INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 11 (2), 240-265 SUMMER 2008
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Roberto Luna-Arocas*
ABSTRACT. Nowadays, consumer behavior is more sophisticated and
complex than before. In this study, I attempt to analyze the relationship
between impulse buying (consumer’s emotional side of the consumption)
and an individual’s self-discrepancy (the difference between what one is and
what one would like to be). I propose that a consumer uses impulse buying
to lift one’s self up and remove one’s self-discrepancy. Results from a
sample of consumers in Spain established that a consumer experienced
self-discrepancy was likely to have impulse buying. Moreover, the larger the
self discrepancy, the more one was dissatisfied with one’s consumption.
Finally, symbolic meanings of products to the consumer were associated
with the different areas of self-discrepancy. Clothing is associated with not
only one’s image in front of others but also one’s self-esteem. Therefore,
impulse buying in clothing is positively related to one’s self-discrepancy in
the emotional side of self.
INTRODUCTION
Present-day consumer society makes consumption freely
accessible to all. This is an undeniable reality in Western societies
where the purchasing power of the middle class has increased
significantly than before. The increase of purchasing power allows the
general public to achieve higher levels of consumption. Modern
society is based on what is termed materialistic culture, in which
consumption is the prime motivator and the individual seeks
happiness and defines self by one’s possessions (Belk, 1985, 1988;
-----------------------------------* Roberto Luna-Arocas, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor, Department of
Business Management, University of Valencia, Spain. His research interest
is in the areas of consumer behavior, more concretely in impulse buying and
the role of identity and self in consumption, as well as money and pay
satisfaction from the economic psychology perspective.
Copyright © 2008 by PrAcademics Press
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
241
McCracken, 1981, 1986; Richins & Dawson, 1992). Many studies
suggest that impulse buying is related to deficiencies or gaps in the
self (e.g., Dittmar, 1992). Indeed, among other reasons, people buy
impulsively trying to be happy. However, this search process does not
have an end because consumption is not the solution to fill personal
gaps.
What is impulse buying? Rook (1987, p. 191) states that
“impulse buying occurs when a consumer experiences a sudden,
often powerful and persistent urge to buy something immediately.
The impulse to buy is hedonically complex and may stimulate
emotional conflict. Also, impulse buying is prone to occur with
diminished regard of its consequences.” People work hard in
organizations to earn money. However, many have more the idea of
having than being. Learning from evidence in consumer behavior can
help individuals understand the socialization process of consumption.
This article presents some preliminary empirical results that can help
organizations and individuals know more about the relationship
between products’ symbolism and individual’s behaviors, and overall,
why sometimes we need to buy some things. Rationality can help
people understand emotional behavior and development of individual
identity.
McCracken (1981) talks about the cultural meaning of
consumption with three elements: culture, individual, and product.
Grubb and Grathwohl (1967) relate consumption with self-esteem at
the individual level. This paper adopts McCracken (1981, 1986) and
Grubb and Grathwohl’s (1967) approach to identity in consumption in
that consumption is shaped by three main influences: culture,
individual, and product (Figure 1). This interaction influences the
degree of individual self-discrepancy and the creation of individual
identity. These three main influences are summarized briefly below.
- Culture. There are three main trends that influence identity in
consumption. First, materialism research focuses on the
symbolism of products and the individual’s search for happiness
(Belk, 1985, 1998; Richins & Dawson, 1992). Second, Elliot
(1994) asserts the fragmentation of the identity in that
individuals can be even contradictory in different selves as
different spaces of the same identity. This lets consumption take
symbolism for different individual goals in the different aspects of
the self. Third, Featherstone (1991) highlights the improvement
242
LUNA-AROCAS
of a post-modern culture that enhances fragmentation and
materialism in consumption.
- Individual. From an individual’s point of view, there are two
approaches for identity in consumption. First, the self-discrepancy
model (Dittmar, 1992; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982) asserts that
individuals search to fill the gaps in identity through consumption.
