Influential factors in In-store Impulsive Buying Behaviour - An empirical Study with reference to Chennai city

 

R. I. Shaista Samreen ¹, Dr. S. Nafeesa ²

 

¹ Research Scholar, the Quaide Milleth College for Men, Medavakkam, Chennai, India

² Assistant Professor and Research Supervisor, PG and Research Department of Commerce, the Quaide Milleth College for Men, Medavakkam, Chennai, India

 

1. INTRODUCTION

When customers purchase the products without having a plan to purchase then this is called the impulse buying. The person who makes such buying is called an impulse buyer. It is not necessary that impulse buying would always be in the boundaries of necessary products, there are the times when customers purchase those products which are not necessary for their lives. Impulse buying can occur at anytime and anywhere irrespective of time or location to occur. Impulse buying is more likely to occur while shopping, travelling, and on browsing internet. Impulse buying ranges starting from small products like snacks and drinks, to high-value products like electronics and luxury cars.

Various marketing strategies are being adopted by marketers in order to influence customers to buy impulsively. This is the reason due to which it is quite important to find out the factors which influence impulse buying. Women of this era is professional, they are working with different organizations side by side with men and this change has a significant influence on variety of things, impulse buying is one of them.

Hence, this research was undertaken to find out the situations leading consumers to make impulse buying; the impact impulse buying has on consumer’s buying behaviour and the type of products purchased as a result of impulsive behaviour.

 

2. Review of Literature

Kaitapalli and Arcadius. (2024) examined the impact of colour on impulse buying behaviour in the FMCG sector. The sample size was 102 individuals. Multiple regression analysis was employed to assess the effects of the independent variable (Colour), the moderating variable (Culture), and the dependent variable (Impulse Buying). The study concludes that the Impulse Buying scale has strong internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.79 suggested a high level of reliability in measuring impulse buying behaviour.

Patel et al. (2023) examined the influence of various impulse buying factors like sales and promotion, placement of products, window merchandising, effective pricing strategy etc. This study was based on primary data collected from Vadodara with the help of structured online questionnaire. The findings of the study suggested that when the consumers see a store offering free products and price discounts, they are more likely to make impulsive purchases. Income level and visual merchandising have a strong and significant influence on consumer impulse to buy FMCG products in India.

Azul et al. (2023) analysed mental health professionals to determine the mental health distress caused by impulse buying behaviours. The descriptive method was utilised and a quantitative method to measure the level and relationship between impulsiveness and financial well-being among young adults. In order to secure the validity and reliability, the Purposive Sampling technique was used. It concluded that young professionals in this study do not meet the criteria of susceptibility to stress that may be brought about by impulsive buying.

Subramani (2022) aimed to find out the impact of technological development on buying behaviour of the consumer towards FMCG products through E-Commerce. Consumer purchasing patterns have been influenced by digital technologies. The data was collected with 186 responses using a convenience sampling method. The study concluded that customer “Loyalty” and “User Friendly” were the reason for the rise of E-commerce Websites promoting the FMCG Products.

Baumeister (2002) aimed to determine about self-control and its failures to consumer buying behaviour. Effective self-control depends on three major ingredients. They are the standards, a monitoring process, and the operational capacity to alter one's behaviour. The study concluded that self-control represents the capacity to resist temptations, especially those relevant to impulsive purchases.

Alshammari (2021), aimed to provide the understanding that affect consumer’s impulsive behaviour during the Covid-19. It consisted of three factors, namely, fear of the Covid-19 pandemic, money availability and pre-shopping preparation; and one in-store factor - namely, promotional incentives. Data was collected from 303 consumers in Saudi Arabia. The study found that consumers who feel fear of Covid-19 would positively affect urge to buy impulsively.

Pandya (2021) made efforts to study consumer compulsive and impulsive buying behaviour in Gujarat state in retail mall with specific emphasis on FMCG products. In this study compulsive and impulsive consumer buying behaviour were measured to find out the influence of impulse buying behaviour. The data was collected from 950 respondents by using non- probability convenience sampling. It concludes that most of respondents purchased Household products, Foods, Beverages - cold drinks etc. and dairy/ bakery products compulsively and impulsively.

