Online Reviews and Impulse Buying Behavior: The Role of Browsing and Impulsiveness

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324507652
Online reviews and impulse buying behavior: the role of browsing and
impulsiveness
Article in Internet Research · April 2018

DOI: 10.1108/IntR-12-2016-0377
CITATIONS READS
72 11,097
4 authors, including:
Kem Zhang Haiqin Xu

Lakehead University Thunder Bay Campus University of Science and Technology of China
59 PUBLICATIONS 2,316 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 93 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Electronic Commerce View project
Knowledge Management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Haiqin Xu on 23 September 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Internet Research
Online reviews and impulse buying behavior: the role of browsing and
impulsiveness
Kem Z.K. Zhang, Haiqin Xu, Sesia Zhao, Yugang Yu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kem Z.K. Zhang, Haiqin Xu, Sesia Zhao, Yugang Yu, (2018) "Online reviews and impulse buying
behavior: the role of browsing and impulsiveness", Internet Research, Vol. 28 Issue: 3, pp.522-543,
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2016-0377
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Sun Yat Sen University At 21:33 11 November 2018 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2016-0377
Downloaded on: 11 November 2018, At: 21:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 111 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1190 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2018),"Impulse buying behaviour: an online-offline comparative and the impact of social media",
Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 42-62 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
SJME-03-2018-007">https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-03-2018-007</a>
(2018),"How website quality affects online impulse buying: Moderating effects of sales promotion
and credit card use", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 Iss 1 pp. 235-256 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-04-2017-0073">https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-04-2017-0073</
a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:406003 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1066-2243.htm
INTR
28,3 Online reviews and impulse
buying behavior: the role of
browsing and impulsiveness
522 Kem Z.K. Zhang and Haiqin Xu
School of Management,
Received 16 December 2016
Revised 13 July 2017 University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
26 October 2017
Accepted 3 November 2017
Sesia Zhao
School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei, China, and
Yugang Yu
School of Management,
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
Abstract
Purpose – Online reviews have shown important information that affects consumers’ online shopping
behavior. However, little research has examined how they may influence consumers’ online impulse buying
behavior. The purpose of this paper is to bring theoretical and empirical connections between them.
Design/methodology/approach – The framework of this study was tested on three popular online group
shopping websites in China (ju.taobao.com, dianping.com, and meituan.com). An online survey with
315 participants who had experience using these websites was recruited to verify the effects of consumers’
perceived value from reading online reviews on urge to buy impulsively and impulse buying behavior.
Findings – The empirical findings show that consumers’ perceived utilitarian and hedonic value from
reading online reviews enhance their browsing behavior. Browsing positively affects consumers’ urge to buy
impulsively and finally affects their impulse buying behavior. Further, this study finds that consumers with
high impulsiveness focus more on hedonic value of online reviews, whereas consumers with low
impulsiveness put more emphasis on utilitarian value. Browsing demonstrates a stronger effect on urge to
buy impulsively for consumers with high impulsiveness.
Originality/value – This study is one of the early studies to investigate the relationship between social
influence (e.g. influence of online reviews) and impulse buying. It draws upon the perspectives of browsing
and consumer’s perceived value from the literature. This research also considers consumer differences
regarding the level of impulsiveness.
Keywords Online reviews, Social influence, Browsing, Consumer value, Impulsiveness,
Impulse buying behaviour
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Before making shopping decisions, many consumers prefer to have access to online
reviews to check other consumers’ opinions about online retailers, products, or services.
Previous studies have shown that online reviews can play an important role in consumers’
shopping behavior (Yin et al., 2014; Mudambi and Schuff, 2010; Zhang, Zhao, Cheung and
Lee, 2014). For instance, Dellarocas (2003) contended that online reviews help to
inform future consumers and reduce uncertainty. While the significance of online reviews
is being widely recognized, few studies have examined whether and how online reviews
may drive consumers to develop online impulse buying behavior. In the extant
literature, impulse purchase refers to the unplanned or sudden purchase behavior, which
Internet Research
has attracted growing research attention in offline and online contexts (Mohan et al., 2013;
Vol. 28 No. 3, 2018
pp. 522-543
© Emerald Publishing Limited The work described in this study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science
1066-2243
DOI 10.1108/IntR-12-2016-0377 Foundation of China (Nos 71671174 and 71472172).
Hostler et al., 2011). For online impulse buying, we notice that most prior research has Online reviews
primarily focused on the impacts of marketer-generated content or stimuli (Summers and and impulse
Hebert, 2001; Baker et al., 2002; Hostler et al., 2011; Park et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). buying
For instance, a consumer may buy impulsively online because of the design of shopping
websites (Floh and Madlberger, 2013), or the price attributes of products (Park et al., 2012). behavior
Chan et al. (2017) conducted a systematic literature review on online impulse buying and
only identified important external stimuli like website, marketing, and situational factors 523
that spur impulse behaviors. In contrast, the effects of social influence (e.g. online reviews)
have not been fully addressed.
In traditional offline contexts, prior research shows that social factors can be important
drivers affecting consumers’ impulse behaviors. Luo (2005) indicated that shopping with
peers increases impulse buying. Cheng et al. (2013) also suggested that social influence plays
a significant role in offline impulse buying. Note that online reviews, as a form of online
verbal communication, have been shown to be a source of powerful interpersonal influence
in consumer decision making (Cheung and Thadani, 2012; Blazevic et al., 2013). From this
perspective, it calls forth more need to examine the influence of online reviews in impulse
behavior contexts.
To address this research gap, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship
between online reviews and impulse buying. We postulate that browsing may be a key
factor that helps to bridge this relationship. Prior research refers to browsing as the
scanning of product information[1] for informational or entertaining purposes without an
instant buying intention (Verhagen and Dolen, 2011). Madhavaram and Laverie (2004)
posited that online shopping spurs impulse buying because consumers can browse product
information easily in the online context. Park et al. (2012) also showed that browsing is an
important predictor of consumers’ online impulse buying. Extending this line of studies, we
propose that consumers not only browse marketer-generated content (e.g. product
information that is created by marketers) but also online reviews created by consumers.
Indeed, Bickart and Schindler (2001) postulated that consumers prefer to browse online
reviews than marketer-generated content, because online reviews are perceived to be more
credible and more relevant. The expected informational and entertaining benefits of online
reviews may play an important role in driving consumers’ browsing behavior, which further
leads to online impulse buying.
To provide more insights into the relationship between online reviews and impulse
buying, we further argue that the relationship strength is likely to vary for different
consumers, depending on their impulsiveness personality trait. In the extant literature, prior
research suggests two perspectives to understand impulse buying. Rook (1987) first
contended that it is important to examine psychological states created by shopping
environments. Then, Rook and Fisher (1995) highlighted the role of personality traits
inherent to consumers. The two perspectives have been used to investigate impulse buying,
respectively (Parboteeah et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013; Chih et al., 2012; Dawson and Kim, 2009;
Floh and Madlberger, 2013). For instance, Leong et al. (2017) recently showed that the Big
Five personality traits can significantly predict impulse purchase. Further, Steyer et al.
(1999) suggested that the interaction between these two perspectives should be investigated
to attain a more comprehensive understanding of impulse buying behaviors. Personality
traits may not only play an important role as direct predictors but also moderators
(Bagozzi, 1994; Moore, 1995). As a significant personality trait, prior research has posited
that impulsiveness is a key predictor of consumers’ urge to buy impulsively (Beatty and
Ferrell, 1998; Mohan et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2013). Yet, its moderating role has not been fully
revealed. In this study, we will show that consumers employ different value perception
routes to establish impulse buying behavior with respect to different levels of
impulsiveness. This is consistent with the work from Babin et al. (1994) who noted that
INTR value is subjective perceptions derived from external influence. Research also demonstrates
28,3 that individuals with different personality traits may emphasize different consumer values
(Hwang and Griffiths, 2017; Williams et al., 2017). In summary, we expect that this study can
contribute to the existing literature by connecting the studies of online reviews and online
impulse buying. We also highlight that impulsiveness can be a contingency factor that
influences the relationship between them.
524 The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we present the
theoretical background. Then, we develop our research hypotheses, followed by conducting
an online survey and analyzing the data. Finally, we summarize our findings and discuss
the implications and limitations of this study.
2. Theoretical background
2.1 Influence of online reviews
Research shows that traditional word-of-mouth (WOM) has important impacts on consumer
buying behavior (Arndt, 1967; Marsha and Teri, 1988). WOM is believed to be more credible
and effective than marketer-generated content, such as advertisements and product
descriptions from sellers (Dellarocas, 2003). Extending this idea, electronic WOM or online
reviews refer to any positive or negative online consumer comments for products or sellers
(Henning-Thurau et al., 2004). Compared with traditional WOM, online reviews can easily
reach a large scale of people with internet technologies (Lee et al., 2006).
The influence of online reviews has been widely explored in the literature of consumer
behavior, marketing, and information systems. Due to the potential risks of online shopping
(e.g. product performance risk and financial risk), many consumers infer product quality
and reduce uncertainty by referring to online reviews from other consumers. Prior studies
contend that online reviews can influence consumer’s behaviors. For instance, online
reviews are found to affect consumers’ perceived review credibility and usefulness, which
then influence their online review adoption behavior (Cheung et al., 2008, 2009; Gvili and
Levy, 2016; Lin and Xu, 2017). Park et al. (2007) used an experimental method and found that
consumers’ purchase behavior is closely associated with online reviews. Research also finds
that online reviews have a more positive impact on consumers’ brand choice and attitude
than other information sources (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004).
Given the risk/uncertainty in online environments and the benefits of reading online
reviews, a majority of previous studies have followed a rational perspective and emphasized
how such utilitarian value (e.g. perceived review usefulness and helpfulness) can affect
consumers’ behaviors (Cheung et al., 2008; Mudambi and Schuff, 2010). In contrast, the
hedonic value of reading online reviews has not received enough attention in the literature.
2.2 Consumer’s perceived value