The second approach comes from the analysis of consumption
patterns and psychographics to cope with complexity in
the consumption symbolism (Boote, 1980; Hogg & Michell, 1996;
Mason, 1998).
FIGURE 1
Theoretical Approach Adapted and Modified from McCracken (1981)
CULTURE1
INDIVIDUAL2
IDENTITY IN
CONSUMPTION
PRODUCT3
Notes:
1. Culture: Materialism (Belk, 1985, 1989; Richins & Dawson, 1992);
Fragmentation of identity (Elliot, 1994); Postmodern culture
(Featherstone, 1991).
2. Individual: Self-discrepancy (Dittmar, 1992; Wicklund & Gollwitzer,
1982); Consumption patterns and psychography (Boote, 1980; Hogg
& Michell, 1996; Mason, 1998).
3. Product: Consumption and symbols (Baudrillard, 1968, 1970; Levy,
1959; Affective communication (Gardner, 1985; Hirschman &
Holbrook, 1982), social (Eastman, Goldsmith, & Flynn, 1999; Mason,
1992; Tauber, 1982) and Aesthetics (Dittmar, 1992); Utilitarian and
hedonic products (Batra & Athola, 1990; Park, Iyer, & Smith, 1986).
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
243
- Product. It is interesting to know that the literature has many
studies on products and the meaning of these products, but
without a clear link to the individual’s perception. It is a basic
foundation to understand identity in consumption and the
symbolism of products (Baudrillard, 1968, 1970; Levy, 1959).
Since 1980s, research has incorporated other complex variables
and linked these variables to affective, social, and aesthetic
aspects of the products (Dittmar, 1992; Eastman, Goldsmith &
FLynn, 1999; Gardner, 1985; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982;
Mason, 1992; Tauber, 1982). In particular, emotional buying or
impulse buying has been linked to social aspects of consumption
with a clear desire to maintain social status.
The theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions of this
research to the literature can be summarized as follows. Although
many studies in the literature have examined these issues, very little
empirical research has been done in non-English-speaking cultures,
such as Spain, in particular. The aim of this paper is to investigate the
relationship of product symbolism and self-discrepancy and identify
the degree and type of relationship using objective measurements. To
this end, this study adopts several very well developed and often
used measurement scales, collects data from a representative
sample in Valencia, Spain, tests a model regarding the role of
discrepancies in consumer dissatisfaction (complaints behaviors) and
the relationship between impulse buying and self-discrepancy and
between impulse buying with the image and social construction of
identity. Results regarding three elements in our model may help
researchers and executives understand the link among culture, the
individual, and product. A brief review of the literature is presented
below.
Personal Discrepancy
Research suggests that products are imbued with symbolic,
affective, aesthetic associations, and meanings (Baudrillard, 1968,
1970; Dittmar, 1992; Gardner, 1985; Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982;
Levy, 1959, 1981). Thus, the consumer seeks hedonic and subjective
meaning, rather than merely functional elements in the product
purchased (Batra & Ahtola, 1990; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000; Park,
Iyer, & Smith, 1989). Such symbolic and interactive features enable
the consumer to reflect one’s innermost personal desires in the
possession of the goods. Individual desire and motivation interact
244
LUNA-AROCAS
with the two previously mentioned elements: culture and consumer
goods. The starting point of this model is the individual’s potential
desire for betterment and growth in different areas of the self as well
as the multi-dimensional nature of the self (Markus & Kunda, 1986;
Rosenberg, 1979; Schouten, 1991) and its relationship with
consumption.