Vannisa et al. (2020) found the influence of personal factors such as attitudes toward advertising, individuality/uniqueness and price sensitivity to shopping enjoyment. Structural testing models constructs measured to determine whether or not the hypothesis is accepted. The results of the study had implications for e-commerce management that perceived perishability during a flash sale is one of the factors that is big enough to influence consumer attitude.

Vinish et al. (2020) examined the impact of store layout, ambience and store employees on impulse buying behaviour of female customers in Karnataka. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyse the data collected through a structured questionnaire and found that store layout, ambiance and skilled employees have significant of impact on the impulse buying decisions. At the same time, the researcher found that poor employee interaction, shortage of staff and high staff turnover affected the impulse buying behaviour.

 

3. Statement of the Problem

On growing population, most of the population wants to enter into a new business whether it is small scale, medium or large scale. The eventual goal of each business is to create profit by satisfying the consumer. In India most of them are consumers much rather than producers. Consumer is the ruler of the market since the consumer can pick the products she/he needs to buy. Customer needs the product or service to function and to satisfy their need in order to solve their problems or fulfil the desire. There are dissimilar styles of customers and each of them is unique in their buying behaviour and needing a different approach. A new business wants to create a new customer and surviving business wants to retain an existent customer is a challenging task for every business and for a marketer.

Companies do research on what does the consumers like, dislike and what are their changing preferences. Consumers buying behaviour changes due to some personal, lifestyle changes and changes in the prevailing environmental situation. To clutch the consumers for their product or store, the marketers has to handle some business traits to make distinct from his competitors, so the marketers must know the fluctuating purchasing behaviour of the consumer and adopt some strategy by knowing their buying behaviour towards their product/services on present situation and make the consumer to buy the product even though they were not planned to buy a particular product. There are numerous ways to stimulus consumers and grow sales. The research tries to throw some interesting information about the influencing factors on consumer impulse buying. Hence the present research problem was stated to answer the following research questions:

•        Does the consumer make unplanned purchases (Impulse Buying)?

•        Does the consumer carry a shopping list while making unplanned purchasing?

•        Does the consumer like impulse buying?

•        Does the consumer have any experience on return of product buying on impulse?

 

4. Objectives of the Study

•        To Estimate the frequency analysis which influence impulse buying behaviour.

•        To find out the relationship between the Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable.

•        To find out the relationship between the type of products purchased with demographic factors of impulse buying.

•        To Ascertain the highest rated factor and the lowest rated factor through various factors.

 

5. Significance of the Study

Understanding consumers in the proper perspective is the main problem of businesspeople. Impulsive buying is based on exposure to in-store stimuli conditions. The influence of types of products purchased post-purchase evaluation on impulsive buying behaviour is very significant.

The reasons for customers to get indulged in the impulsive purchases and the things making the customer purchase the goods impulsively needs to be explored. Unless one knows the minds of consumers, this question cannot be answered. So, this study is designed to know and explore the minds of consumers regarding impulsive buying behaviour of In-store. Also, the marketer may make use of these variables enumerated in this study to enhance impulsive buying and achieve the marketing goals.

 

6. Research Methodology

6.1. Distribution of sample size

This study was conducted with 99 respondents. The respondents were approached individually and the questionnaire was distributed. The objectives of the study were clearly explained to the respondents to get an accurate response on impulse buying.

 

7. Limitations of the Study

•        The Scope of the study is limited to In-Store Impulsive Buying Behaviour of Consumers towards FMCG Goods within the geographical boundaries of Chennai City.

•        The findings are limited to a small sample size of 99 response only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Data Analysis and Interpretation on Frequency Test                           

Table 1

Table 1 Frequency of Unplanned Purchases of the Respondents
Unplanned purchases	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	69	69.7
No	30	30.3
Total	99	100.0
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

From the above frequency test computed, Table 1 shows that 69% of the respondents make unplanned purchases, 30% of the respondents does not make unplanned purchases. Hence, it is concluded that 69% of the people make unplanned purchases.