Consumer’s perceived value has been shown to be important in facilitating and predicting
consumer behavior (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003; Overby and Lee, 2006; Arnold and Reynolds,
2003). It has been discussed widely in the marketing literature, with various definitions
(Babin et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988; McDougall and Levesque, 2000). For instance, Zeithaml
(1988) defined consumer value as a result of the overall evaluation of a product’s perceived
utility, based on the comparison between reception and expectation. McDougall
and Levesque (2000) referred to perceived value as the result of a tradeoff between
perceived benefits and sacrifices.
Prior research posits that consumer’s perceived value may consist of different
dimensions, such as utilitarian value, emotional value, conditional value, social value, and
epistemic value (Seth et al., 1991). While the validity of these dimensions is likely to depend
on specific contexts, a majority of previous scholars confirm the prominence of two
dimensions, namely, utilitarian value and hedonic value (Babin et al., 1994; Wang, 2010; Online reviews
Overby and Lee, 2006; Lin and Lu, 2015). Utilitarian value refers to task-specific value of and impulse
shopping and reflects the acquisition of products in an efficient way, while hedonic value buying
refers to the pleasant feelings from shopping (Babin et al., 1994; Babin and Attaway, 2000).
These two dimensions of perceived value have been applied to the areas of internet usage behavior
(Wang, 2010), e-mail dissemination (Chiu et al., 2007), and online shopping (Yoo et al., 2010).
For instance, Gan and Wang (2017) showed that both utilitarian and hedonic value are 525
positively associated with consumers’ satisfaction and purchase intention. Wang (2010)
contended that consumers can get utilitarian and hedonic value during the process of
information searching in online environments.
2.3 Impulse buying and browsing

Stern (1962) identified four broad categories of impulse buying, including pure impulse
buying, reminder impulse buying, suggestion impulse buying, and “planned” impulse buying.
Pure impulse buying is the truly impulse buying behavior where consumers break their
normal buying pattern to make a novelty purchase immediately. Reminder impulse buying
requires the recall of one’s prior experience or knowledge about products, and cognitive effort
will be needed in the process. Suggestion impulse buying occurs when consumer sees a new
product and imagines a need for it. Compared with pure impulse buying, suggestion impulse
buying may be an entirely relational process than an emotional reaction (Stern, 1962). Planned
impulse buying is partially “planned” and refers that consumers are open to make purchases
beyond shopping goals and search for any promotions.
Based on this categorization, reminder impulse buying, planned impulse buying, and
especially suggestion impulse buying may occur in the context of online reviews.
For instance, by browsing online reviews of a product, a consumer may imagine a need for it
and thus perform suggestion impulse buying, while s/he has no specific shopping goal at the
very beginning. As stated earlier, we note that limited prior research on online impulse
buying highlights the crucial role of social influence. As some of the exceptions, a few recent
conference papers show interest in highlighting this research gap (Zhang, Hu and Zhao,
2014). For instance, Hu et al. (2016) considered social influence in social media and expected
that consumers’ impulse behavior may be affected while they interact with others in this
context. A conceptual study from Blazevic et al. (2013) noted that due to the development of
social media, the influence of other consumers makes more sense on one’s buying behaviors,
including impulse buying. The study by Chung and Austria (2012) was one of the earliest
studies to contend that attitudes toward product messages on social media can influence
impulse shopping behavior, though they did not explicitly distinguish whether such
messages are from marketers or consumers. Given that research in this area still lacks
empirical evidence, we expect that it is worthwhile to provide more theoretical support and
develop rigorous research to understand how online reviews may lead to consumers’
impulse buying. In addition to the perspective of consumer value, we also refer to the
browsing literature to develop this research.
Browsing is regarded as ongoing search activities without specific purchases plans
(Bloch et al., 1986). It is an explorative search process which is undirected, less focused, and
stimulus driven (Moe, 2003). Browsing often takes time, which makes it possible that
consumers may experience the urge to buy something impulsively in the process.
Prior research also posits that, compared with shoppers who have directed goals, shoppers
who browse are more likely to make unplanned buying decisions, because they are more
receptive to environmental influence ( Janiszewski, 1998; Moe, 2003). Kollat and Willett
(1969) contended that exposure to merchandize and in-store stimuli can cause people’s
unplanned purchase behavior. In online settings, Verhagen and Dolen (2011) also showed
that online store browsing is positively related to consumers’ urge to buy impulsively.
INTR Previous research shows that people browse not only for information gathering but also
28,3 for fun (Bloch et al., 1989; Floh and Madlberger, 2013). Both utilitarian and hedonic drivers are
thus believed to be significant predictors of people’s browsing behavior (Pöyry et al., 2013;
To et al., 2007). Utilitarian browsers seek to get product information and optimize the
outcomes of future purchase. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) posited that hedonic browsers
are also interested in gaining product information such as prices and quality. They gather
526 such information not for future purchase but for the purpose that they just enjoy gathering
information. Research also posits that consumers can get gratification from the browsing
process itself, not necessarily from purchasing experience (Punj and Staelin, 1983; Babin et al.,
1994). Consumers can learn knowledge about new trends, diversify from routines, and meet
new people with similar interests during the browsing process (Tauber, 1972).
2.4 Impulsiveness
Beatty and Ferrell (1998) defined impulsiveness as “both the tendencies (1) to experience
spontaneous and sudden urges to make on-the-spot purchases and (2) to act on these felt
urges with little (conscious) deliberation or evaluation of consequence” (p. 174). Following
this perspective, a number of previous studies view impulsiveness as a relatively stable
personality trait (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001; Wells et al., 2011; Mohan et al., 2013).
For instance, research shows that, when it comes to impulse, individuals seem quite
different, with varied impulsiveness levels (Rook and Fisher, 1995; Rook, 1987; Beatty and
Ferrell, 1998). Meanwhile, another line of studies prefers to see impulsiveness as a
context-specific factor, which can be motivated by immediate gratification (Gąsiorowska,
2011; Floh and Madlberger, 2013).
In traditional retail environments, consumers with a high level of impulsiveness are more
likely to engage in impulse buying (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). This is because they lack
self-control compared with consumers with low impulsiveness. In online settings,
impulsiveness has been shown to affect consumers’ intention to conduct online purchases
(Zhang et al., 2006). Wells et al. (2011) concluded a similar effect from impulsiveness and
further showed that it can also strengthen the effect of website quality on urge to buy
impulsively. Overall, previous research mostly considers impulsiveness as an antecedent of
urge to buy impulsively. Youn and Faber (2000) suggested that impulsiveness is positively
related to consumers’ impulse buying intention. In a similar vein, Liu et al. (2013) referred to
impulsiveness as a psychological organism that directly influences consumers’ normative
evaluation and urge to buy impulsively. On the other hand, few studies investigate the
moderating effect of impulsiveness or examine consumer difference with this respect
(Wells et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2016). Extending this line of research, we will emphasize the
moderating role of impulsiveness and explicate how consumers engage in impulse buying
behavior differently given their impulsiveness levels.
3. Research hypotheses development