Several authors have defined self or personal discrepancy as the
difference between what you are and what you would like to be
(Aaker, 1999; Dittmar, 1992; Markus & Kunda, 1986; Wicklund &
Gollwitzer, 1982). Consequently, an individual establishes a bond
with the most complex attributes of reality by using products to
compensate for one’s identity wishes and deficiencies. For example,
one’s yearning for status means a greater consumption of socially
symbolic products than other products. The perspective for the
present paper is based on this three-dimensional model: culture,
individual, and product symbolism. At the individual level, selfdiscrepancy in its various facets is seen as the basic motivating factor
in the search for the symbolism of consumer products. Discrepancy in
different areas of the self will equate itself with the symbolism of the
products linked to these areas. There exists a tendency to relate
personal wishes with those products consumed (Dittmar, 1992;
Dittmar, Beattie, & Friese, 1995).
The Consumption of Symbols and the Self
For the past few years, an increasingly popular research topic has
been the analysis of the relationship between consumer goods and
the identity of the self. Material possessions serve as symbols of
identity and act as mediators between the self and others (Dittmar,
1992) by informing them of one’s identity (self-presentation, Slama &
Wolfe, 1999). This notion of the self, laden with symbols originating in
consumer goods, has been termed the extended-self (Belk, 1988;
Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Solomon, 2002). Also,
Solomon and Assael (1987) argue that consumers define,
communicate, and play social roles through goods and call this
phenomenon consumption constellation. A recent study by Allen and
Hung (1999) has established a relationship between individual’s
values and the selection process of the product, and hence, between
the self and what he/she purchases. However, very little has been
dedicated to the study of the direct relationship between possessions
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
245
and different aspects of the individual self (Dittmar, 1992;
McCracken, 1990).
The explanation of this, as Aaker (1999) observes, is a tendency
to contemplate the self in a stable way and as a single construct.
Nevertheless, current research has highlighted the malleable role of
the self (Markus & Kunda, 1986) and the fact that people behave
differently in different situations. Because of this, two features of the
self are worth specifying: its malleability and multi-dimensional nature
(Markus & Kunda, 1986; Rosenberg, 1979). In fact, an individual is,
more often than not, more concerned with confirming what one would
like to be rather than with what one actually is. The search for the
ideal self (Dittmar, 1992) has also been defined as the desired self
(Aaker, 1999; Higgins, 1987; Markus & Kunda, 1986).
The consumer tends to use the subjective features related to the
product to define the ideas of the self. In other words, one needs to
appreciate the significance of the goods one buys, so that the
messages are clearly interpreted by the transmitter as well as by the
receiver (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). These shared meanings are
used to structure a personal image which comes the closest to the
selected image of the self in a given situation (Lee, 1990). The
fundamental aspect of this relationship is not, therefore, the product
itself, but the interaction of the product with the meaning attributed
to it by people.
In the 1930s, Mead (1934) had specified that activities related to
consumption imply clear meanings in the creation, confirmation,
maintenance, and transformation of the individual. Similarly, Levy
(1959) stated that the symbol is appropriate insofar as it reinforces
what the individual thinks of himself or herself. However, in a
postmodernist society, it is not so much of what you are, but what you
would like to be. These same notions are used to observe that the
use of consumption for the creation and maintenance of specific
lifestyles is also valid for the creation of the self (Belk, 1988;
McCracken, 1981). Thus, consumption becomes the main motivator
and hence the personal stimulator of the self (Elliot, 1994; Grubb &
Grathwohl, 1967). In this sense, products have clear associations
with consumption and specifically with impulse buying as an
emotional buying, mainly because self-discrepancy is playing a main
role in the motivation process of buying (Dittmar, Beattie, & Friese,
1995).
246
LUNA-AROCAS
Although Belk (1984) assures us that materialism does not
necessarily lead to the enhancement and maintenance of identity,
however, it is commonly accepted that the modern consumer is free
to choose his/her own identity, which depends on a process of
personal decision on lifestyle, consumption behavior, and the goods
to be purchased and used. Some authors have gone beyond the
product and have suggested using the term consumption in a wider
sense to define the main lines of action and purchasing processes.
This process is the characteristic of specific psychographic groups
and consequently communicates messages of group membership
and symbol sharing (Baudrillard, 1970; Douglas & Isherwood, 1979;
Hogg & Michels, 1996; Mason, 1998).
