Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

DOI 10.1007/s11002-013-9255-0

Impulse versus opportunistic purchasing

during a grocery shopping experience
Francesco Massara & Robert D. Melara &
Sandra S. Liu

Published online: 26 July 2013

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The current study introduces a conceptual distinction between two types of
unplanned purchasesimpulse purchases (i.e., spontaneous decisions triggered affectively) versus opportunistic purchases (i.e., rational decisions elicited by stimulus
exposure)grounded in separate dynamics of the cognitive processes unfolding
during the course of a shopping trip. In a temporal analysis of shopping behavior
within a simulated grocery-shopping experience, we found that participants increased
their impulse buying but decreased their opportunistic buying, as a function of the
number of basket items chosen previously. Similarly, impulse purchases increased in
the final stages of the trip, particularly in shoppers without the aid of a shopping list,
whereas opportunistic purchases decreased. Ours is thus the first study to report time
course evidence of two types of unplanned purchases within the grocery-shopping
experience.
Keywords Unplanned buying . Impulse purchases . Opportunistic purchases .
Shopping list . Grocery shopping experience

1 Introduction
The belief that a significant number of the decisions about what to buy when
shopping at mass merchandisers occur at the point of purchase increasingly drives
marketing research to identify the factors underlying unplanned purchases (Deloitte
F. Massara (*)
Department of Economics and Marketing, IULM University, Via Carlo B, 1, 20143 Milan, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
R. D. Melara
Department of Psychology, City College, City University of New York,
138th Street and Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10031, USA
S. S. Liu
Department of Consumer Sciences and Retailing Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47906-1262, USA

362

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

2007). Nevertheless, studies on unplanned buying are still relatively sparse (Bell et al.
2011), particularly from the perspective of the in-store consumerenvironment interaction (Inman et al. 2009), with most studies focusing on the person rather than the
purchase (Beatty and Ferrel 1998; Kollat and Willett 1967; Park et al. 1989). The
purpose of the current investigation was to employ a temporal analysis of purchases
at the basket level, where unplanned purchases are considered integral to the shopping experience.
1.1 A cognitive model of the shopping experience
A conceptual framework is helpful in characterizing the mental processes that
accompany planned and unplanned purchases as the shopping trip unfolds. Yet while
much research has emphasized the strategic importance of the store entrance
(Sorensen 2010; Underhill 1999) and even the initial adaptation to the store environment, there still is relatively little understanding of how mental states evolve dynamically once the consumer has passed the entrance. To address this void, we propose a
three-stage model of the perceptual and executive control activities that develop
through the course of the shopping trip.
1. The transition stage. As the trip commences, shoppers adapt perceptually to the
sensory environment of the store, remembering or organizing their ideas about
what to buy (cf. Underhill 1999; Sorensen 2010). Here, the shopping trip imposes
low levels of information load, thereby freeing cognitive resources, permitting
ample capacity to perform the basic cognitive activities necessary to carry out the
task at hand. The transition stage thus involves an active posture towards the
store environment (Titus and Everett 1996), one dominated by visual search (to
identify and select wanted products) and inhibitory control (to eschew exposure
to unwanted products). As a result, selection rates during this stage are hypothesized to be greatest for planned items and least for impulse purchases.
2. The procurement stage. The present paper investigates grocery shopping, which
is primarily a procurement activity (Bawa and Ghosh 1999). We hypothesize that
the procurement stage places a premium on three cognitive processes: (1) visual
perception, used to scan the store environment for sought-after products; (2)
working memory, used to rehearse the shopping list and maintain a mental
budget; and (3) decision-making about whether or not to purchase a perceived
item. Shoppers here respond rationally (Block and Morwitz 1999) to prices (Bell
and Lattin 1998) and promotional policies (Krishna 1994). As the stage progresses, the continuous exercise of these three processes leads to a steady buildup
of cognitive load in tandem with a gradual exhaustion of inhibitory resources (see
Vohs et al. 2008). Purchase of planned items are expected to decrease steadily,
while needed items absent from the shopping listhereafter, opportunistic purchasesdominate unplanned selections. As the consumers cognitive reserve is
depleted, affective features of products begin to significantly influence decisionmaking (Bruyneel et al. 2006; Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999).
3. The inspection stage. With procurement duties over, the shopper engages in an
overall review of the products in the cart to fill in any missing items. With
inhibitory control weakened from continuous decision-making and compromise,

