THE INFLUENCE OF TIME PRESSURE ON PURCHASE DECISION AND REGRET

ABSTRACT

Every day people all around the world are buying products and going through the complex decision-making process of purchase. Consumers are buying products in different time, different stores, markets or shopping malls under different conditions. Consumers’ shopping behaviours are constantly influenced by such external variables as vast choices of products, set of their characteristics, price levels, marketing images, store design, quality of the service and other factors that in a certain degree might predefine or influence final purchase decision. Regardless the number of such variables and the intensity of their influence, the final result of consumers’decision can be represented in 2 ways: to buy or not to buy. Although an outcome might sound simple, but in order to reach this final stage, consumer has to proceed through the complex decision-making process that will be influenced by the mentioned above conditions.

This research observes and analyses the influences of an external variables as time pressure on the probability of post-purchase regret through such stages of purchase making process as purchase delay or impulsive purchase. Further, this study reveals the moderating effect of a personality trait (regulatory focus) to observe the purchase process in terms of time constraints that can occur during various sales events and promotional campaigns. Data for empirical analysis was gathered through online surveys and analysed through statistical software in order to approve or reject the proposed hypotheses. Specifically, this research supports the idea that under time pressure which occurs throughout limited sales events, consumers may make irrational decisions related to, depending on their individual character and decision making style, impulsive purchase or purchase delay and as following experience the state of post-purchase regret about their final decision. At the same time, this research provides the reader with practical implications that are suggesting counteracting the time pressure and post-purchase regret through additional post-purchase customer support or unique and deliberate design of sales events and promotions.

Keywords: time pressure, regulatory focus, purchase delay, impulsive purchase, regret.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research background

The relevance and importance of particular research is determined by the increasing role and popularity of marketing-related sales promotions that are conducted and held by various commercial companies operating in different market segments and niches. Under sales promotions, discounts, coupons this research presupposes events that are aimed at the increase of the turnover of company’s products and increase in customer loyalty towards the brand image of the company and brand itself. Such promotions are valid only for a limited time and are followed by active and sometimes aggressive push advertising campaigns. The regular customer can feel extremely pressured and confused by the limited period of time during which he has to make a buying decision. Such pressure can radically influence the consumer buying behaviour and can be perceived differently depending on personality: one may perceive such event as a chance to make a purchase on good conditions (for instance, instantly make a purchase by the discounted price), or delay the instant purchase to evaluate product characteristics more deliberately and come back to it in the future. However, regardless of the consumer’ choice, he might feel post-purchase regret related to his purchase decision or purchase delay that might negatively affect overall purchasing experience and even become deal-breaker in the next sales event participation. Such negative experience might contradict the goal that was originally set by marketers or salesmen to raise the turnover volume or increase customer loyalty. Thus, from the perspective of design of sales events, it is necessary to understand how to reduce the stress factor of time and decrease post-purchase regret to make purchasing experience as satisfactory for customer as possible.

The chosen research field is especially topical considering the recent events related to the SARS-CoV-2 as the conduction of sales and promotional activities has shifted from offline to online segment and thus became more available for targeted customers who can access sales event through the internet from any geographical point of the world. Specifically, the recent studies proposed by McKinsey are indicating not only an increasing online purchasing power of consumers during pandemic due to wide scale financial support programs and execution of various stimulus proposed by the governments for ordinary citizens, but also the second “boom” of ecommerce market segment. Consumers, having additional source of “free money” and bigger choice of accessible sales events, tend to take part in sales events more actively (Briedis et al., 2020). Thus, taking the “boom” of ecommerce and e-sales events into account, from the perspective of theory of consumer behavior, this research might be topical as never before.

1.2. Proposed research objectives and questions

Throughout the research, it is necessary to answer the following questions: what is the nature of time pressure that arises during sales and promotion events? What are the ways of regular consumer to deal with the time pressure? Why does one consumer choose to make an impulsive purchase and the other prefer to delay the purchase? How do these choices affect an overall process of purchase making? Is there any difference from the perspective of post-purchase feelings between purchase delay and impulsive purchase? If yes, how to reduce the probability of post-purchase regret?

In order to answer these questions, apart from the analysis of time pressure as of predecessor of post-purchase regret, this study will also observe and analyze whether the choice of purchase delay or impulsive pressure can be predefined by the specific regulatory focus decision making style and whether there is significant influence of purchase delay or impulsive purchase towards the probability of post-purchase regret. The end-point of the research will be to give theoretical and managerial implementations on ways of reduction of the level of post-purchase regret and time pressure. As following, the research might have both theoretical and practical value and implementations from the perspective of consumer behaviour and marketing. Specifically, the following specific objectives were set:

1. To review the theory and literature related to time pressure, and to understand its causes and effect towards the further purchasing process.
2. To analyze the moderating effect of regulatory focus orientation towards purchase regret or impulsive purchase in order to understand the motivation of particular consumer to counter time pressure in a certain way.
3. To review the concept and literature of purchase delay and impulsive purchase from the perspective of its causal relations and effect towards the probability of post-purchase regret.
4. To analyze and explain the causes of post-purchase regret and, through the empirical study, suggest ways of its reduction.

2. Literature review

2.1. Time Pressure and its impact towards consumer

Consumers often have to make purchase decision in the conditions of urgency. Such circumstances can be the case during the wide range of situations: starting from the purchase of daily necessity products in a hurry after work or purchase of technologically complex products at sales event. Although the notion of time pressure first appeared in scientific literature in 1965 in the context of marketing theoretical field and was presented as a factor influencing consumer behaviour (Howard, 1965) in very narrow time limits from 10 to 40 seconds (Wright, 1974), today, due to the wide conduction of massive promotions, sales events, online coupons campaigns which represent a lot of attraction for the consumers, in the contemporary literature time pressure is also observed in a broader time limit as an inevitable attribute of sales-driving events that may negatively affect overall purchasing experience.