Table 2

Table 2 Carrying Shopping List by the Respondents
Shopping list	Frequency	Percent
Yes	59	59.6
No	40	40.4
Total	99	100.0
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

From the above frequency test computed, Table 2 shows that 59% of the respondents carries shopping list for their purchase, 40% of the respondents does not carry shopping list with their purchase. Hence, it is concluded that majority 59% of the respondents carries shopping list for their purchase.

Table 3

Table 3 Respondents Liking Towards Impulse Buying
Liking of impulse buying	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	58	58.6
No	41	41.4
Total	99	100.0
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

Table 3 shows that 58% of the people like buying of goods impulsively and 41% of the respondents does not like buying of goods impulsively. Hence, it is concluded that majority 58% of the respondents like unplanned purchases.

Table 4

Table 4 Respondents Comparison of Price, Quality of the Product
Comparison of price, Quality of the product	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	85	85.9
No	14	14.1
Total	99	100.0
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

Table 4 shows that 85.9% of the people compare price, quality of the product when buying goods impulsively, whereas 14.1% of the people does not compare the price, quality of the product when they buy goods impulsively. Hence, it is concluded that majority of 85.9 % of the people compare the price, quality of the product when they buy goods impulsively.

Table 5

Table 5 Frequency of Experience on Return of Product
Experience of return of product	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	63	63.6
No	36	36.4
Total	99	100.0
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

Table 5 shows that 63.6% of people experience of return of product when they buy impulsively, 36.4% of people have no experience on return of product when they buy impulsively. Hence, it is concluded that majority of 63.6% of people experience on return of product when they buy impulsively.

 

9. Data Analysis and Interpretation using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test

9.1. Anova Table

Table 6

Table 6 Influence of Occupation on Post-Purchase Evaluation
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1.147	4	0.287	0.454	0.769
Within Groups	59.398	94	0.632
Total	60.545	98
Source Computed Data

                                                       

Hypothesis

H0(1): There is no significant difference between the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of occupation.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of occupation. Therefore, the Statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.769 which is greater than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 7

Table 7 Influence of Education Level on Post-Purchase Evaluation
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1.564	4	0.391	0.623	0.647
Within Groups	58.981	94	0.627
Total	60.545	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H0(2): There is no significant difference between the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Education Level.

Interpretation: It can be seen from the above table that the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of Education Level. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.647 which is greater than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 8

Table 8 Influence of Age groups on Post-Purchase Evaluation
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	1.615	4	0.404	0.644	0.633
Within Groups	58.981	94	0.627
Total	60.545	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H0(3): There is no significant difference between the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Age Groups.

Interpretation: It can be inferred from the above table that the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of different age groups. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.633 which is greater than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9

Table 9 Influence of Gender on Post-Purchase Evaluation
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	2.079	1	2.079	3.45	0.066
Within Groups	58.466	97	.603
Total	60.545	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H0(4): There is no significant difference between the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Gender.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of Gender. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.66 which is greater than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

 

Table 10

Table 10 Influence of Annual Income on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	7.803	3	2.601	2.522	0.062
Within Groups	97.975	95	1.031
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H0(5): There is no significant difference between the variable of Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Annual Income.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of Annual Income of the customers. Therefore, the Statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.062 which is greater than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 11

Table 11 Influence of Marital Status on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	5.629	1	5.629	5.452	0.022
Within Groups	100.149	97	1.032
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H1(1): There is significant difference between the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Marital Status.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of Marital Status of the customers. Therefore, the Statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.022 which is less than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 12

Table 12 Influence of Occupation on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	5.521	4	1.38	1.294	0.278
Within Groups	100.256	94	1.067
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H1(1): There is significant difference between the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Marital Status.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has significant relationship with the demographic variable of Occupation of the customers. Therefore, the Statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.278 which is less than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 13

Table 13 Influence of Education Level on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	13.609	4	3.402	3.47	0.011
Within Groups	92.169	94	0.981
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H1(3): There is significant difference between the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Education level.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has significant relationship with the demographic variable of Education level of the customers. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.011 which is less than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 14

Table 14 Influence of Age Groups on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	9.675	4	2.419	2.366	0.058
Within Groups	96.103	94	1.022
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H0(6): There is no significant difference between the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Age Groups.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has no significant relationship with the demographic variable of age groups of the customers. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.058 which is higher than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 15

Table 15 Influence of Gender on type of Products Purchased
	Sum of squares	Df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	4.416	1	4.416	4.226	0.043
Within Groups	101.362	97	1.045
Total	105.778	98
Source Computed Data

 

Hypothesis

H1(4): There is significant difference between the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying with the demographic variable of Gender.