According to the authors mentioned before, self is a key concept
to analyze and measure. William James (1890, p. 292-293) affirmed
that:
The Empirical Self of each of us is all that he is tempted to
call by the name of me. But it is clear that between what a
man calls me and what he simply calls mine the line is
difficult to draw. … Understanding the Self in this widest
sense, we may begin by dividing the history of it into three
parts, relating respectively to (1) its constituents; (2) the
feelings and emotions they arouse, -- Self-feelings; (3) the
actions to which they prompt, -- Self-seeking and Selfpreservation. 1. The constituents of the Self may be divided
into … - (a) the material Self; (b) the social Self; (c) the
spiritual Self; and (d) the pure Ego.
Following the arguments advanced by James, I try to focus on the
Me-Self construct, that is, the one who can be empirically measured
through his aggregates. From this perspective, the three selves:
material, social, and spiritual, should be objectively analyzed. Also,
Ogilvy (1977) explained that selves could be organized as a social
hierarchy with a single powerful self which rules the mind or as a
decentralized organization. Mair (1977) called this a community of
selves.
The situational concept of self is particularly important because it
acknowledges that “consumers have many self concepts” (Schenk &
Holman, 1980, p. 612), that is, “recognizes not only that individuals
have a number of different self concepts, but also that as consumers
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
247
they have a number of different self images” (Hogg & Michell, 1996,
p. 632).
In this research, the author identifies seven areas of self:
intellectual, physical-health, physical-attractiveness, social, personal,
emotional, and socioeconomic and define self-discrepancy as the
difference between what one is and what one would like to be.
Intellectual self is related with our self-image concerning intelligence
and the symbolism associated with intellectual activities (e.g., reading
books, having a lot of knowledge, etc.). Physical--health is associated
with our self-consciousness on sports, strength, and health.
Moreover, physical--attractiveness is related to our perception of
beauty. Social self is linked to our social impact with a network of
important friends, relatives, and others. Personal self is a sense of
unity of one self, a global evaluation of individual. Emotional self has
to do with the control or expression of our feelings. Socioeconomics
concerns about the perception of status of an individual in the
society. All these areas are important to individuals. These different
aspects of self are expressed in symbolic messages by products and
commercial communications.
Social Buying and Affection
In the literature of social consumption, people have many
different roles in the society and consume products and services that
maintain this representation. As expressed by Douglas and Isherwood
(1979), the social category of symbolism occurs when a product is
conspicuously owned or consumed by a specific group of people,
resulting in the product symbolism for both the specific group of
people and its culturally constituted characteristics.
Fiske and Pavelchak (1986) use the expression category-based
affective response where the affect associated is automatically
transferred to the objects. The evaluation of symbolic meaning and
application of human value are “affective judgments” (Allen & Hung,
1999, p. 12). Coherently, the expressive aspects of products, such as
their sensory experiences, mood states attainment, and symbolism,
are judged affectively (Mittal, 1988).
In this sense, social buying can be defined as a buying process
motivated by the symbolic meaning of the object linked with social
references, i.e., belonging to a certain class or group in society. Social
buying can be understood from impulse buying (previously defined)
248
LUNA-AROCAS
and rational buying. Rational buying is a process of buying mainly
focused on searching information, taking time to do it, analyzing
information and criteria, and taking rational decisions. In this type of
buying, control of buying is very high in order to achieve the maximum
efficiency. Research suggests that the impulse buying to social buying
relationship may be stronger than the rational buying to social buying
relationship, expressed in the literature (Allen & Hung, 1999; Fiske &
Pavelchak, 1986; Mittal, 1988). In this study, I test our theoretical
model (Figure 2) as follows: Impulse buying is related to one’s
affection, whereas social buying is related to symbolism of products.
Impulse buying is strongly related to social buying.
FIGURE 2
Influence of Impulse Buying on Social Buying
Rational
Buying
Social
Buying
Impulse
Buying
Following the literature review and our research interest in
consumption and identity, I test the following four hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. Consumer self-discrepancy is positively related to
complaints in consumption (dissatisfaction).