The first definition of time pressure was given by Ben Zur and Breznitz (1981) who defined time pressure as «the amount of information that must be processed in a certain period of time, or the amount of time given to process a certain amount of information» (Zur, & Breznitz, 1981, p. 89). Due to the poor processing timing, stressed consumer can make an irrational buying decision. In particular, Sigala (2013) states that by setting extremely limited and narrowed time constraints for a sales event or coupon exerts additional pressure on consumers to make a purchase at all. Time pressure is also associated in prior literature as the stress factor influencing not only the purchase decision state but also the outcome of the purchase, in particular – the post-purchase feelings that might be negative as consumer will be dissatisfied with his inability of making a rational decision (Kim & Kim, 2008; Ackerman & Barbara, 2003). It is important not to confuse time pressure with time constraints as time constraints are set by the marketers or retail shops owners while time pressure is an outcome of too narrow time constraints. As following, there are situations when consumers are put into time constraints but do not feel time pressure as time limits are well designed. Generally speaking, time pressure has been taken to mean as a certain state of psychological stress during which consumers must make a purchasing decision within a limited amount of time (Sigala, 2013). In the condition of time limitations, certain amount of such stress caused by various factors related to the price, product characteristics, service quality and assortment can lead to the confusion that may affect the complex process of purchasing the product.

Although the term and classifications of “confusion” are not universally defined in the literature contributed to the marketing and consumer behaviour due to its wide application to different fields and topics, it has been decided to highlight the closest definitions relevant to the consumer decision making process. Turnbull, Leek, and Ying (2000, p. 145) have defined confusion as “consumer failure to develop a correct interpretation of various facets of a product/service, during the information processing procedure”. Mitchell and Papavassiliou (1999) also defined consumer confusion as the feeling that customers experience while facing huge number of products and the massive amount of relevant information carried by each brand. Confusion, in turn, can lead to imperfect purchasing or purchase avoidance at all. Thus, the concept of confusion is vitally important to marketers and sellers as it may directly influence satisfaction and sales. In order to uncover this concept, the 3 sources of confusion will be reviewed: information overload, choice overload, ambiguity overload.

Information overload originates from the limited nature of a person's ability to absorb and analyse the information in a limited period of time (Miller, 1956). As human capacity to analyse is limited, consumer can process only a small amount of information at once. Although consumer may have particular and defined purchase needs and requirements towards the products, it may still be unclear to him what is the way and criteria of evaluation of a product available in stores. As following, facing a huge capacity of information representing different product alternatives, consumer may experience confusion and make an irrational decision (Walsh, Hennig-Thurau & Mitchell, 2007).

Choice overload occurs under the influence of availability of big number of alternatives that are similar not only in price, quality, packaging or characteristics but also in logo, brand meaning and trademark. Choice overload is as a propensity to think of different products in different categories that are symbolically and functionally homogeneous (Walsh, Hennig-Thurau & Mitchell, 2007). Walsh et al. (2007) also defined overload confusion as “a lack of understanding caused by excessive information available in a mature environment that is not understandable by consumers in available time during purchase”. As following, more information creates more errors and leads to a decrease in awareness of particular product (Tunney, 2002; Walsh, Hennig-Thurau & Mitchell, 2007).

Ambiguity overload, in its own turn, is connected to the complexity of the products, instructions, packaging or labels. Ambiguity overload is more attained to the segment of high technologically advanced products such as durable goods or goods of special use. According to Walsh (2007), the concept of ambiguity overload can also be related to unclear, false, ambiguous or fake and misleading product related information appearing both on packaging and in the advertisement. On the other hand, as concept is mostly connected with high involvement and high-end products, consumer will proceed through an information research beforehand of making a purchase and thus will avoid any in-store purchase delays or impulsive buying. For example, one of researches (Robertson, 1976), claims that consumers who are considering to get the durable type of products will want to have as much information as possible before buying. Respectively to the situation when there is no time for proper evaluation, ambiguity overload reduces confidence during decision-making stage and results in downturn of sales (Ghosh & Ray, 1997).

2.2. Impulsive purchase and purchase delay

In prior research in the sphere of consumer behaviour, impulsive purchase is defined as ‘experiencing a sudden and unplanned urge to behave in a hedonically pleasing manner that is immediately gratifying, and then acting on the impulse without careful deliberation on subsequent negative consequences’ (Sengupta & Zhou 2007, p.35). The prior researchers provided the framework relevant to impulsive purchase through the categorization of buying behaviour as planned, unplanned and impulsive (Stern, 1962). What is the difference between unplanned and impulsive purchase? These 2 terms are defined respectively to the quickness of decision making. Impulsive purchase involves experiencing a sudden, strong, and irresistible urge to buy. Iyer (1989) stated that while impulsive purchases can be considered as unplanned, however, unplanned purchases are not always impulsively decided, following that the difference is in the time required to make a decision. Also, impulsive buying can be influenced by the wide number of different factors which could be either related to the shopping environment, consumer personality, product itself and the wide variation of demographic and socio-cultural aspects, while the reason of unplanned purchase is lying mostly in the consumer personality itself.

In respect towards consumer personality, the conclusion which was drawn out from the research of Youn and Faber (2000) states that impulsive buying may originate from consumer traits such as impulsiveness and optimum stimulation level, shopping enjoyment or lack of self-control that could be connected both to hedonism orientation of customer as well as to inability of making a rational decision due various limitations. Related to hedonistic orientation, Hausman (2000) stated that impulsive buying is mostly a hedonic action that is predominantly motivated by the need of satisfying higher order needs in Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ rather than utilitarian and lower order needs.

The impulsive purchase was also observed in the relation with time pressure in the context of shopping environment. In particular, Xu, Beatty and Ferrell proposed that the store environment and the consumer’s impulsive moods can be moderated by the situational factors among which is time pressure. Specifically, if consumer had positive impression of the store environment, time pressure could positively moderate the probability of purchase (Xu, 2007; Beatty & Ferrell, 1998).

Impulsive buying probability can also vary according to the demographical and sociological parameters. For example, Dittmar (2005) stated that the possibility of impulsive purchase may depend on the customer income. Consumers with high level income may enjoy the impulse buying and do it more often than those people who are limited in their household income and thus have to make purchases more rationally. This trait can be connected with hedonic and promotion orientation. Another factor that might influence the probability of impulsive buying is stated in the research of Mattila and Wirtz (2008) who highlighted the influence of such social factor as store employees and quality of in-store customer service. It was stated that store managers who were able to consult the consumer in a right way could increase the probability of impulsive purchase among customers.