Interpretation: The above table reveals that the variable of type of products purchased on Impulse Buying has significant relationship with the demographic variable of Gender. Therefore, the statistical analysis indicates that the calculated value is 0.043 which is less than the value of 0.05 at 5% significant level which denotes that the null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 16

Table 16 Post-Purchase Evaluation on Impulse buying
Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean		Std. Deviation
Variables	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
product pleasure of one purchase tempts me to purchase other products from a particular store	99	1	5	3.43	.098	.971
Most products I buy are overpriced estimated	99	1	5	3.21	.1	.993
As many of the products I buy are defective	99	1	5	2.85	.104	1.034
I see the products is not helpful as it was advertised	99	1	5	3.21	.111	1.109
the products I did driven buying is not useful	99	1	5	2.97	.109	1.083
I could pick something different, if I could go back in time	99	1	5	3.18	.112	1.119
Based on your last buying experience, are you satisfied or not satisfied on your impulse buying	99	1	5	3.79	.079	.786
Valid N (listwise)	99
Source Computed Data

                                        

Interpretation

From the above table, it can be inferred that post-purchase evaluation on impulse buying has many variables, the mean values of post purchase evaluation on impulse buying is mentioned in the above table. The highest rated factor is “Based on your last buying experience, are you satisfied or not satisfied on your impulse buying” (Mean=3.79), indicating that respondents ask themselves after purchasing whether they are satisfied or not satisfied from the product they have bought impulsively. The second highest rated factor is “product pleasure of one purchase tempts me to purchase other products from a particular stores” (Mean=3.34) indicating that after purchasing a product impulsively if a buyer feels pleasure of purchase from a particular store it tempts them to purchase other product from the same store. The third highest rated factor are the two factors namely” Most products I buy are overpriced estimated, I see the products is not helpful as it was advertised” (Mean=3.21 same for both the factor) which denotes that after purchasing buyers evaluate the product and estimate that most of the products they bought are overpriced, and the product is not helpful as it was advertised as they bought impulsively.

On the otherhand, the lowest rated factor on post-purchase evaluation on impulse buying is “I could pick something different, if I could go back in time” (mean=3.18) where a customer feels after purchase that he/she can pick something different if they go to the store in next time. The second lowest factor is “the products I did driven buying is not useful” (Mean=2.97) where a customer feels that a purchase made on impulse without careful consideration is not useful. The third lowest rated factor is “as many of the products I buy are defective” as the last rated factor in after purchase evaluation is (Mean =2.85) describes that a customer feels most of the products they bought are defective which they were purchased on impulse.

Table 17

Table 17 External Influencers of Unplanned Purchases
Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean		Std. Deviation
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
If it is easy to find out the products in a store, it encourages me to do more purchases	99	1	5	3.62	0.092	0.911
If I see discount price, I tend to buy impulsively	99	1	5	3.7	0.102	1.015
It is easy for me to overspend when I shop with credit card	99	1	5	2.8	0.123	1.22
I don’t look at the price whenever I buy	99	1	5	2.83	0.123	1.221
Does your mood influence impulsive buying	99	1	5	2.89	0.125	1.244
while shopping I feel a sense of adventure	99	1	5	3.81	0.093	0.922
Valid N (listwise)	99
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

From the above table, it computed that, The mean on external influencers of unplanned purchase on impulse buying has been measured and identified the highest rated factor and lowest rated factor from the variables. The first highest rated factor is Mean=3.81 for the variable “while shopping I feel a sense of adventure” the respondents highly agrees with the factor that from impulse buying they feel the sense of adventure. The second highest rated factor is Mean=3.70 for the variable “If I see discount price, I tend to buy impulsively” indicates that most of the people buy goods impulsively if they see there is price discount on the products, The third highest rated factor is Mean=3.62 “If it is easy to find out the products in a store, it encourages me to do more purchases” denotes that most of the people agrees that if they found easy to purchase the product in a store, it encourages them to do more purchases impulsively.