Based on the theoretical background, this study proposes that consumers can attain
utilitarian and hedonic value while processing online reviews. The two values are proposed
to drive consumers to spend more time to browse shopping websites, which further leads to
their urge to buy impulsively and actual impulse buying behavior. In addition, we propose
that the effects of utilitarian value, hedonic value, browsing, and urge to buy impulsively are
different for consumers with different impulsiveness levels.
3.1 Urge to buy impulsively and impulse buying behavior

The concept of urge to buy impulsively concentrates on the sudden and spontaneous
urge to buy something. Urge to buy impulsively can be powerful and sometimes
irresistible, yet it does not necessarily mean that consumers always act on it (Rook and Online reviews
Fisher, 1995). In other words, consumers may experience urge to buy impulsively and impulse
more often than their actual impulse buying behavior. Nevertheless, Verhagen and Dolen buying
(2011) indicated that there is a significant and positive relationship between the two
factors. Consistent with prior research discriminating urge to buy impulsively behavior
and actual impulse buying behavior (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Shen and Khalifa, 2012;
Huang, 2016), this study notes their difference and proposes a positive relationship 527
between them. That is, if consumers experience high urge to buy a product impulsively,
then they are more likely to purchase the product impulsively. We provide the following
hypothesis:
H1. Urge to buy impulsively is positively associated with impulse buying behavior.
3.2 Influence of browsing

In this study, we refer to browsing as consumers’ information searching/scanning

activities without any specific shopping goals. These activities involve the browsing of all
information on shopping websites, both marketer-generated content and online reviews
from consumers. We do not restrict browsing to only online reviews. This is because
online reviews are usually placed next to sellers’ product descriptions on shopping
websites, making it unrealistic to separate the behavior of browsing online reviews and
marketer-generated content; and by definition, browsing is less focused and undirected,
implying that it is unnecessary to differentiate which online information is browsed
by consumers.
According to prior research, consumers are found to make impulse purchases when they
encounter environmental stimuli (Kollat and Willett, 1969; Liu et al., 2013; Floh and
Madlberger, 2013). When people conduct an explorative searching, they are more likely to be
affected by environmental stimuli ( Janiszewski, 1998; Bloch et al., 1989). Browsing is thus
proposed to address people’s explorative information searching behavior (Moe, 2003).
Verhagen and Dolen (2011) identified a positive relationship between browsing and urge to
buy impulsively. Floh and Madlberger (2013) also contended that consumers’ browsing
behavior contributes to their impulse buying behavior. Following these studies, we expect
that consumers will browse both marketer-generated content and online reviews on
shopping websites. We propose that this browsing behavior can drive consumers’ urge to
buy impulsively. The following hypothesis is provided:
H2. Browsing is positively associated with urge to buy impulsively.
3.3 Perceived value of online reviews

Consumer value is a pivotal concept in the marketing literature and addresses what
consumers want and believe during shopping and experiencing services (Woodruff, 1997).
Following the perspective of consumer value, this study postulates that consumers can get
utilitarian and hedonic value while reading online reviews. More specifically, we define
utilitarian value as consumers’ perceptions regarding the extent to which online reviews can
provide instrumental value and fulfill their needs. Wang (2010) proposed that utilitarian
value of information searching is positively related with consumers’ online information
searching intention. To et al. (2007) also proposed that consumers can get utilitarian value
from searching information online so that they will establish searching intention. Based on
these concerns, we propose that if consumers perceive that they can get useful information
from online reviews, then they are more likely to browse them. Thus, we provide the
following hypothesis in this study:
H3. Utilitarian value of online reviews is positively associated with browsing.
INTR Similarly, we refer to hedonic value as consumers’ perceptions regarding the extent to which
28,3 online reviews can provide self-fulfilling value and pleasure to them. Compared with
utilitarian value, hedonic value of online reviews is largely under-investigated among
existing studies. In this research, we argue that it may play an important role in driving
consumers’ browsing and impulse buying behavior. Mathwick and Rigdon (2004) indicated
that if consumers regard information searching as a leisure activity, then they obtain
528 enjoyment from it. Pöyry et al. (2013) also noted that consumers are likely to browse if they
find it enjoyable. Following these studies, we expect that consumers who receive pleasure
and enjoyment from online reviews will be more likely to spend time in browsing the
reviews. Therefore, we provide the following hypothesis in this study:
H4. Hedonic value of online reviews is positively associated with browsing.
3.4 Consumers difference: impulsiveness

This study considers impulsiveness as a personality trait of consumers. Eysenck (1983)