Reviewing and analyzing the concept of purchase delay, prior scholars in the field of consumer behavior reviewed the nature of purchase delay from the perspective of its causes and outcomes. One of the fundamental studies analysed the theory of purchase delay in consumer decision making from the point of view of increasing or decreasing consumer utility. Processing through purchase decision making, consumer always evaluate possible losses and gains that he will receive with the purchase (Mowen & Mowen, 1991). From this point of view, consumer can procrastinate with his final decision because, basing on his personality features, consumer might have low risk-tolerance, and, thus, evaluate possible losses as overwhelming. As following, he will be more passive in decision making and might need more time to evaluate everything deliberately. Hogarth and Einhorn (1981) defines this phenomenon as procedural uncertainty which can be described as a “mean to handle and process the decision, e.g., specifying relevant uncertainties, what information to seek and where, how to invent alternatives and asses’ consequences” (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1981, p.110). To the category of uncertainty, the most important features of a product can be attributed: quality, price, brand, packaging, features. In order to make the final decision, consumer experiencing confusion as he has to evaluate all these features, and, thus, spends more time. Further on, Corbin (1980) also stated that consumers might delay purchase decision due to the need of additional time for information processing as consumers might feel less stressful and confused when they are acquired, processed with given information on the product.

2.3. Post-purchase regret

In the field of modern consumer behaviour, post-purchase regret is associatedas negative and unfavorable term that is connected to idea of low customer satisfaction and low repurchases intention (Inman, Dyer & Jia, 1997). Post-purchase regret has been originally described by Landman (1993) as “... a more or less painful judgment and state of feeling sorry for misfortunes, limitations, losses, shortcomings, transgressions, or mistakes”. Other scholars codified the term as “a negative feeling that arises when comparing or imagining options for the future and realizing that one could have been in a more favorable situation had they chosen a different option" (Zeelenberg, 1999).Thus, reviewing the post purchase behaviour, it is important to mention that when consumers reflect and evaluate the decisions they have made, comparisons are also made between the experienced outcomes and the outcomes that would have occurred by different choices (Shankar, Cherrier & Canniford, 2006).  As following, it can be stated that the concept of post-purchase regret itself is based on the consumer’s process of comparison of the choice that has been made and its theoretical variations that could have been made before.

Another concept that is related to the theory of post-purchase regret is the concept of missed opportunity that may occur during the process of comparison. According to Shani et al. (2015), as soon as consumer starts to evaluate the product that has been bought, he may get the feeling that he missed the better alternative by price and quality. This feeling, according to the research, radically increases the probability of post-purchase regret and usually arises as the predecessor of regret. As following, the second concept that is essential for understanding of post-purchase regret is the notion of “missed opportunity” that arises before the regret itself.

In addition, acording to Marković and Antanasijević (2012), in the beginning phase after purchasing, a prospective buyer often feels positive or neutral emotions associated with a purchasing decision; afterwards, having completely recognized the value of the product, customers are more able to experience the negative aspects: all the opportunity costs of the purchase and a reduction in purchasing power. As following, there is a bigger chance of occurrence of post-purchase regret in long term perspective as the process of detailed revaluation requires big time resources.

It is also stated by Marković and Antanasijević that buyer's remorse can be increased by the fact that other people may later question or criticize the purchase or claim to know better alternatives. Throughout the research it was stated that the probability of post-purchase regret is correlated with the criticism consumer receives through the discussion of purchase decision with friends, relatives or colleagues. Thus, the concept of post-purchase regret is also related to the public opinion and people’s acceptance of purchase decision in particular that can influence the probability of occurrence of it.

As for the outcomes and possible consequences of post-purchase regret, prior researches showed that post-purchase regret can lead to either dissatisfaction, negative word of mouth or low repurchase intention (Lee & Workman, 2018). Moreover, in terms of repurchase intention, post-purchase regret can lead to decreased brand loyalty (Liao et al., 2017). At the same time, prior research proved that when consumer reviewing the product from an alternative brands from the perspective of greater satisfaction, it may even lead to brand switching (Inman et al., 1997).

3. Hypothesis development

3.1. Theoretical background

3.1.1. Regulatory fit focus and decision making

Throughout this research, the concept of regulatory fit will be used as the theory that will allow the reader not only to understand the preconditions of consumers to react towards time pressure in a way of impulsive purchase or purchase delay but it will also act as a moderator variable in the research model that positively moderates the influence of time pressure and probability of purchase delay or impulsive purchase.

During the purchase making process, consumer behaviour might be different according to two motivational factors: customers might either attempt to use an opportunity to increase their benefits from purchase or, instead, they might try to avoid negative effects and outcomes of purchasing particular goods without deliberate consideration. In 1997 and 1998 Higgins has provided the research on regulatory fit theory and framework which reviews two strategies of decision-making: promotion and prevention. The promotion system is relevant to the need of reaching desired state and self-actualization. Opposed to the promotion, the prevention system is relevant with reaching the safe state by avoiding negative effects and threats by following guidelines and rules (Higgins 1997; 1998). In particular, it was stated that a match between orientation to a goal and the means used to approach that goal produces a state of regulatory fit (Higgins et al., 2001; 2005). In the context of consumer behaviour theory, certain customer might evaluate the goal and available means to reach it and after the evaluation process makes or delays the buying decision.

Prior researches in the sphere of marketing has analysed the effects of promotion and prevention in a variety of various perspectives, including information search, information processing and preference formation (Wang & Lee, 2006) which are applied and crucial, in particular, in the context of promotion or sales events. Mentioning information search, promotion-focused consumers tend to search alternatives in a more global manner, spending relatively more time and effort at higher levels of decision-information hierarchies, whereas prevention-focused consumers tend to search alternatives in a more local manner, spending relatively more time and effort at lower levels of decision making process (Pham & Chang, 2010). In terms of information processing, consumers were more likely to rely on their feelings when these feelings were congruent with the goal promoted (Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005). Respectively, research of Wang and Lee (2006) supports the idea of consumers that more likely will search for, elaborate and will be persuaded by information that fits their regulatory focus.

Regulatory fit focus was also previously studied in reference to product choice. For example, Chernev (2004) assumed that people prefer those products attributes of which are fit to the consumer’ promotion or prevention system. He also found that prevention-focused customers gave more preference to utilitarian and reliability-related attributes, whereas promotion-focused customers found hedonic, performance-related, and attractive attributes more favourable. Chernev also observed the positive relationship between prevention and utilitarian features, which are connected to the prevention goal of safety and security while Paulssen and Bagozzi (2005) supported the relation between promotion goals towards hedonism buying orientation.