On the otherhand the lowest rated factor on external influencers of unplanned purchase on impulse buying is Mean=2.80 for the variable “It is easy for me to overspend when I shop with credit card” suggests that minimum persons agrees for the factor that it is easy to spend when they shop with their credit card. The second lowest factor is Mean=2.83 for the variable “I don’t look at the price whenever I buy” the customer suggest that they disagree with the factor of buying goods without price seeing. The third lowest factor is Mean=2.89 for the variable “Does your mood influence impulsive buying” in which respondents disagrees with the factor that their mood does not influence impulse buying.

 

 

Table 18

Table 18 Unplanned Buying Due to Self-Inner Pressures
Descriptive Statistics
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean		Std. Deviation
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
I often buy things without thinking	99	1	5	2.86	.103	1.02
”Buy now, think about it later” describes me	99	1	5	3.58	.106	1.051
Sometimes I am a bit reckless about what I buy	99	1	5	2.86	.115	1.143
I carefully plan when I buy FMCG	99	1	5	3.08	.11	1.094
I buy a product or service that suddenly hit my eye while shopping	99	1	5	3.72	.106	1.05
I make unplanned purchases when I believe it is a one-time chance	99	1	5	3.66	.099	.981
Valid N (listwise)	99
Source Computed Data

                         

 Interpretation

From the above table, it computed that, The mean on unplanned buying due to self-inner pressures has been measured and identified the highest rated factor and lowest rated factor from the variables.

The first highest rated factor is  Mean=3.72 for the variable “I buy a product or service that suddenly hit my eye while shopping” indicates that most of the people buy goods if they suddenly see the product of what they actually decided to buy, The second highest rated factor is Mean=3.66  denotes that most of the people agrees that if they found easy to purchase the product in a store, it encourages them to do more purchases impulsively. The third highest rated factor is Mean=3.58 “Attractive display draws my attention and induce my impulsive buying” denotes that most of the people agrees that they get attracted by the display which induces them to buy impulsively.

On the otherhand, the first lowest factor is Mean=3.08 for the variable “I carefully plan when I buy FMCG” in which the respondents disagrees that they didn’t carefully plan when they buy FMCG goods. The second lowest factor is Mean=2.86 for the variable “I often buy things without thinking” suggests that respondents mostly dis-agrees with the factor that they often buy things with thinking. The third lowest factor is Mean=2.86 for the variable “Sometimes I am a bit reckless about what I to buy” suggests that the respondents disagree with the statement that they sometimes bit reckless about what they want to buy.

Table 19

Table 19 Impulsive Purchases Due to My Family and Friend’s Pressures
	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean		Std. Deviation
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic
My family members have high desires to live a high flying life	99	1	5	3.55	.112	1.118
My family members do not weigh the cost-benefit analysis while deciding on a purchase	99	1	5	3.42	.101	1.001
My family members are easily carried away by the discount and other offers, leading to impulsive purchases	99	1	5	3.55	.112	1.118
My friends do a correct cost benefit analysis and I am convinced that their decisions will be good	99	1	5	2.83	.121	1.204
My friends are almost high fliers and this prompts me to impulsive purchases	99	1	5	3.04	.124	1.237
My relatives are influencing my other family members and hence my impulsive purchases happen	99	1	5	3.32	.115	1.141
Valid N (listwise)	99
Source Computed Data

 

Interpretation

From the above table, it computed that, The mean of impulsive purchases due to my family and friend’s pressures has been measured and identified the highest rated factor and lowest rated factor from the variables.

The first highest rated factor is Mean=3.55 for the variable “My family members have high desires to live a high-flying life” indicates that most of the people agree that their family members desires to live a high-flying life, The second highest rated factor is Mean=3.55  denotes that their family members are easily attracted by the discount and other offers, leading to impulsive purchases. The third highest rated factor is Mean=3.42 for the variable “My family members do not weigh the cost-benefit analysis while deciding on a purchase” denotes that most of the people agrees that their family members do not estimate the cost-benefit analysis while deciding on a purchase.