stressed that it is important to consider both individuals’ inherent traits and their current state
of mind in examining impulse buying behaviors. Youn and Faber (2000) proposed that
investigating the moderating role of personality traits in impulse buying behavior is important.
Based on this perspective, we postulate that there may be significant consumer differences in
the process from online reviews to impulse buying behavior. More specifically, we first examine
how the influence of value perceptions from reading online reviews may differ for consumers’
personality traits. Hwang and Griffiths (2017) proposed that innovativeness, as a personality
trait, moderates the effect of hedonic value on consumer attitude. Williams et al. (2017)
identified that culture moderates the influence of consumer value on consumer satisfaction.
The findings of these studies imply that consumers with different personality traits may show
distinct predispositions to value perceptions. Meanwhile, Wells et al. (2011) referred to
impulsiveness as a personality trait and dichotomized it into two levels (high vs low).
They found that consumers with high impulsiveness have a stronger relationship between
website quality and urge to buy impulsively than those with low impulsiveness. Chen et al.
(2016) and Bressolles et al. (2007) also demonstrated similar moderating effects of
impulsiveness. Based on these findings, we examine the moderating effects of impulsiveness
on the relationships between value perceptions and browsing.
In the present study, we propose that if consumers possess a trait of low impulsiveness, their
browsing behavior may be activated primarily because of the perceived utilitarian value of
online reviews. Puri (1996) proposed that low impulsiveness consumers are prudent consumers,
they always control themselves well and consider all of the benefits and costs. Naderi and
Steenburg (2016) demonstrated that low-impulsiveness shoppers exhibit greater self-control
when they experience stimuli than high-impulsiveness shoppers. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) also
posited that these consumers are more likely to have high self-control. In a similar vein,
prior research contends that impulsiveness and low self-control are closely related and are often
used to explain one another (Duckworth and Kern, 2011; Evenden, 1999; Depue and Collins,
1999; Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). People who have high self-control like to pursue long-term
goals. For example, they may eat healthy foods to keep in shape, avoid procrastination to
achieve their goals, and delay gratification to produce better rewards (Baumeister, 2002).
Romal and Kaplan (1995) proposed that people with high self-control manage their money
better than those with low self-control. Following this perspective, people with high self-control
(i.e. low impulsiveness) also tend to be more sensitive to the benefits of online reviews in the
browsing process, where they are able to infer the quality of products and optimize the
outcomes of their future shopping behavior. Therefore, we provide the following hypothesis:
H5. The effect of utilitarian value on browsing is greater for consumers with low
impulsiveness.
On the other hand, for consumers with high impulsiveness, they tend to have low Online reviews
self-control (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998). Prior research indicates that impulsive buyers are and impulse
sensitive to environmental stimuli and primarily want to develop affective responses buying
(Parboteeah et al., 2009). Youn and Faber (2000) suggested that individuals who rate high in
impulsiveness are easier to have affective reactions when encountering environmental behavior
stimuli. Weinberg and Gottwald (1982) proposed that consumers with high impulsiveness
are more emotionalized than others. Lee and Yi (2008) found that impulsiveness moderates 529
the relationship between pleasure and impulse buying. Babin et al. (1994) posited that
hedonic shopping value reveals the entertainment and emotional merit in the shopping
process. Puri (1996) further referred to highly impulsive consumers as hedonic consumers
because they emphasize more immediate gratification. Thus, in the context of online
reviews, for consumers with high impulsiveness, we deem that they may be more responsive
to the hedonic value of online reviews. We expect that these consumers will be more
enjoying the process of reading online reviews, thus be more willing to spend time in
browsing shopping websites. Based on these concerns, we develop the following hypothesis:
H6. The effect of hedonic value on browsing is greater for consumers with high
impulsiveness.
Further, we propose that browsing is likely to place a greater effect on urge to buy
impulsively for consumers with high impulsiveness. Prior research contends that, compared
with consumers with low impulsiveness, consumers with high impulsiveness are more
susceptible to such stimuli, which finally influence their impulse buying behavior (Youn and
Faber, 2000). Rook and Fisher (1995) noted that buyers with high impulsiveness are more
likely to become susceptible to environment stimuli, and their shopping lists are more open.
Feng et al. (2012) examined the moderating effect of impulsiveness. They found that, as
consumers with high impulsiveness browse shopping websites, promotion stimulus can
demonstrate a stronger effect on impulse buying intention. Based on these findings,
consumers with high impulsiveness tend to be more sensitive to external influence in the
browsing process. Therefore, we provide the following hypothesis in this study:
H7. The effect of browsing on urge to buy impulsively is greater for consumers with
high impulsiveness.
Finally, we propose that urge to buy impulsively produces a more significant impact on
impulse buying behavior for consumers with high impulsiveness. According to Beatty and
Ferrell’s (1998) definition, consumers with high impulsiveness tend to act more frequently
on their urge to buy impulsively. There is an inevitable temporal delay between the urge to
buy impulsively and impulse buying behavior, no matter how rapidly the behavior is
conducted (Shen and Khalifa, 2012). For consumers with high impulsiveness, intensive
cognitive processing maybe vanish on account of the arousal of their emotional reactions
and the fact that they are more emotionalized than others (Weinberg and Gottwald, 1982).
Therefore, we provide the following hypothesis in this study:
H8. The effect of urge to buy impulsively on impulse buying behavior is greater for
consumers with high impulsiveness.
4. Methodology
4.1 Research sites
This study chose popular online group shopping websites in China as the research sites. These
websites often provide consumers with various products of low prices to attract consumers.
Thus, impulse buying behavior is likely to take place in this context. Given this concern,
Liu et al. (2013) also studied consumers’ online impulse buying on group shopping websites.
INTR In addition, many of these websites provide online reviews. Thus, using them allowed us to
28,3 examine the influence from online reviews to impulse buying. In this study, we selected three
popular group shopping websites in China (i.e. ju.taobao.com, dianping.com, and meituan.com).
These websites had similar website design and provided many online reviews.
4.2 Measures
530 We used well-validated measures of constructs from prior research. We made minor
modifications on the measures to fit our context. We used seven-point Likert scales, from
1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. The actual impulse buying behavior was
measured on a single-item scale (Kacen and Lee, 2002; Floh and Madlberger, 2013). Table I
lists the measures of all constructs in this research.
4.3 Data collection

Based on the measures, we developed an online questionnaire for this study. We performed
the translation and “back-translation” process because we conducted the survey in China.
That is, we translated the English questionnaire into Chinese and then translated it back to
English with the help of several doctoral students. We compared the two English versions
and resolved any inconsistencies. Before the final survey, we conducted a pre-test by
Construct Abbreviation Items
Utilitarian value (Wang, 2010) UV1 I find it useful to read online reviews on the group shopping
website
UV2 I am satisfied with online reviews on the group shopping
website
UV3 I accomplish just what I want to when reading online reviews
on the group shopping website
UV4 I find just the information that I am looking for while reading
online reviews on the group shopping website
Hedonic value (Wang, 2010) HV1 I find it enjoyable to read online reviews on the group
shopping website
HV2 I feel like an escape when I read online reviews on the group
shopping website
HV3 I have a good time when I read the online reviews on the
group shopping website
HV4 I enjoy reading online reviews for their own sake, not just for
the information I search on the group shopping website
Browsing (Floh and BR1 The percentage of time I spend just looking around on the
Madlberger, 2013) online group shopping website is fairly high
BR2 I would say that I am primarily “just looking around” on the
online group shopping website
Urge to buy impulsively UBI1 I have the urge to purchase items other than or in addition to
(Parboteeah et al., 2009) my shopping goals on the group shopping website
UBI2 I have a desire to buy items that do not pertain to my
shopping goals on the group shopping website
UBI3 I have the inclination to purchase items outside my shopping
goals the group shopping website
Impulsiveness (Wells et al., 2011) IMP1 “Just do it” describes the way I buy things
IMP2 I often buy things without thinking
IMP3 “I see it, I buy it” describes me
Table I. IMP4 “Buy now, think about it later” describes me
Measures of Impulse buying behavior IBB How often do you buy things impulsively on the group
constructs (Kacen and Lee, 2002) buying website?
inviting 30 undergraduates and graduates to participate in filling the questionnaire and Online reviews
provide comments. The questionnaire was further improved in this process. and impulse
We utilized a convenient samples and snowball sampling approach by distributing the buying
URLs of the online questionnaire in several universities’ bulletin board systems. In addition,
we sent similar invitation messages on several popular online discussion forums behavior
(e.g. on tieba.baidu.com and bbs.tianya.cn) in China to encourage potential online shoppers
to fill out the questionnaire. Screening questions were used to check whether the 531
respondents had read online reviews on any one of the three group shopping websites.
The respondents were asked to rate the items based on their general shopping experience with
one of the websites. A week later, we received 355 responses. Then, we discarded responses
that showed no prior experience on these websites. Finally, a total of 315 responses were
usable for this research. To examine the non-response bias, we compared the demographic
characteristics of first 50 and the last 50 respondents in the sample. The results showed no
significant differences, suggesting that the bias might not be a serious concern in this study.
Similarly, we also compared the compositions of respondents from the three websites,
no significant differences were identified, indicating that it was suitable to use the overall
sample. Table II describes the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Among the
Number Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 166 52.7
Female 149 47.3
Age
20 or below 2 0.6
21-25 244 77.5
26-30 58 18.4
31-35 8 2.5
36-40 2 0.6
41-50 1 0.3
51 or above 0 0.0
Education
Senior high school 4 1.3
Junior college 35 11.1
University 125 39.7
Postgraduate or above 151 47.9
Income (RMB)
Below 1,000 119 37.8
1,000-2,000 36 11.4
2,001-3,000 52 16.5
3,001-4,000 38 12.1
4,001-5,000 32 10.2
Above 5,000 38 12.1
Time spent on browsing the group shopping website per week
Below 10 minutes 76 24.1
10-30 minutes 113 35.9
31-60 minutes 60 19.0
1-2 hours 30 9.5
3-5 hours 22 7.0 Table II.
5-7 hours 7 2.2 Demographic
Above 7 hours 7 2.2 characteristics
INTR respondents, there were 166 males (52.7 percent) and 149 females (47.3 percent).
28,3 The majority of the respondents were young adults between 21 and 30 years of age, and
87.6 percent had university or above degrees. These were in accord with a recent survey
report, showing that young and high education consumers become new power of
consumption in China (iResearch, 2016).
532 5. Data analysis and results

Partial least squares (PLS) is commonly known for working well with relatively small
sample sizes and is suitable for preliminary modeling and exploratory research (Gefen et al.,
2011; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014). Given the exploratory nature of this study, we employed
PLS method to analyze the data. We followed the two-step procedure suggested by
Hair et al. (1998) in the analysis: the measurement model and structural model.
5.1 Measurement model