3.1.2. Dual processing systems

The theory of dual processing systems, on the other hand, will allow the reader to understand the nature of purchase delay and impulsive purchase itself in a more complex way from the perspective of not only consumer behaviour but also from the perspective of neurophysiology, which is essential step in understanding why specific consumer delays the purchase or make an impulsive purchase in the conditions of time limitations.

The theory of dual processing systems was first introduced by Peter Wason and Evans (1974). Evans’ idea was that human mind, which participates in decision making, is composed of several cognitive systems (Evans, 2008). Theoretical basis of dual processing systems is concluded in the fact that they divide the mental processes underlying social judgments and behaviour into two specific categories depending on the way of operation: automatic or controlled way (Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). It is important to define the difference between the terms of “automatic” and “controlled”. According to the theory of social cognition, automatic processes are typically characterized in terms of four operating conditions: (1) they are elicited unintentionally; (2) they require little amounts of cognitive resources; (3) they cannot be stopped voluntarily; and (4) they occur outside of conscious awareness (Bargh, 1994). Conversely, controlled processes are characterized as those that (1) are initiated intentionally; (2) require considerable amounts of cognitive resources; (3) can be stopped voluntarily; and (4) operate within conscious awareness (for a more fine-grained analysis of these features and their interrelations (Moors & De Houwer, 2006). Also, according to Bargh (1994) process can be described as automatic if it is either (1) unintetional, (2) efficient, (3) uncontrollable, or (4) unconscious. In the prior theoretical literature, automatic and controlled styles were reviewed as heuristic and analytic systems that are also named as “system 1” and “system 2”. Also, the theory of dual processing systems was used in prior research dedicated to consumer behaviour, sociology and behavioural economics. In order to fully comprehend the ideas of reviewed styles, let’s observe the dual processing styles from the point of view of cognitive theory that might be applied to this research.

Mentioning heuristic decision-making style, person’s intuition operates mostly through four components of associative memory, meaning that different associations emerge spontaneously and influence behaviour. It tends to be rapid, unconscious, and uncontrollable (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). But speaking of analytic decision-making style, the main features of cognition are the active engagement of working memory and analytical thinking. Cognitive processing happens wilfully, and is effortful most of the time. It tends to be slow, conscious, and controllable (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). On contrast, heuristic approach is connected with intuitive and spontaneous approach, while analytic processing is more effortful and weighted. At the same time, intuition and cognition are not isolated from each other; both are active but in various proportions throughout different situation (Gorlin & Dhar, 2012). The basis of such subdivision is lying in the research in the sphere of FMRI (functional magnetic resonance mapping), according to which distinct parts of the brain were responsible for the two different kinds of reasoning. Left frontal hemisphere is responsible for cognitive processing based on the objective content, while limbic system is responsible for abstract and subjective data processing (Goel et al., 2000)

Also, previously, Kahneman characterised heuristic approach as low-effort, linked to emotions, rapid, contextualized and implicit, while analytic approach is characterized as conscious, voluntary, mostly detached from emotions, controlled, effortful and slow (Sutherland, 2013; Ariely, 2009; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). As following, analytic oriented consumers require more time and efforts for rational information processing and evaluation of the product from different perspectives, while heuristic oriented consumers rely on their emotions and feelings and make purchase decisions faster.

3.2. Hypothesis development

3.2.1. Time pressure towards impulsive purchase or purchase delay

Basing on the nature of time pressure which is commonly considered as a stress factor influencing not only the purchase decision but also purchase outcome and post-purchase stage (Kim & Kim, 2008; Ackerman & Barbara, 2003), this factor is represented as an independent variable that can lead to irrational decision-making during evaluation and buying decision making process. The stated “irrationality” can be represented in two ways described in this research: purchase delay and impulsive purchase. In this research it has been decided to observe purchase delay as an outcome of a limited amount of time in which consumer is put during the sales events. Extending the theory of Corbin (1980), who proposed that consumers might delay purchase decision due to the need of additional time for information processing as consumers might feel less stressed when they have full analysis and information of the product, it is assumed that the effect of time pressure combined with prevention focus can positively affect the probability of consumer confusion and thus can lead to purchase delay. Due to immediate actualization of utilitarian, rationalistic values serving the purpose of risk-avoidance during the situation of time limitation, it can be hard for consumer to make a rational decision. An outcome of dominating prevention focus in the context of time pressure, causing confusion, would be the purchase delay for certain period of time, during which consumer might rationally weight all the characteristics of a product or refuse making a purchase at all (Xu, 2007; Beatty & Ferrell, 1998).

On the other hand, impulsive buying, which can arise due to the heuristic-oriented decision-making style along with promotion orientation, also can correlate with the conditions of time pressure. In this scenario of development of our model, consumer is trying to use the chance of reaching his goalwith better conditions or satisfy hedonistic needs since impulsive purchase can be seen as a hedonically-based action that is predominantly motivated by the need of satisfying higher order needs in Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ (Hausman, 2000). Due to heuristic decision-making style, consumer can make fast, emotion-driven and irrational buying decision. Following this logic, in suggested model, time pressure and promotion focus orientation can lead to the positive (from the point of view of marketers) outcome – impulsive purchase. The question is, whether further on, customers will be satisfied with their decisions and will not experience regret towards it. This question can be analysed respectively both to customers who decided to make an impulsive purchase and to those who delayed or cancelled the purchase.

Considering the conditions of sales promotion, online coupons and promo-events, that are usually accompanied by time constraints, and as following pressuring customers by time limitations according to which they must make a decision, it can be stated that time pressure may lead either to purchase delay or impulsive purchase.

H1a: Time pressure has positive impact on purchase delay

H1b: Time pressure has positive impact on impulsive purchase

3.2.2. Moderating influence of regulatory focus

In respect to time pressure, according to the reviewed prior literature, the type of decision making style of a customer can not only influence how he/she perceives time pressure (Pham & Chang, 2010; Wang & Lee, 2006), and, as following, influences whether he/she will be confused by it or will he/she be motivated to make a purchase, but it also influences the whole process of information processing in terms of time limitations.