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

363

shoppers are more prone to react passively to stimuli (Titus and Everett 1996)
and to engage in buying urges with an emotional trigger (Vohs and Faber 2007).
Consequently, as the shopping trip ends the rate of impulse purchase are expected
to increase noticeably, whereas the rate of planned and opportunistic purchases
plummets.

1.2 Two types of unplanned purchases: impulse versus opportunistic

In the marketing literature, the term unplanned purchase is normally used interchangeably with impulse purchase (but see Piron 1993); the roots of unplanned
purchases are thought to be affective. However, our conceptual model implies that
unplanned purchases are best bifurcated into impulse purchases and opportunistic
purchases. On this view, opportunistic purchasesrational purchases elicited by
stimulus exposurehave more in common with the cognitive processes used to
select planned items than they do with impulse purchases. Both planned and opportunistic purchases have a rational trigger based on need (Sorensen 2010), resulting
from an active shopping stance. Because opportunistic purchases often are linked to
aspects of the store environment (Inman et al. 2009), the absence of a shopping list,
and an increased use of the store environment as a memory cue (Block and Morwitz
1999), their frequency should be more erratic than planned purchases, which should
decrease gradually as the shopping trip unfolds. Yet because opportunistic purchases
draw on the same procurement processes of perception, working memory, and
decision-making as planned purchases, they should predominate during the procurement stage, and fall off greatly during the later inspection stage of the shopping trip.
By contrast, impulse purchasesspontaneous decisions that follow an emotional
urge to purchase (Babin et al. 1994; Rook 1987; Rook and Fisher 1995)are the
byproduct of cognitive biases that grow during the trip, such as breakdowns in selfregulation (Baumeister 2002; Vohs and Faber 2007; Sultan et al. 2011). According to
our model, these biases should predominate during the inspection stage when cognitive resources are largely spent. Here, the loss of inhibitory control prevents resistance to the temptation of affective product features. Unlike rational purchases,
impulse purchases do not draw on attentional resources but are, in fact, the result
of a passive stance toward the shopping environment (Liu et al. 2008). Thus, we
predict that impulses purchases will reveal a buying pattern exactly opposite to that of
opportunistic purchases.
1.3 The current study
The goal of the current investigation was to measure the time course of impulse
versus opportunistic purchases during a simulated grocery-shopping trip. For each
basket item not included in the designated shopping list, participants were asked to
determine on a four-point scale whether the item was selected because of necessity or
emotion; scale values were split at midpoint to code the type of unplanned purchase:
impulse or opportunistic. We then examined how often planned, impulse, and
opportunistic purchases occurred during different stages of the shopping trip. We
were especially interested in the number of prior decisions made before each

364

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

purchase, a proxy for resource depletion. We predicted that due to the role of
diminished cognitive capacity on self-regulation, impulse purchases, but not planned
or opportunistic purchases, would increase with the number of prior purchases. We
also predicted that with procurement needs gradually satisfied planned and opportunistic purchases, but not impulse purchases, would decrease steadily as time on trip
unfolded, being especially rare in the final moments of the trip where impulse
purchases would peak. Finally, since all types of purchases involve the expenditure
of cognitive resources in the store environment, we expected the use of a shopping
list, which greatly reduces cognitive drain (Block and Morwitz 1999; Liu et al. 2008)
to moderate the foregoing relationships.

2 Method
2.1 Participants
Thirty-nine undergraduate and graduate participants (20 males, 19 females; average
age, 25 years) from a large public university community were recruited through flyers
distributed throughout the university campus. All participants gave written informed
consent according to the institutional guidelines prior to testing.