The first lowest rated factor is Mean=3.32 for the variable “My relatives are influencing my other family members and hence my impulsive purchases happen” the respondents has marked this variable that they disagree with the statement because people are not getting influenced by other family members so that impulse purchase cannot happen. The second lowest rated factor is Mean=3.04 “My friends are almost high fliers and this prompts me to impulsive purchases” suggests that the respondents disagree with the statement that their friends are not almost high fliers so that impulsive purchases may not happen. The third lowest rated factor is Mean=2.83 for the variable “My friends do a correct cost benefit analysis and I am convinced that their decisions will be good” the respondents suggests that their friends do not do a correct cost-benefit analysis from that they are not convinced to buy goods impulsively.

 

10. Conclusion

Hence this research concludes that from the Frequency test it is observed that the majority of the respondents agree that they make unplanned purchases, the majority of the respondents agree that they like impulse buying, the majority of the respondents agree that they compare the price and quality of the product, the majority of the respondents agree that they experience on return of product, from the ANOVA Test the study concludes that with no significant relationship between the variable null hypothesis is accepted on the other hand with significant relationship between the variables null hypothesis is rejected.

From the descriptive statistics this study concludes that post-purchase evaluation on impulse buying has the highest rated factor on “Based on your last buying experience, are you satisfied or not satisfied on your impulse buying”. The factor of external influencers of unplanned purchases has the highest rated factor on “while shopping impulsively I feel a sense of adventure”, The factor of unplanned purchases due to self-inner pressure has the highest rated factor on the variable “I buy a product or service that suddenly hit my eye while shopping”, The factor of impulse purchase due to my family and friends pressure has the highest rated factor on the variable “My family members have high desires to live a high flying life”. The lowest rated factors are “as many of the products I buy are defective”, “Does your mood influence impulsive buying”,“My relatives are influencing my other family members and hence my impulsive purchases happen”.

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

None . 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

 

REFERENCES

Alshammari, E. (2021, August). Has Buying Behaviour Changed During the COVID-19 Crisis? What are the Implications for Retailers. International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI), 10(8), 21–30.

Azul, R. D., Cadano, K. D. Q., Guiao, R. J. M., Maranga, N., Salonga, C. H., and Usita, M. N. (2023). The Impulse Buying Behaviour and Financial Well-Being Profile of Young Professionals in the Philippines. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.13.03.2023.p13537

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to Temptation: Self-Control Failure, Impulsive Purchasing, and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670–676. https://doi.org/10.1086/338209

Hair, J. F., Jr., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., and Page, M. (2007). Research Methods for Business. John Wiley and Sons.

Kaitapalli, L., and Arcadius, J. (2024, March). Exploring the Effect of Colors on Impulse Buying in FMCG Sector – A Comprehensive Study. International Journal of Novel Research and Development (IJNRD), 9(3).

Kim, M.-K., Park, M.-C., and Jeong, D.-H. (2004). The Effects of Customer Satisfaction and Switching Barrier on Customer Loyalty in Korean Mobile Telecommunication Services. Telecommunications Policy, 28(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2003.12.003

Pandya, P. R. K. (2021). A Study on Compulsive and Impulse Buying Behaviour of Consumers in Gujarat State in Retail Mall with Special Focus on FMCG Products (Doctoral dissertation, Gujarat Technological University).

Patel, P., et al. (2023, March). A Study on Various Factor Affecting the Impulse Purchase Behaviour of Consumers in FMCG. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 10(3).

Subramani, S. E. (2022). Impact of Technology Development on Consumer Buying Behaviour on FMCG Products Through E-Commerce. In Conference paper. ResearchGate.

Vannisa, D., Fansuri, A., and Ambon, I. M. (2020). The Effect of Flash Sale Program on Shopping Enjoyment and Impulse Buying on Flash Sale on C2C E-Commerce. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(4), 2534–2539.

Vinish, P., Pinto, P., Hawaldar, I. T., and Pinto, S. (2020). Impulse Buying Behaviour Among Female Shoppers: Exploring the Effects of Selected Store Environment Elements. Innovative Marketing, 16(2), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.21511/im.16%282%29.2020.05