Hypothesis 2. Impulse buying is positively related to selfdiscrepancies in consumers.
Hypothesis 3. Impulse buying of clothing, as an image symbol, is
positively related to self-discrepancies in emotional and physical
dimensions.
Hypothesis 4. Impulse buying is positively related to social buying.
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
249
METHOD
Sample and Method
A total of 462 adult consumers completed a survey questionnaire
in Valencia, Spain. Participants were not selected randomly. However,
in order to ensure a representative sample, sex, age, and location of
residence (urban vs. rural) were controlled with the procedure of
quota sampling. Participants were selected in the streets until all
quotas were obtained. Among participants, there were 49.1 percent
men (50.9% women), 41.6 percent between 15 and 34 years of age,
27.9 percent between 36 and 54, and 30.5 percent older than 54.
Also, 30.1 percent of participants lived in areas with more than
100,000 inhabitants (urban), while 69.9 percent lived in areas with
fewer than 100,000 (rural). Moreover, 45.4 percent had more than 2
television sets at home, while 20.4 percent had 3 or more; 44.3
percent had a computer in the home and 12.3 percent used the
Internet. More than a half (51.3 %) had one or two occupiers at home;
while 45.5 percent had three or four. In education, 21.7 percent had
an undergraduate degree and 43.3 percent had certificates from high
schools, or lower qualifications.
Measurements
The questionnaire was divided into two sections: One dealt with
attitudinal scales regarding consumption and the other dealt with
demographic variables. The number of items, Cronbach’s alpha,
means, and standard deviations of the 11 consumption-related
scales are presented in Table 1 and the sample items are in Table 2.
Section one concentrated on several scales used previously in
research (see Luna-Arocas, Gallucio, Costa Pereira & Miranda, 2001)
related to social buying (improving one’s social status or standard of
living by consumption), prestige consumption, and brand preference.
Other measures were linked to the emotional side of consumption,
e.g., impulse buying, fashion attraction, shopping pleasure, and
aesthetic consumption. Finally, additional scales centered on the
rational side of buying, e.g., rational buying and debt attitudes
(necessary debt and debt avoidance). All these scales were measured
using a six-point Likert scale with completely disagree (1) and
completely agree (6) as anchors.
250
LUNA-AROCAS
TABLE 1
Means and Reliability of Consumption-Related Scales
Consumption Variables*
1. Prestige Consumption
2. Social Buying
3. Brand Preference
4. Fashion (exclusivity) Attraction
5. Shopping Pleasure
6. Possessiveness Impulse
7. Impulse Buying
8. Aesthetic Consumption
9. Rational Buying
10. Necessary Debt
11. Debt Avoidance
Number of
Items
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
2
Alpha
Mean
SD
.76
.83
.84
.76
.83
.80
.83
.65
.74
.63
.67
2.02
2.31
3.50
2.62
2.37
1.98
2.69
2.38
3.29
3.60
4.69
1.14
1.23
1.43
1.26
1.14
1.12
1.14
1.09
1.38
1.23
1.23
Note. *A 6-point scale with completely disagree (1) and completely agree (6)
as anchors.
TABLE 2
Scale and Sample Items of the Consumption Scales
Consumption
Variables
1. Prestige
Consumption
2. Social Buying
3. Brand Preference
4. Fashion Attraction
5. Shopping
Pleasure
6. Possessiveness
Impulse
7. Impulse Buying
8. Aesthetic
Consumption
9. Rational Buying
10. Necessary Debt
11. Debt Avoidance
Sample Item
I need to buy some specific products because they are
the basics in my present social status
The present consumption improves my life-style
Brands are a sign of product quality
I prefer to buy fashion products
Shopping is a pleasure
I feel that certain products have to be mine
I cannot avoid buying certain products
I love to buy nice and attractive goods
I prepare a list of what I’m going to buy
Getting into debt is necessary to have a good life
I try to pay debts rapidly
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
251
These scales were originally developed in the Spanish language.