Fig. 1 A view of the simulated grocery store

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

365

2.2 Stimulus environment

Forty-six panoramic photographs were used to create a simulated store environment
of a small, family-owned grocery store (approximately 5,000 ft2; see box 2 in Fig. 1
for store layout). The panoramic photographs were merged with a dataset containing
information on 1,463 products (60 different product categories with an average of 25
different products per category; 97 % of total store assortment) to associate through a
web interface each product in the simulated environment with corresponding product
information.
Figure 1 depicts the web-enabled store, containing a window through which the
user viewed the store (box 1). Participants interacted with the interface using a normal
computer. The user activated the product menu (box 3) by clicking on the shelf
containing the relevant items. The menu immediately displayed the products name,
brand, size, price, and promotional information. The user could view several products
at once, selecting items to purchase using the shopping cart icon on the far right. A
control menu (box 4) included three command buttons to access the shopping cart,
the shopping list, or to check out.
2.3 Procedure
Participants first made a pre-trip rating of mental effort on a seven-point scale,
followed by a tutorial in the use of the supermarket simulation. They were instructed
to choose as they would in an actual quick trip to the grocery store. Participants
created a shopping list of routine needs from a panel of specific products actually in
the store. Those who indicated that they typically did not use lists when shopping
were instructed to memorize the products on their list, which was not subsequently
available. Participants were asked to keep their budget below $50 (see Nielsen 2011).
A prompt every 5 min reminded participants to be both fast and accurate, previous
pilot studies having indicated that the prompts speeded completion of the shopping
trip without introducing the stress of a continuous clock counter.
Participants made a post-trip rating of mental effort. Recordings also included
three proxy indicators of mental fatigue: the number of choices made prior to each
purchase, the time elapsed on trip when each selection was made, and the deliberation
time for each purchase. Finally, participants judged on a four-point scale the selection
basis of each basket item not contained in the shopping list, with 1 corresponding to
forgotten necessity, 2 to more forgotten necessity than emotional impulse, 3 to
more emotional impulse than forgotten necessity, and 4 to emotional impulse.

3 Results
3.1 Analysis of internal validity
Internal checks (see Table 1) indicate that the shopping experience in our simulated
environment conformed well to results from other research settings (see also Burke
et al. 1992). The shopping trip lasted 15 min on average (SD=5; reported range, 13.4
18.5 min for quick and fill-in trips; Sorensen 2010). The average bill was $42

366

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

(SD=$9; reported range, $3080; SymphonyIRI 2011). The average shopping cart
contained 15 products (SD=4; reported purchase size 12 products; Sorensen 2010).
Shoppers dwelled in front of store shelves for 33 s on average (SD=23; reported
average, 30.2 s for fill-in trips; Sorensen 2010). On average, 38 % of purchases were
unplanned (reported range, 2737 %; Bell et al. 2011). Shopping list fulfillment in
our study was high (above 85 %, compared with 80 % in Block and Morwitz (1999)).
Seven of the ten categories purchased corresponded to what Nielsen (2011) reports as
the most purchased categories in fill-in shopping trips (see Table 3). Finally, 33 % of
our sample used a shopping list (reported range for everyday purchases 3359 %;
OConnell et al. 2012).

