of trust and their antecedents. Internet Research, 24(3), 332-

352.

Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structural modeling: sensitivity to

underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.

92

Huang, J.H., & Yang, Y.C. (2010). The relationship between personality traits and online

shopping motivations. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,

38(5), 673-679.

Iyer, G.R., Blut, M., Xiao, S.H., & Grewal, D. (2019). Impulse buying: A meta-analytic

review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-21.

Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships.

Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.

Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., Weun, S., & Beatty, S. E. (2003). The product-specific nature

of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 505–511.

Kahle, L.R. (1980). Stimulus condition self-selection by males in the interaction of locus of

control and skill–chance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

38(1), 50.

Karimov, F.P., Brengman, M., & Hove, L.V. (2011). The effect of website design

dimensions on initial trust: A synthesis of the empirical literature. Journal of

Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 272–301.

Kesari, B., & Atulkar, S. (2016). Satisfaction of mall shoppers: A study on perceived

utilitarian and hedonic shopping values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

31, 22-31.

Kim, G., & Koo, H. (2016). The causal relationship between risk and trust in the online

marketplace: A bidirectional perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1020–

1029.

93

Kim, H.W., Xu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2012). Which is more important in internet shopping,

perceived price or trust?. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(3),

241-252.

Kim, S., & Eastin, M.S. (2011). Hedonic tendencies and the online consumer: An

investigation of the online shopping process. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(1), 68-

90

Kim, Y., & Peterson, R.A. (2017). A meta-analysis of online trust relationships in e-

commerce. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 44-54.

Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., The

Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Komiak, S.X., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Understanding customer trust in agent-mediated

electronic commerce, web-mediated electronic commerce, and traditional commerce.

Information and Technology Management, 5(1/2), 181–207.

Lee, D.J., & Sirgy, M.J. (2004). Quality-of-life (QOL) marketing: Proposed antecedents and

consequences. Journal of Macromarketing, 24(1), 44-58.

Lee, D., Yu, G.B., Sirgy, M.J., Gurel-atay, E., & Bahn, K.D. (2014). Shopping well-being

and ill-Being: Toward an integrated model. In Handbook of research on retailer-

consumer relationship development, IGI Global, (27–44).

Lee, M.S.W., & Ahn, C.S.Y. (2016). Anti-consumption, materialism, and consumer well-

being. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 18–47.

Lewis, J.D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985.

94

Liao, C., To, P.L., Wong, Y.C., Palvia, P., & Kakhki, M.D. (2016). The impact of

presentation mode and product type on online impulse buying decisions. Journal of

Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 153–168.

Lim, S.H., Lee, S., & 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, 34(1), 85-100.

Lindell, M.K., & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-

sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.

Lo, L.Y.S., Lin, S.W., & Hsu, L.Y. (2016). Motivation for online impulse buying: A two-

factor theory perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5),

759–772.

Lucas, M., & Koff, E. (2017). Body image, impulse buying, and the mediating role of

negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 330-334.

Mai, H.T.X., & Olsen, S.O. (2015). Consumer participation in virtual communities: The role

of personal values and personality. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(2),

144–164.

Maio, G.R., & Olson, J.M. (1994). Value - Attitude - Behaviour relations: The moderating

role of attitude functions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(3), 301–312.

Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., & Patil (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A

comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management

Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.

95

Mansour, K.B., Kooli, K., & Utama, R. (2004). Online trust antecedents and their

consequences on purchase intention: an integrative approach. Journal of Customer

Behavior, 13(1), 25-42.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational

trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal

co-operation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Williams, J. (2010). Trust considerations on attitudes towards

online purchasing: The moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. Journal of

Business Research, 63(9-10), 1018-1024.

McDonald, H., Darbyshire, P., & Jevons, C. (2000). Shop often, buy little: The Vietnamese

reaction to supermarket retailing. Journal of Global Marketing, 13(4), 53-71.

Menidjel, C., Benhabib, A., & Bilgihan, A. (2017). Examining the moderating role of

personality traits in the relationship between brand trust and brand loyalty. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 26(6), 631-649.

Monsuwé, P.Y., Dellaert T.B.G., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). What drives consumers to shop

online ? A literature review. International Journal of Service Industry Management,

15(1), 102–121.

Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

96

Morrow, J.L. Jr., Hansen, M.H., & Pearson, A.W. (2004). The cognitive and affective

antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 16(1), 48-64.