We examined the measurement model by testing convergent and discriminant validity of
the constructs. Convergent validity indicates that items of the same construct should be
closely related. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are the two
indicators of this validity. If CR and AVE values are greater than 0.7 and 0.5, respectively,
then convergent validity is confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table III shows the CR
and AVE values of the constructs. As shown below, the measurement model of this study
had acceptable convergent validity.
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which constructs are different from each
other. Gefen and Straub (2005) suggested that this validity can be confirmed through the
AVE analysis. Table IV depicts the results of this analysis. We found that the square root of
AVE for each construct was greater than its correlations with other constructs. In this case,
the measurement model of this study also had acceptable discriminant validity.
Since the data collected in this study were self-reported, we assessed common method bias
for the measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Williams et al., 2003). First, we performed Harman’s
single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). The results showed that
no single factor was extracted or accounted for a majority of the variances. Second, following
Item Loading Mean SD
Utilitarian value (UV ) UV1 0.749 5.30 1.105

CR ¼ 0.897; AVE ¼ 0.686
UV2 0.845 4.65 1.218
UV3 0.873 4.83 1.167
UV4 0.842 4.83 1.195
Hedonic value (HV ) HV1 0.877 4.42 1.317
CR ¼ 0.919; AVE ¼ 0.739
HV2 0.875 4.43 1.360
HV3 0.918 4.29 1.346
HV4 0.761 4.30 1.580
Browsing (BR) BR1 0.910 4.47 1.485
CR ¼ 0.800; AVE ¼ 0.671
BR2 0.716 4.72 1.456
Urge to buy impulsively (UBI) UBI1 0.849 3.74 1.581
CR ¼ 0.883; AVE ¼ 0.715
UBI2 0.873 4.02 1.575
Table III. UBI3 0.812 4.63 1.425
Descriptive statistics Impulse buying behavior IBB 1 2.54 1.297
of constructs CR ¼ 1; AVE ¼ 1
Liang et al.’s (2007) work, we added a method factor in the PLS model, whose indicators Online reviews
contained all the items of the constructs. Then, we calculated the variances of each indicator and impulse
explained by their substantive constructs and by the method factor. Table V shows the buying
results. The average variance explained by substantive constructs was 71.4 percent, whereas
the average variance explained by the method factor was as low as 1.5 percent. In sum, we behavior
believed that common method bias was less likely to be a critical issue in this study.
533
5.2 Structural model
Figure 1 depicts the results of the main structural model of this study. In the analysis, we
also considered five control variables, including age, gender, salary, education, and average
rating of products. We found that education and gender significantly influenced impulse
UV HV BR UBI IBB
UV 0.828
HV 0.570 0.860
BR 0.311 0.333 0.819
UBI 0.207 0.245 0.450 0.846 Table IV.
IBB 0.085 0.166 0.306 0.464 1 Correlations of
Note: Diagonal values are the square roots of AVEs constructs
Constructs Indicator Substantive factor loading (R1) R12 Method factor loading (R2) R22
HV HV1 0.841*** 0.707 0.070 0.005

HV2 0.894*** 0.799 0.017 0.000
HV3 0.952*** 0.906 −0.019 0.000
HV4 0.763*** 0.582 −0.086 0.007
UV UV1 1.052*** 1.106 −0.347*** 0.120
UV2 0.746*** 0.556 0.123 0.015
UV3 0.826*** 0.682 0.051 0.003
UV4 0.715*** 0.511 0.139* 0.019
BR BR1 0.779*** 0.607 0.135*** 0.018
BR2 0.879*** 0.773 −0.153*** 0.023
UBI UBI1 0.845*** 0.714 0.039 0.002
UBI2 0.900*** 0.810 −0.028 0.001
UBI3 0.790*** 0.624 −0.011 0.000
IBB IBB 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 Table V.
Average 0.856 0.741 −0.005 0.015 Results of common
Notes: *p o0.05; ***p o0.001 method bias analysis
0.180
Utilitarian Value
(2.115*)
0.393 0.424
(7.204***) (8.409***) Impulse buying
Browsing Urge to Buy
behavior
(R 2 =19.1%) Impulsively (R 2 = 23.1%) 2
(R = 26.0%)
Hedonic Value 0.238 Figure 1.

(3.144**) Results of the main
structural model
Notes: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
INTR buying behavior, and average rating of products affected urge to buy impulsively. The main
28,3 structural model was shown below, and the effects of the control variables were omitted for
parsimonious purpose. Our findings showed that urge to buy impulsively ( β ¼ 0.424,
t ¼ 8.409) affected impulse buying behavior. Browsing ( β ¼ 0.393, t ¼ 7.204) was found to
influence urge to buy impulsively. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported. Further, utilitarian
value ( β ¼ 0.180, t ¼ 2.115) and hedonic value ( β ¼ 0.238, t ¼ 3.144) had significant impacts
534 on browsing. Hence, H3 and H4 were also supported.
We also examined the mediating effects of browsing. To test such effects, we adopted
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step method. As shown in Table VI, browsing demonstrated
full mediating effects on the relationship between utilitarian value and urge to buy
impulsively, as well as the relationship between hedonic value and urge to buy impulsively.
Following the work from Wells et al. (2011) and Chen et al. (2016), this study
dichotomized impulsiveness into two levels using the mean splitting method (Hair et al.,
2014). Previous research also utilizes this approach to test the moderating effects of certain
continuous variables (Hwang and Griffiths, 2017; Bressolles et al., 2007; Wu and Wang,
2011; Arens and Rust, 2012). For example, Bressolles et al. (2007) utilized this approach and
found that functional buying impulsivity can moderate the impacts of website quality on
satisfaction and buying impulses, and the influence of satisfaction on buying impulses.
Arens and Rust (2012) similarly investigated the moderating effect of involvement between
impulsiveness and choice. Using this approach allowed us to simplify the categorization of
different consumers based on their impulsiveness personality trait: consumers with high
impulsiveness vs consumers with low impulsiveness. Thus, we could test how these
consumers show different patterns in the process from online reviews to impulse buying.
Wells et al. (2011) confirmed that this dichotomy approach on impulsiveness provides
the opportunity to delve into the nature and mechanism of its moderating effect in
online environments.
Before testing consumer differences in the model, we similarly evaluated the
measure of impulsiveness and found sufficient convergent and discriminant validity.
The high-impulsiveness group had 141 respondents, whereas the low-impulsiveness
group had 174 (mean ¼ 3.4). We analyzed the structural models for these two groups.
As shown in Figure 2 (high-impulsiveness group), only hedonic value positively affected
IV + M → DV
IV M DV IV → DV IV → M IV → DV M → DV Mediating effect
Table VI. UV BR UBI 0.217*** 0.324*** 0.076 0.433*** Full

Results of mediating HV BR UBI 0.262*** 0.334*** 0.103 0.418*** Full
effect tests Notes: IV, independent variable; M, to mediator; DV, to dependent variable. ***po 0.001
0.144
Utilitarian Value
(1.184)
0.463 0.345
(6.547***) (4.487***) Impulse buying
Figure 2. (R 2=19.8%) Impulsively (R 2=35.6%)
behavior
Results of (R 2= 31.5%)
the structural
model for the Hedonic Value 0.306
high-impulsiveness (2.417*)
group
Notes: *p <0.05; ***p<0.001
browsing ( β ¼ 0.306, t ¼ 2.417), while utilitarian value had no significant impact ( β ¼ 0.144, Online reviews
t ¼ 1.184). As shown in Figure 3 (low-impulsiveness group), only utilitarian value ( β ¼ 0.207, and impulse
t ¼ 2.152) positively influenced browsing, while hedonic value ( β ¼ 0.162, t ¼ 1.669) had no buying
significant impact. Thus, H5 and H6 were supported. Further, we compared the effects of
browsing and urge to buy impulsively in the two groups using the group-comparison behavior
method with PLS suggested by Keil et al. (2000). We found that browsing demonstrated
a greater effect on urge to buy impulsively for consumers with high impulsiveness 535
(tspooled ¼ 22.818, p o0.001), suggesting that H7 was supported. In contrast, we found that
the effects of urge to buy impulsively on impulse buying were not different between two
groups. Thus, H8 was not supported. Table VII shows the group-comparison results.
6. Discussion and conclusion