In this study, the originally Spanish version was used in the Spanish
sample in Valencia, Spain. It should be noted that these scales have
been translated to several languages (English, Italian, Portuguese,
etc.) and used in several countries (e.g., Italy, Slovenia, Spain,
Portugal, UK, and the USA) (e.g., Kranjece & Polic, 2003; Luna-Arocas
et al., 2001; Tang, Luna-Arocas, & Quintanilla, 2001).
This study included the need for self-enhancement scale, NSES.
The NSES was used to assess the degree of discrepancy in seven
areas of the self: intellectual, physical-health, physical-attractiveness,
social, personal, emotional, and socio-economic. For this four-point
scale, the anchors were listed as follows: “I like the way I am” (1), “I
would like to be a little better than the way I am” (2), I would like to be
a little more better than the way I am” (3), and “I would like to be
much better than the way I am” (4). It should be noted that by using
the 4-point scale, there will be no neutral point in this measurement.
The concepts of low and high self-discrepancy were defined
below: A low discrepancy indicated a wish for the present situation or
better states of well being (i.e., levels 1 and 2 on the NSES scale). On
the contrary, a higher discrepancy indicated a wish to be a little better
or much better than the actual state of the individual (i.e., levels 3
and 4 on the NSES scale).
All the scales had been thoroughly tested in previous studies
(e.g., Luna-Arocas, 1995; Luna-Arocas & Fierres, 1998; Luna-Arocas,
& Quintanilla, 1999, 2000). In addition, there were two questions
about impulse buying. The first one analyzed the last impulse
purchase and the second one asked what products, when seen, led
to impulse buying. Both were open-ended questions which were
subsequently codified. Consumers were asked about their complaints
in consumer behavior, more specifically, respondents’ frequency and
topic of complaints in the previous year. This was used as an indirect
measure of dissatisfaction in consumption. We used the following
criteria for evaluating the proposed model: (1) chi-square and p value,
(2) chi-square/df < 3, (3) root mean square residual (RMR), (4)
goodness of fit index (GFI), (5) adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI),
(6) the Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI), (7) Bollen's relative fit
index (RFI), (8) Bollen's incremental fit index (IFI), and (9) the TuckerLewis index (TLI ).
252
LUNA-AROCAS
RESULTS
The discrepancy between the real self and the ideal self is related
to the one’s desire to improve certain areas of the self. Among the
respondents, 38.7 percent were happy with their present situation in
all the areas of self-discrepancy assessed, as they affirmed that they
were right at where they were at the time of the study and did not
have any discrepancies (see Table 3).
TABLE 3
Percentages According to the Number of Self Dimensions
with High Discrepancy
Number of discrepancies in
the 7 self-dimensions
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Frequency
Percentage
175
132
66
37
23
7
4
8
38.7
29.2
14.6
8.2
5.1
1.5
0.9
1.8
Accumulated
Percentage
38.7
67.9
82.5
90.7
95.8
97.3
98.2
100.0
Note: High discrepancy is based on values 3 and 4 of the NSES Scale.
Nevertheless, 29.2 percent of individuals expressed a high
personal discrepancy in one of the seven areas. Moreover, 14.6
percent of the consumers registered high levels of discrepancy in two
areas, and 8.2% in three areas. This confirmed findings in the
literature that individuals are characterized by self-discrepancy.
Moreover, it sheds light on the importance of delimiting specific areas
where the subject perceives these personal deficiencies. Results of
Table 4 support the idea that the multi-dimensional nature of the self
in self-discrepancy is valid. More specifically, Table 4 shows the seven
dimensions of self, the percentages of discrepancy based on the fourpoint scale and categorization of high and low discrepancy.
Among the seven aspects of self, the area with the greatest selfdiscrepancy (41.6%) was the socio-economic aspect: money, status,
and prestige (see the last column on the right-hand side of Table 4).