Ni, S., & Ishii, K. (2019). The influence of shopping on subjective well-being in China:

Tradition-directedness and trust as moderators. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and

Logistics, 31(1), 184-201.

Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and

domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157-176.

Nielsen (2014). The Digital Consumer February 2014. available at:

https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-

downloads/2014%20Reports/the-digital-consumer-report-feb-2014.pdf (accessed 09

May 2019).

Olsen, S.O., Tudoran, A.A., Honkanen, P., & Verplanken, B. (2016). Differences and

similarities between impulse buying and variety seeking: A personality-based

perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 33(1), 36–47.

Overby, J.W., & Lee, E.J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping

value on consumer preference and intention. Journal of Business Research, 59(10-11),

1160-1166.

Ozen, H., & Engizek, N. (2014). Shopping online without thinking: Being emotional or

rational?. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(1), 78-93.

97

Pai, P., & Arnott, D.C. (2012). User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and

gratifications through a means-end approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3),

1039–1053.

Parboteeah, D.V., Valacich, J.S., & Wells, J.D. (2009). The influence of website

characteristics on a consumer’s urge to buy impulsively. Information Systems

Research, 20(1), 60–78.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct

of life satisfaction. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3(2), 137-152.

Peter, J.P., & Olson, J.C. (2010). Consumer Behavior & Marketing Strategy. New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Pornpitakpan, C., Yuan, Y., & Han, J.H. (2017). The effect of salespersons' retail service

quality and consumers' mood on impulse buying. Australasian Marketing Journal,

25(1), 2-11.

Pradhan, D., Israel, D., & Jena, A.K. (2018). Materialism and compulsive buying behaviour:

The role of consumer credit card use and impulse buying. Asia Pacific Journal of

Marketing and Logistics, 30(5), 1239-1258.

Punyatoya, P. (2019). Effects of cognitive and affective trust on online customer behavior.

Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(1), 80-96.

98

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.D. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.

Rook, D.W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189-199.

Rook, D.W., & Fisher, R.J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior.

Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 305–313.

Sarkar, A., Sarkar, J.G., Sreejesh, S., & Anusree, M.R. (2018). A qualitative investigation

of e-tail brand affect. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(3), 365-380.

Sela, A., Berger, J., & Kim, J. (2017). How self-control shapes the meaning of choice.

Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 724-737.

Shen, K.N., & Khalifa, M. (2012). System design effects on online impulse buying. Internet

Research, 22(4), 396–425.

Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., & Gross, B.L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of

consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–170.

Silvera, D.H., Lavack, A.M., & Kropp, F. (2008). Impulse buying: The role of affect, social

influence, and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(1), 23-33.

Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J., Grace, B.Y., Gurel-Atay, E., Tidwell, J., & Ekici, A. (2016). Self-

expressiveness in shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30(May),

292-299.

Sirgy, M.J., Kruger, P.S., Lee, D.J., & Yu, G.B. (2011). How does a travel trip affect tourists’

life satisfaction?. Journal of Travel Research, 50(3), 261-275.

99

Sohn, H.K., & Lee, T.J. (2017). Tourists’ impulse buying behavior at duty-free shops: The

moderating effects of time pressure and shopping involvement. Journal of Travel and

Tourism Marketing, 34(3), 341-356.

Sparks, B.A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking

intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310–1323.

Steenkamp, J.B.E., & Van Trijp, H.C. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing

constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283-299.

Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good

adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of

Personality, 72(2), 271-324.

Ul Islam, J., Rahman, J., & Hollebeek, L.D. (2017). Personality factors as predictors of

online consumer engagement: An empirical investigation. Marketing Intelligence &

Planning, 35(4), 510-528.

Varshneya, G., Das, G., & Khare, A. (2017). Experiential value: A review and future

research directions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(3), 339-357.

Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2011). The influence of online store beliefs on consumer

online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Information &

Management, 48(8), 320-327.

Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency:

Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S71–S83.

Verplanken, B., & Sato, A. (2011). The psychology of impulse buying: An integrative self-

regulation approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(2), 197–210.

100

Vietnam E-business Index (2018). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2018, available at:

http://www.vecom.vn/tai-lieu/tai-lieu-trong-nuoc/bao-cao-chi-so-thuong-mai-dien-

tu-viet-nam-2018 (accessed February 15, 2019).

Vietnam E-business Index (2019). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2019, available at:

http://en.vecom.vn/document/17185 (accessed November 30, 2020).