In this study, we explored how consumers’ perceived value of reading online reviews can
influence their online impulse buying behavior. The results show that utilitarian and
hedonic value positively affect consumers’ browsing behavior, which further increases urge
to buy impulsively and finally leads to impulse buying behavior. In addition, we find
significant and interesting consumer differences, depending on their levels of impulsiveness,
in the process from online reviews to impulse buying behavior. More specifically, consumers
with low impulsiveness only choose the route of utilitarian value in developing browsing
behavior. In contrast, consumers with high impulsiveness only select the route of hedonic
value in forming their browsing behavior. For these consumers, browsing is also found to
have a stronger effect on urge to buy impulsively. In other words, these consumers are more
likely to focus on the fun part of online reviews and are easier to develop the urge of impulse
buying while browsing shopping websites. Nevertheless, our result shows that urge to buy
impulsively does not have a more significant effect on impulse buying behavior for them.
0.207
Utilitarian Value
(2.152*)
0.274 0.345
(3.561***) (3.930***) Impulse buying
behavior
(R 2= 20.4%) Impulsively (R 2=16.7%)
(R 2=15.5%) Figure 3.
Results of the
Hedonic Value 0.162 structural model for
(1.669) the low-impulsiveness
group
Notes: *p <0.05; ***p<0.001
Construct UV → BR HV → BR BR → UBI UBI → IB
High impulsiveness
Standardized path coefficient 0.144 0.306 0.463 0.345
t-Value 1.184 2.417* 6.547*** 4.487***
Low impulsiveness
Standardized path coefficient 0.207 0.162 0.274 0.345
t-Value 2.152* 1.669 3.561*** 3.930***
Statistical comparison of each path Table VII.
t-Value 2.876** 27.796*** 22.818*** 0 Group-comparison
Notes: *p o0.05; **p o 0.01; ***p o 0.001 analysis of the models
INTR A possible explanation is that other factors such as self-control may place a much more
28,3 important moderating effect on the relationship between urge and actual impulse behavior
(Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996).
6.1 Implications for theory and practice

This study has several contributions to the existing literature. First, we bring connections
536 between research on online reviews and impulse buying with strong empirical findings.
Previous research on online impulse buying primarily focuses on exploring the influence of
marketing stimuli, website stimuli, and individual characteristics (Park et al., 2012; Floh and
Madlberger, 2013; Shen and Khalifa, 2012; Chan et al., 2017). However, the effect of social
influence (e.g. online reviews) on impulse buying is rather limited. In the present study, we
put forward that online reviews, as an essential type of online social influence, affect online
impulse buying behaviors through the mediating role of browsing. According to our
knowledge, this study is one of the early works that apply the perspectives of browsing and
consumer’s perceived value to bridge the relationship between online reviews and
consumers’ impulse purchase behavior. In addition, we note that previous research mostly
focuses on the influence of online reviews on planned or rational behaviors (Park et al., 2007;
Cheung et al., 2009), and rarely concerns their influence on impulse buying behavior.
We conjecture that this may be because online reviews only demonstrate indirect effects on
impulse buying behavior. In the current study, we provide empirical findings to show that
the influence of online reviews is fully mediated by browsing in the research model.
Second, the findings of this research can add to the literature of online reviews. Previous
studies have mainly examined various utilitarian benefits of online reviews, including
perceptions toward their credibility, usefulness, and helpfulness (Cheung et al., 2008, 2009;
Racherla and Friske, 2012). In this study, we suggest that consumers not only fulfill their
information needs but also experience pleasure while processing online reviews.
Our findings also show that the effect of hedonic value on browsing is actually stronger
than that of utilitarian value (in the main model). This suggests that the affective component
of online reviews plays a more important role in driving consumers’ browsing and impulse
buying behavior.
Finally, we consider consumer differences, via the personality trait of impulsiveness, in
understanding how online reviews may drive online impulse buying. We note that only a
few previous studies investigate the moderate role of impulsiveness in this area.
For instance, Wells et al. (2011) studied the interaction effect between impulsiveness and
website quality in online contexts. Chen et al. (2016) investigated the moderating role of
impulsiveness on the influence of information quality. Extending this line of studies, our
findings enrich the understanding about the role of impulsiveness in the online review
context. We show that highly impulsive consumers are more likely to form the urge of
buying from browsing behavior. Notably, we find that consumers with different
impulsiveness levels also choose different value perception routes (either utilitarian or
hedonic value of online reviews) to develop their browsing behavior. This is consistent
with previous studies that show consumers with contrastive personality traits may form
different predispositions to their value perceptions (Babin et al., 1994; Hwang and
Griffiths, 2017).
In addition to the theoretical implications, we believe that our findings can also provide
several practical implications. First, this study emphasizes the importance of online reviews
in driving consumers’ online impulse buying behavior. Online retailers may consider using
these reviews as marketing tools to act as effective environmental and social influence and
to promote consumers’ impulse buying behavior. Second, our results show that utilitarian
value of online reviews can facilitate consumers’ browsing behavior. This influence becomes
stronger for consumers with low impulsiveness. In other words, these consumers prefer to
spend more time in surfing shopping websites with the expectation of finding helpful online Online reviews
reviews. To meet their needs, shopping website designers may offer templates for people to and impulse
post useful reviews (e.g. a template that covers the evaluations of various aspects of buying
products). To encourage more impulsive purchase behaviors from them, online retailers
could also incent people to post more useful reviews on the websites. Third, we find that behavior
hedonic value of online reviews positively affects browsing behavior, and the influence is
stronger for consumers with high impulsiveness. Thus, highly impulsive consumers are 537
likely to spend more time on browsing shopping websites if they enjoy reading online
reviews. To create more fun for these consumers, website designers may allow consumers to
filter online reviews based on their preferences. Thus, they can identify the most enjoyable
reviews to read. Online retailers can also encourage preceding consumers to post relatively
long reviews with images or videos. This may enhance the vivid experience of and time
spent on reading online reviews, create more hedonic value, and then drive highly impulsive
consumers to browse shopping websites and further develop impulse buying behavior.
6.2 Limitations and opportunities for future research