3.2 Analysis of purchase types

Mental effort at post-trip was significantly higher than at pre-trip (2.97 vs. 4.28;
F(1, 77)=19.23, p<0.01). The three indicators of mental fatigue (number of prior
choices, time elapsed, and deliberation time) were significantly correlated at the purchase level, with prior choices and time elapsed being especially strongly related
(r=0.77, p<0.01; time elapsed and deliberation time, r=0.22, p<0.01; prior choices
and deliberation time, r=0.09, p<0.05).
Ratings of unplanned purchases (1=forgotten necessity, 4=emotional impulse) conformed to a normal distribution (F1=58, F2=68, F3=51, F4=43; average=2.36; median=2; SD=1.07; skewness=0.20). Nevertheless, the slight distributional skewness
combined with the sizable frequency of endpoint (1 or 4) ratings justified bifurcation
(MacCallum et al. 2002) of unplanned purchases into opportunistic (1 and 2 s) versus
impulse (3 and 4 s) purchases by splitting scale values at midpoint. Importantly, the
results were identical after reanalysis using a median split of scale values.
Table 2 presents the results of six-probit models conducted to predict by list usage
the number of purchases (across the three types: planned, opportunistic, and impulse)
shoppers made as a function of the three mental fatigue indicators, with subject
included as a random factor. The probit model ensured that we captured the multilevel
structure of the dataset (i.e., 581 cases by 39 subjects). We found that the intraperson

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

on shopping diagnostics
(39 subjects)

Measure

Unit

Mean

SD

Time spent

Seconds

789.6

322.2

Products on the shopping list

Number

10.6

4.8

Products in the shopping cart

Number

14.9

4.6

Planned purchases

Number

9.2

4.9

Unplanned purchases

Number

5.6

4.1

Store familiarity

17 Scale

3.8

1.8

Brand knowledge

17 Scale

5.5

1.8

Grocery bill

42.2

11.8

Usage of the shopping list

Sample quota

33 %

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

367

correlation (i.e., a measure of how much the purchases are correlated at the level of
the individual) was lower for list users than nonusers for both planned and opportunistic purchases (i.e., shoppers more similar to each other), but not for impulse
purchases. Nevertheless, we observed a marked difference overall between list users
and nonusers, thus implicating list usage as an important moderator of the relationships under investigation. For nonusers, the number of prior purchases was a significantly positive predictor of impulse purchases, but not of planned purchases.
Importantly, opportunistic purchases decreased significantly with number of prior
purchases, consistent with the idea that resource depletion affects the two types of
Table 2 Results of six-probit models conducted to predict by list usage the number of purchases (across
the three types: planned, opportunistic, and impulse) shoppers made
Coefficients and model fit statisticsa,b
Predictors

Planned

Opportunistic

Impulse

Non-users
Prior choices

0.02 (0.11)

0.19* (0.12)

0.26* (0.11)

Absolute elapsed time

0.05 (0.13)

0.07 (0.13)

0.01 (0.12)

Deliberation time

0.02 (0.06)

0.11 (0.06)

0.09 (0.07)
2.16** (0.32)

Constant

0.52 (0.30)

0.19 (0.29)

(intraperson correlation)c

0.47 (0.09)

0.34 (0.09)

0.14 (0.08)

Wald 2 (3)

1.69

7.72

16.13

p Value

0.638

0.052

0.001

377

0.12 (0.13)

Number of groups

26

Mean obs. per group

14.5

List users

Prior choices

0.05 (0.12)

0.14 (0.11)

Absolute elapsed time

0.29* (0.14)

0.16 (0.14)

0.16 (0.14)

Deliberation time

0.05 (0.08)

0.03 (0.08)

0.01 (0.09)
1.95** (0.44)

Constant

1.31** (0.26)

1.09** (0.41)

(intraperson correlation)c

0.23 (0.11)

0.08 (0.14)

0.18 (0.12)

Wald 2 (2)

9.21

1.92

9.55

p value

0.026

0.589

0.022

204

Number of groups

13

Mean obs. per group

15.7

SE in parentheses

The xtprobit procedure (in Stata) significantly mitigates the concerns of collinearity because the procedure
by default omits correlated variables. Besides, employing only one of the two duration/number measures
did not alter the significance of the model coefficients.

We find a significant (i.e., non-zero), although not disturbing effect given to personal variation, our
principal effects remained intact even when the multilevel structure of the data was ignored (i.e., subject ID
was not included in the model).
*p<0.05, significant; **p<0.01, significant

368

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

unplanned purchases differently. For list users, the number of planned purchases
decreased steadily as time on trip elapsed. Time elapsed was unrelated to the number
of impulse or opportunistic purchases made, whether or not participants used a list.
Deliberation time was not a direct predictor of any type of purchase.