In particular, regarding the way of searching of product-related information, promotion-focused consumers tend to search alternatives in a more global manner, spending relatively more time and effort at higher levels of decision-information hierarchies, whereas prevention-focused consumers tend to search alternatives in a more local manner, spending relatively more time and effort at lower levels (Pham & Chang, 2010). In terms of further information processing, which can be considered as a defining stage in terms of time pressure, consumers are more likely to rely on their feelings when these feelings were congruent with the goal promoted (Bosmans & Baumgartner, 2005). In this research, regulatory focus theory, its promotion and prevention subsystems can perfectly fit as a factor of “decision-making style” as it allows us to explain the motivation of two approaches towards purchase decision making: safe (prevention) and risky (promotion) (Higgins 1997; 1998).

Another important concept that is needed to be included in our research model and be connected to regulatory focus is dual processing systems. According to Kahneman (2003) dual-process theory of judgment and decision making, there are two types of decision making: analytic and heuristic, according to which consumer may make purchase decisions in different ways. Heuristic style presupposes more implicit, automatic and emotional approach towards final decision, while analytic style is presupposed to be rational, considerate and weighted. In this research, we would like to extend prior theoretical background on the regulatory focus and dual processing by connecting those two decisions making systems (Kahneman, 2003). It is important to mention that although those 2 systems might have common features, their natures are different since regulatory focus explains the attitude of a person towards his/her goal-state: whether to avoid the risk (prevention), or use it (promotion) (Higgins 1997; 1998). Dual-process systems, on contrary, explain the way, process of reaching goal-state: either reach it fast, through emotions, unconsciously (heuristic) or evaluate the situation, resources and reach the state gradually (analytic) (Kahneman, 2003).As following, in this research, it is suggested that prevention focus orientation is correlated with analytic decision-making style as the consumers would like to evaluate all potential risks, pros and cons of goods and make a final decision after evaluation which takes some time. Promotion focus, at the same time, can be correlated with heuristic decision-making style since consumers, in the situation of time pressure, will try to use such situation to satisfy their needs or reach their goals through impulsive purchase.

Considering the real-life implementations of heuristic and analytic decision-making styles, it can be suggested that prevention focus might lead to confusion and purchase delay as consumers with such decision making style will try to take less risks in order not to lose money or time by returning the product, while promotion focused consumers will use the opportunity of discounts and sales as a way to reach their goal state (e.g.: to get the pair of shoes on sale that he/she always wanted to buy) or satisfy their hedonistic needs. As follows, in this research, regulatory focus will be applied as a moderator variable, moderating the influence of time pressure towards the purchase delay and impulsive purchase.

H2: Regulatory focus positively moderates the relationship between time pressure and purchase delay or impulsive buying respectively.

3.2.3. Post-purchase regret as an outcome

As, according to prior literature, post-purchase regret is mostly associatedas negative and unfavorable term that is connected to idea of low customer satisfaction and low repurchases intention (Inman, Dyer & Jia, 1997). The regret stage that is implied in this research as the final stage in consumer buying process may be positively affected by purchase delay and impulsive purchase can also be reviewed as the negative outcome throughout which the customer will express remorse and dissatisfaction either by the purchase of a product or by the purchase delay. This stage in research model can perfectly correlate with the idea of missed opportunity. In case of impulsive purchase, as it was stated in the research of Shani et al. (2015), as soon as consumer starts to evaluate the product that has been bought, he may get the feeling that he missed the better alternative by price and quality. At the same time, in case of purchase delay, the feeling of missing opportunity can arise as it is as consumer might regret that he has missed valuable product that was selling on good conditions.  Basing on the prior literature regarding post-purchase behavior, the following hypotheses are proposed in this research:

H3a: Impulsive purchase positively affects post-purchase regret

H3b: Purchase delay positively affects post-purchase regret

This stage is also essential from the perspective of practical implications and recommendations as post-purchase regret can lead to such consequences as dissatisfaction, negative word of mouth or low repurchase intention, and decreased brand loyalty (Lee & Workman, 2018; Liao et al., 2017). Thus, in order for managers to provide the customers with high quality shopping experience that will bring satisfaction, it is also necessary to understand how to control and decrease post-purchase regret probability as it can eliminate all the effect of sales events aimed at the increase of customer loyalty and revenue generation. Taking everything into account, the research model of this research is following:

Figure 3. Research conceptual model

4. Research methodology

4.1. Data collection

The methodology of this research is built around 2 stages: primary (data collection) and secondary (data analysis), as specific data that is not available on the internet through the free access is needed. It has been decided to design the methodology around quantitative research and conduction of multiple geographically diversified surveys that will include data mostly from respondents of China and member-countries of CIS union (including Russian Federation, Belorussia, Uzbekistan), Ukraine and Mongolia. Mentioned countries are countries with growing and developing economics and have growing rates of consumption which makes its residents perfect respondents for the research related to consumer behaviour. In order to collect the raw data for further analysis, two online surveys in Chinese and English languages were launched in the time period since July, 2020 up to the September, 2020 through the 2 most convenient and widely used survey platforms: Survey Monkey (for respondents from CIS countries, Ukraine and Mongolia) and Wenjuanxing for Chinese respondents. In general, raw data includes 254 survey responses: 53% of answers were collected from Chinese residents, 47% of answers were collected from CIS countries residents. Majority of Chinese respondents were peers, students or members of Shanghai University. As for respondents from CIS countries, majority of participants were involved through survey promotion programs. However, some of CIS participants who took part in the survey were also foreign students of Shanghai University. In order to attract enough participants both from CIS countries and China and also to ensure the high quality of responses, the monetary reward was enabled in the end of the surveys for each participant either through WeChat Pay transfer (for Chinese respondents) or through bank transfer (for CIS respondents). Reward was activated only when all questions in the survey were answered.

Mentioning demographical diversification of the participants, in terms of age, the majority respondents who successfully passed the survey were above 25 years old (45% of participants), 23% of participants were in range between 26 and 30 years old, 16% of respondents were in range between 31 and 35 years old, 16% of participants were above 36 years old.

In terms of gender, 56% of participants were male, 44% of participants were female.

In terms of educational background, 16% of participants had general education, 17% of participants had secondary education, 43% of participants had finished bachelor degree, 20% of participants had finished master’s degree, 4% of participants had postgraduate degree.