Vietnam E-business Index (2020). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2020, available at:

http://en.idea.gov.vn/?page=document (accessed February 09, 2021).

Vohs, K.D., & Faber, R.J. (2007). Spent resources: Self‐regulatory resource availability

affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547.

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and

utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),

310-320.

Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V.W. (2010). The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word

of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6),

838–859.

Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Hogan,

R., Johnson, J. and Briggs, S. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology, Academic

Press, San Diego, CA, 767-793.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.

101

Weinberg, P., & Gottwald, W. (1982). Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions.

Journal of Business Research, 10(1), 43–57.

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. (2000). Consumer motivations for online shopping. AMCIS

2000 Proceedings, 1362–1366.

Wu, I.L., Chen, K.W., & Chiu, M.L. (2016). Defining key drivers of online impulse

purchasing: A perspective of both impulse shoppers and system users. International

Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 284–296.

Xiao, S.H., & Nicholson, M. (2013). A multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural framework

of impulse buying: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of

Management Reviews, 15(3), 333–356.

Yi, S., & Jai, T. (2020). Impacts of consumers’ beliefs, desires and emotions on their impulse

buying behavior: Application of an integrated model of belief-desire theory of

emotion. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(6), 662-681.

Yim, M.Y.C. (2017). When shoppers don’t have enough self-control resources: Applying

the strength model of self-control. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(4), 328-337.

Yu, C., & Bastin, M. (2010). Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in

transitional economies: A symbiosis in the Mainland China marketplace. Journal of

Brand Management, 18(2), 105–114.

Yi, S., & Jai, T. (2020). Impacts of consumers’ beliefs, desires and emotions on their impulse

buying behavior: Application of an integrated model of belief-desire theory of

emotion. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(6), 662-681.

102

Zafar, A.U., Qiu, J., & Shahzad, M. (2020). Do digital celebrities' relationships and social

climate matter? Impulse buying in f-commerce. Internet Research, 30(6), 1731-1762.

Zhou, M., & Tian, D. (2010). An integrated model of influential antecedents of online

shopping initial trust: Empirical evidence in a low-trust environment. Journal of

International Consumer Marketing, 22(2), 147-167.

103

APPENDICES

Appendix 3A – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in English)

104

105

Appendix 3B – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in Vietnamese)

106

107

Appendix 3C – Sample characteristics of study 1

Valid

Cumulative

Characteristics

Frequency Percent

Percent

Percent

Male

218

33.6

34.3

34.3

Gender

Female

418

64.5

65.7

100.0

≤ 25

301

46.5

46.7

46.7

Age

From over 25 to under 40

329

50.8

51.1

97.8

≥ 40

14

2.2

2.2

100.0

1 – 2

301

46.5

46.7

46.7

Shopping

3 – 4

frequency

329

50.8

51.1

97.8

per month

> 4

14

2.2

2.2

100.0

Under 5

119

18.4

18.6

18.6

Income per

From 5 to under 10

355

54.8

55.6

74.2

month

(million

From 10 to under 15

128

19.8

20.0

94.2

VND)

From 15

37

5.7

5.8

100.0

108

Appendix 3D – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 1

Item

M

SD

λ

t-value

Hedonic value: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.91; Average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.63