3.3 Analysis of single purchases

We grouped the number of prior purchases into quintiles (Q1=2, Q2=5, Q3=8, Q4=11,
Q5=16) to analyze shopping patterns at different stages of the trip. Figure 2a depicts the
results, revealing an increase in impulse purchases at later stages of the shopping trip
(Fimpulse (1, 580)=10.99, p<0.01), but a decrease in opportunistic purchases (Frational
unplanned (1, 580)=3.80, p<0.01; Fplanned (1, 580)=0.87, ns).
Figure 2b summarizes results of impulse purchases for participants who had a shopping
list in hand (n=13) versus those who did not (n=26). Here, we found that list usage interacted
with the number of prior choices (Fimpulse (4, 577)=3.31, p<0.01), with the absence of a
shopping list associated with a spike in impulse purchases during the final stage of the trip.
This pattern was not present for either planned or opportunistic purchases, (Fplanned
(4, 577)=0.46, ns; Frational unplanned (4, 577)=1.59, ns). However, the number of opportunistic
purchases was significantly greater without the benefit of a shopping list (73 vs. 56 %; F(1,
580)=16.28, p<0.01), whereas the number of planned purchases was smaller (13 vs. 27 %;
F(1, 580)=16.69, p<0.01). Moreover, self-reported mental effort was significantly higher in
the absence of a shopping list (F(1, 77)=10.34, p<0.01), with the difference in mental effort
pre-trip to post-trip marginally greater without the list (F(4, 74)=3.07, p<0.08).

Fig. 2 Results that reveal an increase in impulse purchases at later stages of the shopping trip

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

369

Table 3 summarizes the rankings of the top 10 categories for each purchase type
(69 % of total purchases). Nonparametric correlations confirmed a greater degree of
similarity between planned and opportunistic purchases (=0.70, p<0.01) than between planned and impulse purchases (=0.43, ns) or opportunistic and impulse
purchases (=0.16, ns).

4 Discussion
The current study introduced a conceptual distinction between two types of unplanned purchasesimpulse purchases and opportunistic purchasesgrounded in
separate dynamics of the cognitive processes unfolding during the course of a
shopping trip. In a simulated grocery-shopping experience, we found evidence
consistent with this distinction. Participants increased their impulse buying, but
decreased their opportunistic buying, as a function of the number of basket items
they selected previously. Similarly, impulse purchases increased in the final stages of
the trip, particularly in shoppers lacking a shopping list, whereas opportunistic
purchases decreased. Ours is thus the first study to report timecourse evidence of
two types of unplanned purchases within the grocery shopping experience.
4.1 Implications
The results of the present study hint at the cognitive activities driving different types
of purchases in mass merchandizing situations. According to our perspective, impulse
Table 3 Rankings of the top 10 categories for each purchase
Top 10 categories in fill-in trips
Rank # Planned
purchases

Opportunistic n
purchases

Impulse
purchases

Current
study

Salty snacks

12 Fresh
produce

Nielsen
(Nielsen 2011)