In terms of social background, 18% of participants were office and management workers, 48% of respondents were students, 16% of respondents were government employees, 18% of respondents were working in educational and healthcare sphere.

4.2. Instruments and measurements

According to the model, we can list next independent variable: time pressure. Moderator is represented by regulatory focus variable. Mediators are: purchase delay, impulsive purchase. Dependent variable is: post purchase regret. In order to create unique survey that will not only allow to collect the data related to all variables included in the research model, but the one that will also allow us to give the objective answers to the questions that were issued in the beginning of this research, the following questionnaires designed around Likert scales taken from prior fundamental research were adopted and combined. Measurements on the time pressure were comprised from scales of Kasser et al. (2009) and were adapted to the context of the process of making a purchase decision. Measurements on regulatory focus were comprised from scales of Higgins et al. (2001) and were used without any changes and adaptations. Measurement on this variable totally consisted of 10 items that were mostly linked to the childhood background of the respondent. Measurements on the probability of impulsive purchase were comprised from scales of Rook and Fisher (1995) that were also adapted to present the imaginable situation where the probability of spontaneous purchase by respondent is quite high. Measurements on the probability of purchase delay were comprised from scales of Haws et al. (2011). As for the measurements on the probability of post-purchase regret, the scales were adapted from work of Schwartz et al. (2002) on the post-purchase satisfaction consisting of 5 items.

Basing on proposed relations between variables in this research, in order to observe what effect time pressure has towards impulsive purchase and purchase delay, to analyze the degree of probability of post-purchase regret and to measure the moderating effect of regulatory focus, it has been decided to use SPSS Andrew F. Hayes v.4.0 moderated regression analysis and AMOS SEM analysis.

4.3. Data analysis

The Harman's single factor score analysis was used to examine common method variance which was conducted through SPSS software. All substantive variables have been entered into an exploratory factor analysis with an unrotated factor solution. No single factor emerged in the results along with a factor that might account for the majority of covariance. In total, result of Harman’s single factor score analysis indicated 14,6% of total variance in the data which is < 50% indicating that common method variance does not affect collected data (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2012)

Table 2.

The Harman’s single factor score analysis results

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was used through SPSS in order to analyze the sampling adequacy. The results of Bartlett’s test of sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) indicated that the correlation matrix was not random, χ2(190) = 2,712, p < .001, and the KMO statistic = .751, well above the minimum standard for conducting factor analysis. Therefore, it was determined that the correlation matrix was appropriate for factor analysis. (Kaiser, 1974)

Table 3.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test results

In order to check reliability of the data, Chronbach’s alpha, composite reliability and average variance extracted test in SPSS has been conducted, the time pressure subscale consisted of 6 items (α = .57, CR = 0.81, AVE = 0.47), the regulatory focus subscale consisted of 10 items (α = .60, CR = 0.88, AVE = 0.46), the purchase delay subscale consisted of 7 items (α = .82, CR = 0.85, AVE = 0.45), the impulsive purchase subscale consisted of 7 items (α = .72, CR = 0.82, AVE = 0.43), the post-purchase regret subscale consisted of 5 items (α = .61, CR = 0.60, AVE = 0.33). Overall α for the 36 items = .805 which indicates highly reliable level (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As it can be seen from the results, composite reliability along with Cronbach’s α are indicating a reliable level, however, AVE indices are slightly below the .05 level. Still, an AVE below .50 can be considered reliable if CR is equal or above .60 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)

Table 4.

Cronbach’s alphas, CR and AVE of the variables

Further on, SEM testing has been processed. In order to confirm or reject the proposed hypotheses, CFA analysis was used. With modification indices being applied to the model, the results of the CFA (df = 207, p < .05, CFI = .928, TLI = .912, RMSEA = .043, TLI = .912, CMIN = 1.466, IFI = .931, GFI = .905, SRMR = .081) indicated acceptable model fit. Figure 4 and table 4 shows that H1a (β = 56, p < .05, estimate = .669, S.E = .246, C.R. = 2.714), H1b (β = .68, p < .05, estimate = .924 S.E = .299, C.R. = 3.089), H3a (β = 29, p < .05, estimate = .212 S.E = .067, C.R. = 3.184), H3b (β = 36, p < .05, estimate = .299 S.E = .101, C.R. = 2.956) were confirmed.

Figure 4. Path diagram and β values of paths between variables of proposed model

Table 5.

The results of confirmatory factor analysis

Table 6.

The results of SEM analysis.

In order to confirm or reject the hypotheses related to the moderating effect of regulatory focus, Andrew F. Hayes 4.0 analysis using SPSS software has been used (Hayes, 2013). With time pressure, purchase delay and impulsive purchase means values being computed through the SPSS software, regulatory focus scale interpretation keys were used in order to assign «promotion» or «prevention» orientation to each respondent (Higgins et al., 2001). The influence of time pressure towards purchase delay with moderating effect of regulatory focus has been tested. The results indicated not only the significant moderating impact (p < .05, p of Int_1 = .0004) but also positive moderating effect of regulatory focus. Further on, having measured the influence of time pressure towards impulsive purchase with moderating effect of regulatory focus. Surprisingly, on contrast with moderating effect towards purchase delay, it has been found out that the moderating influence of regulatory focus towards impulsive purchase is insignificant (p > .05, p of Int_1 = . 2709) meaning that we H2 can be confirmed only when mentioning the moderating effect of regulatory focus between time pressure and purchase delay.

Table 7.

The results of moderated regression analysis

5. General discussion and conclusion

5.1. Key findings

In terms of key findings, this research has allowed to draw out several surprising insights related to the understanding of complex purchase process in conditions of time limitations. Considering that previously there was small number of articles that were reviewing and analyzing the purchase process in the context of time pressure, this research sheds light towards the analyzed phenomena in the following ways.

 First of all, from the perspective of acceptance of proposed hypotheses in this research, as it can be seen from the results of data analysis, time pressure does have significant effect towards the probability of purchase delay and impulsive purchase. Purchase delay and impulsive purchase, in its own turn, have positive effect towards post-purchase regret probability. However, regulatory focus has moderating effect only in the case of analytic style that is related to purchase delay and does not act as moderator in case of heuristic style and impulsive purchase.