Dull/exciting

4.719

1.462

0.814

-

Not delightful/delightful

4.785

1.464

0.865

24.860

Enjoyable/unenjoyable

4.704

1.459

0.896

25.986

Not playful/playful

4.674

1.462

0.852

24.635

Amusing/not amusing

4.505

1.533

0.618

15.052

Not sensuous/sensuous

4.491

1.547

0.678

17.208

Utilitarian value: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.63

Effective/ineffective

4.840

1.469

0.657

-

Helpful/unhelpful

4.887

1.552

0.844

17.569

Functional/not functional

5.159

1.821

0.902

14.422

Handy/not handy

4.835

1.769

0.750

10.909

Cognitive trust: CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.65

In my opinion, X is an online retailer that…

Provides accurate information

5.080

1.279

0.763

-

Keeps the promises

5.242

1.362

0.739

13.631

Provides consistent services and quality

4.881

1.345

0.807

20.762

Is very dependable

4.861

1.343

0.859

20.756

Is sincere

4.836

1.332

0.866

20.954

Affective trust: CR = 0.83; AVE = 0.49

In all circumstances, X is ready to offer me assistance

4.779

1.315

0.628

-

and support

When providing products and services, X is concerned

4.400

1.200

0.776

15.532

about my welfare

I trust X because it seems to care about me

4.245

1.259

0.791

14.013

I can depend on X to buy important things

4.185

1.442

0.689

12.034

In general, X is willing to serve its customers

4.844

1.228

0.594

11.796

109

Shopping well-being: CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.57

I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to

3.699

1.441

0.745

-

my own personal well-being

I feel that online shopping makes me happy

3.623

1.473

0.794

16.206

I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to

4.082

1.569

0.727

15.787

my quality of life overall

Extraversion: CR = 0.91; AVE = 0.55

I see myself as someone who…

5.034

1.596

0.782

-

Is outgoing, sociable

4.727

1.565

0.673

17.187

Is talkative

4.787

1.453

0.681

16.535

Has an assertive personality

4.915

1.639

0.746

19.939

Generates a lot of enthusiasm

4.846

1.549

0.802

17.668

Is full of energy

4.492

1.519

0.726

15.813

Is reserved

4.647

1.519

0.774

17.717

Is sometimes shy, inhibited

4.603

1.595

0.732

15.822

Tends to be quiet

Mean (M), Standard deviations (SD) and Standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items

110

Appendix 4A – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in English)

111

112

Appendix 4B – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in English)

113

114

Appendix 4C – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in Vietnamese)

115

116

Appendix 4D – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in Vietnamese)

117

118

Appendix 4E – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 2

λ

M

SD

t-value

4.816 1.3528 0.803 - 4.856 1.3917 0.892 22.259 4.747 1.3490 0.88 21.828 4.713 1.3514 0.822 19.799 4.629 1.4446 0.703 16.151 4.744 1.3412 0.799 19.045

5.051 1.4375 0.627 - 5.020 1.3926 0.664 15.658 5.133 1.4879 0.626 10.838 4.969 1.5405 0.712 11.931 4.747 1.5532 0.773 12.591 4.867 1.6551 0.752 12.384

- 3.524 1.8194 0.655 3.440 1.8136 0.77 13.213 2.891 1.6400 0.787 13.403 2.569 1.6701 0.765 13.158

- 9.225 9.323

Item Hedonic value: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.92; Average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.67 HV1 Dull/exciting HV2 Not delightful/delightful HV3 Enjoyable/unenjoyable HV4 Not playful/playful HV5 Amusing/not amusing HV6 Not sensuous/sensuous Utilitarian value: CR = 0.85; AVE = 0.48 UV1 Effective/ineffective UV2 Helpful/unhelpful UV3 Functional/not functional UV4 Handy/not handy UV5 Problem solving/not problem solving UV6 Reliable/not reliable Cognitive impulse buying: CR = 0.83; AVE = 0.56 I usually think carefully before I buy something (R) CI1 It is not my style to just buy thing (R) CI2 I am used to buy thing on the spot CI3 CI4 I often buy things without thinking Affective impulse buying: CR = 0.73; AVE = 0.40 AI1 AI2 AI3 AI4

4.284 1.7869 0.724 10.005

I sometimes cannot suppress of wanting to buy something 4.527 1.7173 0.554 If I see something new, I want to buy it 3.678 1.6364 0.619 I am a bit reckless in buying things 0.63 3.976 1.7280 I sometimes buy things because I like buying thing, rather than because I need them

Shopping wellbeing: CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.70 SW1 Thinking about shopping, I feel that my shopping

4.789 1.4766 0.804

-

contributes significantly to my own personal well-being.

SW2 Thinking about shopping, my quality of life would

4.518 1.6459 0.851 20.694

diminish significantly if I don’t shop.

SW3 Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping makes me

4.711 1.5769 0.839 20.304

happy.

SW4 Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping contributes

4.462 1.5393 0.849 20.639

significantly to my quality of life overall. SW5 The quality of life of my family would diminish

4.169 1.7023 0.829 19.944

significantly if I don’t shop.

Self control: CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.43 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

I am good at resisting temptation. 4.998 1.3992 0.503 People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 4.898 1.3962 0.735 I have trouble concentrating. R 4.980 1.2440 0.826 I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. R 5.173 1.2293 0.657 I am lazy. R 5.158 1.2836 0.513

- 9.55 9.841 9.079 7.638

Note: Mean (M), Standard deviations (SD), Standardized CFA loadings (λ)

119