We have to point out that this study also has some limitations and opportunities for future
research. First, this study uses the survey method and only collects data from group
shopping websites in China with a convenient sampling method. A majority of the
respondents are university students. They may behave differently from other online
consumers. Future research may use more novel methods such as eye-tracking and web
analytics, and use more diversified samples to increase the validity and generalizability of
the findings. It will also be interesting to use these novel methods and extend this study to
other online shopping environments. Second, this study only highlights the effect of
consumer-driven influence (i.e. influence of online reviews) on browsing, urge to buy
impulsively, and impulse purchase behavior. The variances explained in these three
endogenous variables are relatively low. While previous studies similarly find relative low
variances explained in these factors (e.g. browsing) (Huang, 2016; Verhagen and Dolen,
2011), it still suggests that there are other important factors which can influence them.
Hence, further studies may include more factors, such as those related marketer-generated
content into the research model. It will also be interesting to examine whether marketer-
generated and consumer-driven influences have different impacts. Finally, this study
shows significant effects of utilitarian and hedonic value of online reviews. To provide
more insights, future research is suggested to examine the antecedents of these two
values. Note that previous studies have proposed that some possible factors, such as
review valence, volume, length, emotion embedded in reviews, and review sources may be
positively related to review helpfulness (utilitarian value) (Yin et al., 2014; Korfiatis et al.,
2012; Baek et al., 2012). On the other hand, little research sheds light on the antecedents of
hedonic value. Thus, more studies are recommended to address how to improve hedonic
value of online reviews.
Note
1. Note that product information may be created by marketers but also from online reviews.
References
Arens, Z.G. and Rust, R.T. (2012), “The duality of decisions and the case for impulsiveness metrics”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 468-479.
Arndt, J. (1967), “Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-295.
INTR Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79
28,3 No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share
of customer”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 644-656.
538 Baek, H., Ahn, J. and Choi, Y. (2012), “Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: readers’ objectives and
review cues”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 99-126.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), “ACR fellow speech”, in Allen, C.T. and John, D.R. (Eds), NA – Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 21, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 8-11.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 120-141.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R.F. (2002), “Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and
consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 670-676.
Baumeister, R.F. and Heatherton, T.F. (1996), “Self-regulation failure an overview”, Psychological
Inquiry, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Beatty, S.E. and Ferrell, M.E. (1998), “Impulse buying: modeling its precursors”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 169-191.
Bellenger, D.N. and Korgaonkar, P.K. (1980), “Profiling the recreational shopper”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 77-92.
Bickart, B. and Schindler, R.M. (2001), “Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
information”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 31-40.
Blazevic, V., Hammedi, W., Garnefeld, I., Rust, R.T., Keiningham, T., Andreassen, T.W., Donthu, N. and
Carl, W. (2013), “Beyond traditional word-of-mouth: an expanded model of customer‐driven
influence”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 294-313.
Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M. and Sherrell, D.L. (1989), “Extending the concept of shopping: an
investigation of browsing activity”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 13-21.
Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D.L. and Ridgway, N.M. (1986), “Consumer search: an extended framework”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 119-126.
Bressolles, G., Durrieu, F. and Giraud, M. (2007), “The impact of electronic service quality’s dimensions
on customer satisfaction and buying impulse”, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 37-56.
Chan, T.K.H., Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, Z.W.Y. (2017), “The state of online impulse-buying research: a
literature analysis”, Information & Management, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 204-217.
Chen, J.V., Su, B. and Widjaja, A.E. (2016), “Facebook C2C social commerce: a study of online impulse
buying”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 83, pp. 57-69.
Chen, Z. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2003), “A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: a
preliminary investigation”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 323-347.
Cheng, Y.-H., Chuang, S.-C., Wang, S.-M. and Kuo, S. (2013), “The effect of companion’s gender on
impulsive purchasing: the moderating factor of cohesiveness and susceptibility to interpersonal
influence: companion’s gender and impulsive purchasing”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 227-236.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Thadani, D.R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication:
a literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 461-470.
Cheung, C.M.K., Lee, M.K.O. and Rabjohn, N. (2008), “The impact of electronic word‐of‐mouth: the Online reviews
adoption of online opinions in online customer communities”, Internet Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, and impulse
pp. 229-247.
buying
Cheung, M.Y., Luo, C., Sia, C.L. and Chen, H. (2009), “Credibility of electronic word-of-mouth:
informational and normative determinants of on-line consumer recommendations”, International behavior
Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 9-38.
Chih, W.-H., Wu, C.H.-J. and Li, H.-J. (2012), “The antecedents of consumer online buying impulsiveness 539
on a travel website: individual internal factor perspectives”, Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 430-443.
Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., Kao, Y.-H. and Lee, M. (2007), “The determinants of email receivers’
disseminating behaviors on the internet”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 524-534.
Chung, C. and Austria, K.P. (2012), “Attitudes toward product messages on social media: an
examination of online shopping perspectives among young consumers”, International Journal of

E-Services and Mobile Applications, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-14.
Dawson, S. and Kim, M. (2009), “External and internal trigger cues of impulse buying online”, Direct
Marketing: An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Dellarocas, C. (2003), “The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback
mechanisms”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 10, pp. 1401-1424.
Depue, R.A. and Collins, P.F. (1999), “Neurobiology of the structure of personality: dopamine, facilitation of
incentive motivation, and extraversion”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 491-517.
Duckworth, A.L. and Kern, M.L. (2011), “A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control
measures”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 259-268.
Evenden, J.L. (1999), “Varieties of impulsivity”, Psychopharmacology, Vol. 146 No. 4, pp. 348-361.
Eysenck, H.J. (1983), “Is there a paradigm in personality research?”, Journal of Research in Personality,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 369-397.
Feng, X., Yang, D.-J. and Huang, K.C. (2012), “A study of the factors that affect the impulsive cosmetics
buying of female consumers in Kaohsiung”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6
No. 2, pp. 652-657.
Floh, A. and Madlberger, M. (2013), “The role of atmospheric cues in online impulse-buying behavior”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 425-439.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gan, C. and Wang, W. (2017), “The influence of perceived value on purchase intention in social
commerce context”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 772-785.
Gąsiorowska, A. (2011), “Gender as a moderator of temperamental causes of impulse buying tendency”,
Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 119-142.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2005), “A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: tutorial and
annotated example”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 91-109.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E. and Straub, D. (2011), “An update and extension to SEM guidelines for
administrative and social science research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. iii-xiv.
Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), “Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth
communication”, Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545-560.
Gvili, Y. and Levy, S. (2016), “Antecedents of attitudes toward eWOM communication: differences
across channels”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1030-1051.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and William, C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
INTR Hair, J.J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
28,3 Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D. (2004), “Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the
internet?”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Hostler, R.E., Yoon, V.Y., Guo, Z., Guimaraes, T. and Forgionne, G. (2011), “Assessing the impact of
540 recommender agents on on-line consumer unplanned purchase behavior”, Information &
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 336-343.
Hu, X., Zhang, H., Sun, J., Xiang, L., Wei, J. and Robert, D. (2016), “Impulsive purchase behaviour in
social commerce: the role of social influence”, Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, Chiayi, June 27-July 1.
Huang, L.-T. (2016), “Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 2277-2283.
Hwang, J. and Griffiths, M.A. (2017), “Share more, drive less: millennials value perception and
behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 132-146.
iResearch (2016), “iResearch China Online Shopping Analysis Report”, Beijing.
Janiszewski, C. (1998), “The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 290-301.
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Keil, M., Tan, B.C., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. and Wassenaar, A. (2000), “A cross-cultural
study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 299-325.
Kollat, D.T. and Willett, R.P. (1969), “Is impulse purchasing really a useful concept for marketing
decisions?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 79-83.
Korfiatis, N., García-Bariocanal, E. and Sánchez-Alonso, S. (2012), “Evaluating content quality and
helpfulness of online product reviews: the interplay of review helpfulness vs review content”,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 205-217.
Lee, G.Y. and Yi, Y. (2008), “The effect of shopping emotions and perceived risk on impulsive buying:
the moderating role of buying impulsiveness trait”, Seoul Journal of Business, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 67-92.
Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., Lim, K.H. and Ling Sia, C. (2006), “Understanding customer knowledge
sharing in web‐based discussion boards: an exploratory study”, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 289-303.
Leong, L.-Y., Jaafar, N.I. and Sulaiman, A. (2017), “Understanding impulse purchase in Facebook
commerce: does Big Five matter?”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 786-818.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 59-87.
Lin, C.A. and Xu, X. (2017), “Effectiveness of online consumer reviews: the influence of valence,
reviewer ethnicity, social distance and source trustworthiness”, Internet Research, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 362-380.
Lin, K.-Y. and Lu, H.-P. (2015), “Predicting mobile social network acceptance based on mobile value and
social influence”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-130.
Liu, Y., Li, H. and Hu, F. (2013), “Website attributes in urging online impulse purchase: an empirical
investigation on consumer perceptions”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 829-837.
Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J. (2014), “Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for
building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it”, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Luo, X. (2005), “How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing?”, Journal of Consumer Online reviews
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 288-294. and impulse
McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000), “Customer satisfaction with services: putting perceived buying
value into the equation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 392-410.
behavior
Madhavaram, S.R. and Laverie, D.A. (2004), “Exploring impulse purchasing on the internet”,
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 59-66.
Marsha, L.R. and Teri, R.-S. (1988), “The role of evolvement and opinion leadership in consumer word- 541
of-mouth: an implicit model made explicit”, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), NA – Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 15, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 32-36.
Mathwick, C. and Rigdon, E. (2004), “Play, flow, and the online search experience”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 324-332.
Moe, W.W. (2003), “Buying, searching, or browsing: differentiating between online shoppers using
in-store navigational clickstream”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Mohan, G., Sivakumaran, B. and Sharma, P. (2013), “Impact of store environment on impulse buying
behaviour”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1711-1732.
Moore, D.J. (1995), “Individual differences as moderating variables: issues in the development and use
of personality variables”, in Frank, R.K. and Mita, S. (Eds), NA – Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 22, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 111-112.
Mudambi, S.M. and Schuff, D. (2010), “What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer
reviews on amazon.com”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 185-200.
Naderi, I. and Steenburg, E.V. (2016), “Marketing in a bad economy: when money and time collide”,
Society for Marketing Advances Proceedings, pp. 504-505.
Overby, J.W. and Lee, E.-J. (2006), “The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on
consumer preference and intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 10, pp. 1160-1166.
Parboteeah, D.V., Valacich, J.S. and Wells, J.D. (2009), “The influence of website characteristics on a
consumer’s urge to buy impulsively”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 60-78.
Park, D.-H., Lee, J. and Han, I. (2007), “The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing
intention: the moderating role of involvement”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 125-148.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Funches, V.M. and Foxx, W. (2012), “Apparel product attributes, web browsing,
and e-impulse buying on shopping websites”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 11,
pp. 1583-1589.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pöyry, E., Parvinen, P. and Malmivaara, T. (2013), “Can we get from liking to buying? Behavioral
differences in hedonic and utilitarian Facebook usage”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 224-235.
Punj, G.N. and Staelin, R. (1983), “A model of consumer information search behavior for new
automobiles”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 366-380.
Puri, R. (1996), “Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness a cost-benefit accessibility
framework”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 87-113.
Racherla, P. and Friske, W. (2012), “Perceived ‘usefulness’ of online consumer reviews: an exploratory
investigation across three services categories”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 548-559.
Romal, J.B. and Kaplan, B.J. (1995), “Difference in self-control among spenders and savers”, Psychology:
A Journal of Human Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 8-17.
INTR Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-199.
28,3 Rook, D.W. and Fisher, R.J. (1995), “Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Seth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991), Consumption Values and Market Choices,
South-Western, Cincinnati, OH.
Shen, K.N. and Khalifa, M. (2012), “System design effects on online impulse buying”, Internet Research,
542 Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 396-425.
Stern, H. (1962), “The significance of impulse buying today”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 59-62.
Steyer, R., Schmitt, M. and Eid, M. (1999), “Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and
individual differences”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 398-408.
Summers, T.A. and Hebert, P.R. (2001), “Shedding some light on store atmospherics: influence of
illumination on consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 145-150.
Tauber, E.M. (1972), “Why do people shop?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 46-49.
To, P.-L., Liao, C. and Lin, T.-H. (2007), “Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on utilitarian
and hedonic value”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 774-787.
Verhagen, T. and van Dolen, W. (2011), “The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online
impulse buying: a model and empirical application”, Information & Management, Vol. 48 No. 8,
pp. 320-327.
Verplanken, B. and Herabadi, A. (2001), “Individual differences in impulse buying tendency:
feeling and no thinking”, European Journal of Personality, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. S71-S83.
Wang, E.S.-T. (2010), “Internet usage purposes and gender differences in the effects of perceived
utilitarian and hedonic value”, CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 179-183.
Weinberg, P. and Gottwald, W. (1982), “Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Wells, J.D., Parboteeah, V. and Valacich, J.S. (2011), “Online impulse buying: understanding the
interplay between consumer impulsiveness and website quality”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 32-56.
Whiteside, S.P. and Lynam, D.R. (2001), “The five factor model and impulsivity: using a structural
model of personality to understand impulsivity”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 669-689.
Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R. and Vandenberg, R.J. (2003), “Recent advances in causal modeling
methods for organizational and management research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 903-936.
Williams, P., Soutar, G., Ashill, N.J. and Naumann, E. (2017), “Value drivers and adventure tourism: a
comparative analysis of Japanese and western consumers”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 102-122.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value the next source for competitive advantage”, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-153.
Wu, P.C.S. and Wang, Y. (2011), “The influences of electronic word‐of‐mouth message appeal and
message source credibility on brand attitude”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 448-472.
Yin, D., Bond, S. and Zhang, H. (2014), “Anxious or angry? Effects of discrete emotions on the perceived
helpfulness of online reviews”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 539-560.
Yoo, W.-S., Lee, Y. and Park, J. (2010), “The role of interactivity in e-tailing: creating value and
increasing satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Youn, S. and Faber, R.J. (2000), “Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 179-185.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and Online reviews
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22. and impulse
Zhang, K.Z., Hu, B. and Zhao, S.J. (2014), “How online social interactions affect consumers’ impulse buying
purchase on group shopping websites”, Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, Chengdu, June 24-28. behavior
Zhang, K.Z.K., Zhao, S.J., Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2014), “Examining the influence of online
reviews on consumers’ decision-making: a heuristic-systematic model”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 67, pp. 78-89.
543
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R. and Koh, C.E. (2006), “The role of impulsiveness in a TAM-based online
purchasing behavior model”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 54-68.
About the authors