Fresh produce 71

Fresh produce 36

Meat

30

Meat

12

Deli

Meat

49

Bakery

Bakery

30

Canned
vegetables

12

Soft drinks

Bakery

47

Pet care

Milk

20

Milk

11

Sauces

Cheese

39

Cheese

Eggs

20

Cheese

10

Cookies

Milk

31

Salty snacks

Cereal

19

Bakery

Fresh
produce

Deli

31

Soft drinks

Cheese

19

Pasta

Meat

Cereal

24

Frozen meals

Deli

18

Canned meat

Cheese

Eggs

23

Fresh produce

Salty snacks

17

Deli

Canned meat 4

Soft drinks

23

Ice cream

10

Soft drinks

13

Salty snacks

Cereal

Salty snacks 20

Total

257

109

4
62

112 Milk

399

Cereals

370

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

purchases are fueled by breakdowns in the inhibitory control processes normally used
to ward off salient or distracting stimuli in complex multisensory environments such
as the grocery store. In our view, the fatiguing of these control processes is itself
spurred by the incremental draining of cognitive resources that accompanies the
repeated perceptual comparisons, working memory maintenance, and decisionmaking required to meet procurement needs. In this way, the cognitive operations
that support planned purchases also enable opportunistic purchases (through perception and working memory), yet ultimately lead to impulse purchases (through loss of
capacity). Indeed, we found that the absence of a shopping list greatly exacerbated
this process, stirring a burst of impulse purchases as the shopping trip ended, perhaps
because mental fatigue increased rapidly for participants forced to rely solely on
working memory for their planned purchases. The lack of a shopping list may also
encourage search and exploratory behavior within the shopping environment, speculation consistent with our discovery of more opportunistic purchases in the absence
of a list. In view of the scant literature on the use of a shopping list as a memory aid
(Block and Morwitz 1999; Liu et al. 2008), we recommend that future research
follow up on our conjecture.
The results of the current study further understanding of the relationship between
hedonic and utilitarian value in shopping. In essence, our results support a view of fun
following work. Although consumers may dislike utilitarian activities per se, they may
learn to enjoy a self-reinforcing system of promised rewards, one in which a prize is
given at the completion of the task. This interpretation is consistent with the reported
correlation between utilitarian and hedonic values (Babin et al. 1994), suggesting a more
formal relationship between the two constructs. On one account, ordinary work leads
naturally to hedonism, thus connecting hedonism to consumption.
Our distinction between rational unplanned and impulse purchases also implies an
intrinsic relationship between unplanned purchases and the store environment. Inman
et al. (2009) assert that in-store stimuli function as external memory cues with store
displays and hedonic stimulus categories affecting unplanned purchasing. Yet, these
authors still equate unplanned purchasing with impulse buying. By contrast, the results
of the present paper suggest that category characteristics play a different role from displays
with respect to unplanned purchases; specifically, whereas hedonic categories elicit
impulse purchases, in-store displays and eye-catching environmental cues (e.g., colors,
facings, shelf space, markers, etc.) exert greater influence on opportunistic purchases.
4.2 Limitations
We note several potential limitations of our research design. One is our use of a
virtual shopping simulation. Although the simulation provided us with exquisite
experimental control over the physical environment, it also perhaps introduced a
certain degree of artificiality over typical shopping trips (e.g., our use of pop-up
prompts). Nevertheless, we found in manipulation checks that our findings compared
favorably with findings obtained within more traditional shopping environments.
Similarly, our use of a subject population comprised of 39 students may have constrained
the reliability and generalizability of our results to a broader population. It might be
argued, for example, that our study underestimated the number of shoppers who depend
on a shopping list, despite falling within current market estimates (e.g., OConnell et al.

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

371

2012 report a rising trend from 33 to 59 % from February 2009 to January 2012). Thus, we
recommend caution in applying our results to other contexts. We are especially concerned
that the small sample size may have limited the statistical power of our analyses, which
would explain why certain outcomessuch as the interaction between prior choices and
its natural covariate, time elapsedfailed to reach statistical significance. We thus
recommend that our study be replicated on a larger sample.
The current study only examined associations between time course/number of prior
decisions and shopping behavior. We did not directly manipulate any of the cognitive
processes hypothesized to support different shopping behaviors (e.g., perception, inhibitory
control, working memory, and decision processes), nor did we directly investigate any
possible mediating variables (e.g., cognitive load). Follow-up research will need to explicitly
introduce cognitive loads on working memory and decision making to measure their effects
on impulse and rational unplanned buying. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, ours
is the first study to identify distinct temporal patterns in these two forms of buying.