Another finding is related to the idea that no matter how consumer counteracts time pressure, he might still experience regret related to any of his decisions – either making or delaying the purchase. This correlates with the theory of Marković and Antanasijević (2012) who proposed that in the beginning phase after purchasing, a prospective buyer often feels positive or neutral emotions associated with a purchasing decision, but, afterwards, having completely recognized the value of the product, customers are more able to experience the negative aspects: all the opportunity costs of the purchase, and a reduction in purchasing power. Even when some consumers might use time pressure to satisfy their hedonistic needs, they will still experience decreased satisfaction. At the same time, when consumers delay the purchase in order to evaluate and weight their choice rationally, they might feel that in fact they have missed an opportunity. This allows us to state that time pressure negatively affects the overall satisfaction from the purchase experience no matter the decision-making style consumer has.

As the concept of regulatory focus was taken to analyze how consumers with different cognitive backgrounds and decision-making styles do their purchase decisions in terms of limited time, the results has shown that there is strong correlation between the probability of purchase delay (analytic approach) and prevention-oriented group of consumers who make their decisions more safely, rationally and generally spending more time and effort at decision-making (Pham & Chang, 2010). However, surprisingly, there was no strong correlation between promotion-oriented group and probability of impulsive purchase (heuristic approach). Such paradox might arise due to the fact that an individual's regulatory-focus orientation is not always fixed and thus can be varied from situation to situation: as individuals have particular preferences for promotion or prevention, these preferences may not hold for all situations (Wang & Lee, 2006). It can also be supposed that promotion-oriented consumer, being under the pressure of time limitations, might «turn on» his prevention orientation to make the most safe and reliable purchase decision. Another assumption is that there might be another variable that could «block» the influence of promotion orientation towards the probability of impulsive purchase.

5.2. Theoretical contribution

As previously mentioned, findings might give the readers and researchers in the future better, detailed understanding of how the purchase process is done in the conditions of limited time, it is also necessary to explain possible theoretical сcontributions of this research to the overall field of theory of consumer behavior.

First of all, this research sheds light towards the influence of time pressure to the probability of post-purchase regret. Although the concept of time pressure has been introduced a long time ago, however, its role and influence in the context of purchasing process has not been described deliberately in previous fundamental researches. This research closes this gap through the complex analysis of whole process of purchase in terms of limited time.

Second, this research deepens into the moderating influence of personality factor throughout the purchase process and explains from the perspective of consumer behavior why certain consumers may act differently towards the time pressure. Thus, this research not only provides the reader with the analysis of complex purchasing process, but also provides insights on the influence of external factors (such as decision-making style of a consumer) towards purchasing process in time constraints.

Also, this research provides the reader with empirical analysis that supports the proposed hypotheses and model. It is necessary to mention that this research includes the culturally split analysis which represents that idea of representatives of different cultures not only experience equally same emotions and feelings but also act in generally same directions under time pressure. Still, due to cultural differences and personality factor, representatives of different cultures may differently choose the way of counteracting the pressure through purchasing process.

5.3. Practical implications

This research might be also relevant for managers and designers of different sales or promotion activities. As it was mentioned before, the regular customer can feel extremely pressured and confused by the limited period of time during which he has to make a buying decision. As this assumption has been confirmed throughout the research, it can be assumed that high level of post-purchase regret can decrease overall satisfaction from the customer experience. Taking into account that one of the aims of various discounts, coupons, sales and promotion events is to increase the customer loyalty, the outcome of decreased customer satisfaction is quite opposite to the effect that might be planned by managers and organizers of such events. As follows, it can be supposed that the question of post-purchase regret might be controlled in 2 ways: from the perspective of time pressure variable and from the perspective of the post-purchase regret.

From the managerial perspective, time pressure may be controlled in a way to design and schedule such time limitations of event that will be comfortable enough for customer to make an informed decision without experiencing too much time pressure. The design of time limitations of promotional activity might be interconnected with such factors as the complexity of a product, assortment available for the event or its price level. Such countermeasures might significantly decrease the level of time pressure and, as follows, reduce the number of clients that will make impulsive purchase or delay the purchase unconsciously. As a result, the post-purchase regret level will be decreased.

On the other hand, if time pressure control is not possible by any reason, post-purchase regret might be controlled by managers as well. In particular, post-purchase customer service related to client support, product return for free and customer post-purchase feedback collection might be established. It is important to notify the client about such post-purchase customer service before the purchase decision. Such type of service will reduce the probability of post-purchase regret as the client will know that in case of impulsive, non-rational decision, the host (selling company) will try to help him. In addition, such way of handling post-purchase regret might not only decrease its influence towards customer satisfaction, but also additionally increase customer loyalty through high-quality customer service.

References:

1. Ackerman, D.S., Gross, B.L. Is Time Pressure All Bad? Measuring the Relationship between Free Time Availability and Student Performance and Perceptions // Marketing Education Review. 2003. 13. P. 21-32.
2. Ariely, D. Predictably irrational. New York: Harper Collins. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2009. 26(1). P. 57-58.
3. Bargh, J. A. The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition: Basic processes. 1994. P. 1–40.
4. Bartlett, M.S. A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various Chi Square Approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1954. 16. P. 296-298.
5. Beatty, S. E., Ferrell, M. E. Impulse Buying: Modeling Its Precursors. Journal of Retailing. 1998. 74. P. 169-191.
6. Ben, Z. H., Breznitz, S. J. The effect of time pressure on risky choice behaviour. Acta Psychologica. 1981. 47(1). P. 89–104.
7. Bosmans, A., Baumgartner, H. Goal-relevant emotional information: When extraneous affect leads to persuasion and when it does not. Journal of Consumer Research. 2005. 32(3). P. 424–434.
8. Briedis, H., Kronschnabl, A., Rodrigues, A., Ungerman, K. Adapting to the next normal in retail: The customer experience imperative. McKinsey. 2020.
9. Corbin, R. M. Decisions that might not get made. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1980. P. 47–67.
10. Chernev, A. Goal–Attribute Compatibility in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Pshychology, 2008. P. 141-150.
11. Dittmar, H. Compulsive buying - A growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology. 2005. 96 (Pt 4). P. 467-491.
12. Einhorn, J. H., Hogarth, M. R. Behavioural decsision theory: Process of judgment and choice. Center for Decision Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 1981. 36.
13. Evans, T. Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008. 59(1). P. 255-78.
14. Evans J.S., Stanovich K.E. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate. Perspect Psychology Sci. 2013. 8(3). P. 223-41.
15. Fornell, C., Larcker D. F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981. 18 (1). P. 39–50.
16. Gorlin, M., Dhar, R. Bridging the gap between joint and individual decisions: Deconstructing preferences in relationships, Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2012. 22(3). P. 320–323.
17. Ghosh, D., Ray, M. R. Risk, ambiguity, and decsision choice: Some additional evidence. Decision Sciences. 1997. 28. P. 81-104.
18. Goel, V., Bruchel, C., Frith, C., Dolan, R. Dissociation of mechanisms underlying syllogistic reasoning. NeuroImage. 2000. 12(5). P. 504–514.
19. Hausman, A. A Multi-Method Investigation of Consumer Motivations in Impulse Buying Behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2000. 17. P. 403-426.
20. Hayes, A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013. 51(3). P. 335–337.
21. Hanh, M., Lawson, R., Lee, Y. G. The effects of time pressure and information load on decision quality. Psychology & Marketing. 2008. 9(5). P. 365-378.
22. Higgins, E. T. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist. 1997. 52(12). P. 1280–1300.
23. Higgins, E. T. Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1998. 30. P. 1-46.
24. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2001. 31(1). P. 3-23.
25. Higgins, E. T. Value from Regulatory Fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005. 14(4). P. 209–213.
26. Inman, J. J., Dyer, J. S., Jia, J. A generalized utility model of disappointment and regret effects on post-choice valuation. Marketing Science. 1997. 16(2). P. 97-111.
27. Iyer, E. The Effects of Situational Factors on In-Store Grocery Shopping Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 1989. 15(4). P. 422-433.
28. Howard, J. Marketing theory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1965.
29. Wang, J., Lee, A. Y. The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research. 2006. 43(1). P. 28-38.
30. Kim, H.Y., Kim, Y.K. Shopping Enjoyment and Store Shopping Modes: The Moderating Influence of Chronic Time Pressure. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 2008. 15. P. 410-419.
31. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar,Strauss and Giroux. 2012. 1st edition. P. 499.
32. Kaiser, H.F. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974. 39. P. 31–36.
33. Kahneman, D., Frederick, S. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002.
34. Kahneman, D. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist. 2003. 58(9). P. 697–720.
35. Lee, Seung-Hee, Workman, J. E. Consumer tendency to regret, compulsive buying, gender, and fashion time-of-adoption groups. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education. 2018. 11(3). P. 265- 276.
36. Liao, C., Lin, H., Luo, M., Chea, S. Factors influencing online shoppers’repurchase intentions: The roles of satisfaction and regret. Information & Management. 2017. 54(5). P. 651-668.
37. Landman, J. Regret: The Persistence of the Possible, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 1993.
38. Marković, Z., Antanasijević, I. The Relation to Money as a Factor of the Consumer's Behavior Management. 2012. (62). P. 97-105.
39. Matilla, A., Wirtz , J. The role of store environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing. 2008. 22(7). P. 562-567.
40. Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956. 63(2). P 81-97.
41. Mitchell, V. W., Papavassiliou, V. Exploring consumer confusion in the watch market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 1997. 15(4). P. 164-172.
42. Moors, A., De Houwer, J. Automaticity: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2006. 132(2). P. 297-326.
43. Mowen, J. C., Mowen, M. M. Time and outcome valuation: Implications for marketing decision making. Journal of Marketing. 1991. 55(4). P. 54-62.
44. Nunnally, J. C., Bernstein, I. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. 1994. 752.
45. Paulssen, M., Bagozzi R.P. A Self-Regulatory Model of Consideration Set Formation. Psychology & Marketing. 2005. 22. P. 785-812.
46. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology. 2012. 63(1). P. 539-69.
47. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R. Attention and Cognitive Control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.). Information Processing and Cognition. 1975. P. 55-85.
48. Pham, M., Chang, H. Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Fit, and the Search and Consideration of Choice Alternatives. Journal of consumer research. 2010. 37. P. 626-640.
49. Robertson, S. Low-commitment consumer behavior. Journal of Advertising Research. 1976. 16. P. 19-24.
50. Rook D., Fisher R. Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behaviour. Joural of Consumer Research. 1995. 22(3). P. 305-313.
51. Sengupta, J., Zhou, R. Understanding Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The Motivational Influences of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Marketing Research. 2007. 44. P. 297-308.
52. Sigala, M. A framework for designing and implementing effective online coupons in tourism and hospitality. Journal Of Vacation Marketing. 2013. 19(2). P. 165-180.
53. Shiffrin, R. M., Schneider, W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review. 1977. 84. P. 127-190.
54. Shankar, A., Cherrier , H., Canniford , R. Consumer empowerment: a Foucauldian interpretation. European Journal of Marketing. 2006. 40 (9-10). P. 1013-1030.
55. Shani, Y., Danziger, S., Zeelenberg, M. Choosing between options associated with past and future regret. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes. 2015. 126. P. 107-114.
56. Sutherland, S. Irrationality: The enemy within. London, UK: Pinter & Martin Ltd. 2013. P. 288.
57. Stern, H. The Significance of Impulse Buying Today. Journal of Marketing. 1962. 26. P. 59-62.
58. Tunney, J. R., Shanks, D. A re‐examination of melioration and rational choice. Behavioral Decsision Making. 2002. 15.
59. Turnbull, P.W., Leek, S., Ying, G. Customer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market. Journal of Marketing Management. 2000. 16. P. 143-163.
60. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science. 1974. 185(4157). P. 1124-1131
61. Wright, P. The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1974. 59(5). P. 555–561.
62. Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau , T., Mitchell, V. W. The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing. 2007. 44. P. 838-859.
63. Wason, P.C., Evans, J. St. B. T. Dual processes in reasoning. Cognition. 1974. 3 (2). P. 141-154.
64. Xu, Y. Impact of store environment on adult generation Y consumers’ impulse buying. Journal of Shopping Center Research. 2007. 14(1). P. 39–56.
65. Youn, S., Faber, R. J. Impulse Buying: Its Relation to Personality Traits and Cues. Advances in Consumer Research. 2000. 27. P. 179-185.
66. Zeelenberg, M. Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1999. 12(2). P. 93–106.