Kem Z.K. Zhang is an Associate Professor at the University of Science and Technology of China.
He received PhD in Information Systems from the joint PhD program between the University of
Science and Technology of China and City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include
electronic commerce and human behaviors in emerging social media. He has published papers in a
number of journals, such as Decision Support Systems, Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, Information & Management, Computers in Human Behavior, International
Journal of Information Management, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, and Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research. Kem Z.K. Zhang is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Haiqin Xu is a PhD Candidate at the University of Science and Technology of China. Her research
interests include social commerce and online impulse buying behavior.
Sesia Zhao is an Assistant Professor at the Anhui University. She received PhD in Information
Systems from the joint PhD program between the University of Science and Technology of China and
City University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include knowledge management, social media,
electronic commerce, and collaborative information systems. Her research articles have been published
in international journals and conferences, such as Decision Support Systems, Journal of the Association
for Information Science and Technology, Information & Management, and International Journal of
Information Management.
Yugang Yu is a Professor of Logistics and Operations Management and the Executive Dean of the
School of Management at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC). He received PhD
in Management Science and Engineering from USTC in 2003. His current research interests are in
warehousing, supply chain management, and data-driven research in operations management and
application of operations research. He has published more than 60 papers in academic journals,
including Productions and Operations Management, Transportation Science, IISE Transactions,
International Journal of Production Research, European Journal of Operational Research, Annals of
Operations Research, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, and International
Journal of Production Economics. His papers have been cited more than 1,500 times, and he is among
the most cited researchers in China. His research results have also led to several patents in China.
He has received a Career Development Project Award from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research, a Distinguished Research Scholar Grant from the National Science Foundation of China, and
Yangtze Scholar Distinguished Professorship from the China Ministry of Education.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
View publication stats

Online Reviews and Impulse Buying Behavior: The Role of Browsing and Impulsiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Online Reviews and Impulse Buying Behavior: The Role of Browsing and Impulsiveness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Online Reviews and Impulse Buying Behavior: The Role of Browsing and Impulsiveness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Internet Research · April 2018

Kem Zhang Haiqin Xu

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Electronic Commerce View project

Knowledge Management View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2.2 Consumer’s perceived value

2.3 Impulse buying and browsing

3. Research hypotheses development

3.1 Urge to buy impulsively and impulse buying behavior

3.2 Influence of browsing

In this study, we refer to browsing as consumers’ information searching/scanning

3.3 Perceived value of online reviews

3.4 Consumers difference: impulsiveness

This study considers impulsiveness as a personality trait of consumers. Eysenck (1983)

4.3 Data collection

Construct Abbreviation Items

Number Frequency (%)

532 5. Data analysis and results

5.1 Measurement model

Item Loading Mean SD

Utilitarian value (UV ) UV1 0.749 5.30 1.105

HV HV1 0.841*** 0.707 0.070 0.005

Hedonic Value 0.238 Figure 1.

Table VI. UV BR UBI 0.217*** 0.324*** 0.076 0.433*** Full

6. Discussion and conclusion

Construct UV → BR HV → BR BR → UBI UBI → IB

6.1 Implications for theory and practice

6.2 Limitations and opportunities for future research

examination of online shopping perspectives among young consumers”, International Journal of

About the authors

View publication stats

You might also like

Table VI. UV BR UBI 0.217* 0.324* 0.076 0.433*** Full