5 Conclusions
Even in the most recent literature, impulse purchases are generally left undistinguished in theory or measurement from other forms of unplanned purchase. This
paper fills a void in research on unplanned buying by offering a conceptual model of
the time course of cognitive processes during shopping. The model makes a theoretical and fully intuitive distinction between two types of unplanned purchases: impulse
versus opportunistic. Results reported here demonstrate that these two types of
purchases follow distinct temporal patterns and are mediated by distinct factors.
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge financial support from the Marketing Science Institute.
Additional thanks are due to Orfeo Morello and Giovanni Pelloso for their technical and engineering
expertise during this study.

References
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644656.
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670676.
Bawa, K., & Ghosh, A. (1999). A model of household grocery shopping behavior. Marketing Letters,
10(2), 149160.
Beatty, S. E., & Ferrel, E. M. (1998). Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(2),
169191.
Bell, D. R., & Lattin, J. M. (1998). Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price format: why
large basket shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Science, 17(1), 6688.
Bell, D. R., Corsten, D., & Knox, G. (2011). From point of purchase to path to purchase: how preshopping
factors drive unplanned buying. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 3145.
Block, L. G., & Morwitz, V. G. (1999). Shopping lists as an external memory aid for grocery shopping:
influences on list writing and list fulfillment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 343375.
Bruyneel, S., Dewitte, S., Vohs, K. D., & Warlop, L. (2006). Repeated choosing increases consumers
susceptibility to affective product features. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2),
215225.

372

Mark Lett (2014) 25:361372

Burke, R. R., Harlam, B. A., Kahn, B. E., & Lodish, L. M. (1992). Comparing dynamic consumer choice in
real and computer-simulated environments. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 7182.
Deloitte (2007) Shopper marketing study: capturing a shoppers mind, heart and wallet. http://www.
deloitte.com/. Accessed 25 July 2012.
Inman, J. J., Winer, R. S., & Ferraro, R. (2009). The interplay among category characteristics, customer
characteristics, and customer activities on in-store decision making. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 1929.
Kollat, D. B., & Willett, R. P. (1967). Customer impulse purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, 4(1), 2131.
Krishna, A. (1994). The effect of deal knowledge on consumer purchase behavior, Journal of Marketing
Research, 31(1), 7691.
Liu, S. S., Melara, R. D., Chen, J., & Massara, F. (2008). Integration of consumer buying behavioral
parameters with signal detection tests. Psychology and Marketing, 25(6), L506L520.
Nielsen (2011) The just in time consumer: how shopping trips align with economic woes. http://www.nielsen.com/.
Accessed 25 July 2012
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization
of quantitative variables. Psychol Meth, 7, 1940.
OConnell, B., Glunk, M., Chatman, K., & Elson, C. (2012). Shopping lists: a primary shopping tool where
shoppers engage with retailers, products, and brands to help manage buying decisions. J Mark Retail,
2(1), 611.
Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery
shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of
Consumer Research, 15(4), 422433.
Piron, F. (1993). A comparison of emotional reactions experienced by planned, unplanned and impulse
purchases. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 341344.
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(2), 189199.
Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22(3), 305313.
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in
consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278292.
Sorensen, H. (2010). Inside the mind of the shopper: the science of retailing. Upper Saddle River: Wharton School.
Sultan, A. J., Joireman, J., & Sprott, D. E. (2011). Building consumer self-control: the effect of self-control
exercises on impulse buying urges. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 6172.
SymphonyIRI (2011) The CPG market: fostering growth in a time of conservation. http://www.symphonyiri.com/.
Accessed 25 July 2012.
Titus, P. A., & Everett, P. B. (1996). Consumer wayfinding tasks, strategies, and errors: an exploratory field
study. Psychology and Marketing, 13(3), 265290.
Underhill, P. (1999). Why we buythe science of shopping. New York: Simon and Shuster.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. (2007). Spent resources: self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse
buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537548.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (2008). Self-regulation: goals, consumption, and choices.
Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 349366). New York: Erlbaum.