Moreover, only 30.6 percent wish to remain the same on a socio-
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
253
economic level (see the first column on the left-hand side of Table 4).
The second highest self-discrepancy was the intellectual aspect of the
self, 23.9 percent. Only 41.2 percent said they wanted to remain
where they were.
The third area of highest self-discrepancy was related to physicalhealth aspects with 19.3 percent and the fourth physicalattractiveness with 16.9 percent. The emotional area displayed high
discrepancy in 11.4 percent of subjects. For the self in the social
(8.6%) and personal (6.8%) areas, self-discrepancy percentages were
less than 10 percent.
Value 4. Much better
than the way I am
Low Discrepancy
(values 1 and 2)
41.2
46.3
56.8
74.9
73.5
65.5
30.6
34.9
34.4
26.3
16.5
19.7
23.1
27.8
14.3
11.0
10.1
6.6
4.4
7.0
18.2
9.6
8.3
6.8
2.0
2.4
4.4
23.4
76.1
80.7
83.1
91.4
93.2
88.6
58.4
High Discrepancy
(values 3 and 4)
Value 3. A little more
better than the way I am
Intellectual
Health
Attractive
Social
Personal
Emotional
Socio-economic
Value 2. A little better
than the way I am
Dimension of the self
Value 1. The way I am
TABLE 4
Self-Discrepancy Percentages in the Seven Dimensions
23.9
19.3
16.9
8.6
6.8
11.4
41.6
These results indicate that discrepancies do exist in different
areas of the self. A basic analysis of the different percentages also
demonstrates that these seven areas of self can be seen as being
separate and independent entities.
In line with these results, purchasing a product is not attributed to
the functional aspects of the product. The consumer buys the
product, not for itself, but to reduce his or her discrepancy. A greater
feeling of consumer dissatisfaction is generated and consequently a
254
LUNA-AROCAS
larger number of complaints of consumer goods were made. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 was confirmed by the results, as can be seen from
Tables 5 and 6.
Those consumers with a large self-discrepancy in the area of
personal attractiveness were more likely to complain regarding
products of clothing, accessories, or footwear. Similarly, those
consumers with high self-discrepancy in the social area displayed
higher percentages of complaints in household goods, clothes,
accessories as well as books and music. If the discrepancy was in the
socio-economic area, consumers displayed a higher incidence of
complaints in clothes and footwear. When one’s discrepancy
occurred in the personal area, the differences came from the
purchase of clothes. For the emotional self, it appeared that
complaints of products were in the purchase of household goods and
footwear.
Thus, as can be seen, the clothing sector best lends itself to a
greater number of complaints among subjects with high discrepancy
in the different areas of the self. This, in part, confirms the results
obtained by Luna-Arocas and Fierres (1998) in that clothing was the
main impulse buying category among 400 subjects of that survey.
TABLE 5
Percentages of Complaints in Consumption Products According to a
High-Low Discrepancy in Self-Dimensions
Self
dimension
Attractivenes
s
Social
Personal
Emotional
Socioeconomic
Product complains
Clothing and Accessories
Footwear
Household Goods
Clothing and Accessories
Books and Music
Clothing and Accessories
Household Goods
Footwear
Clothing and Accessories
Footwear
% Low
discrepancy
27.0
11.0
8.8
29.8
10.5
32.3
7.7
11.5
20.9
10.4
% High
discrepancy
55.6
22.2
23.1
61.5
15.4
41.7
21.7
21.7
46.7
16.7
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
255
In fact, the number of complaints coincided with the number of
individual discrepancy areas. In line with the previous hypothesis, the
number of discrepancy areas was proportional to the number of
complaints. This was confirmed in Table 6 where consumers with
greater discrepancy (three or more areas) are those that have
resorted to a higher percentage of complaints.
TABLE 6
Percentages of Complaints in Consumption Products According to the
Number of High Self-Discrepancy Dimension
Have you made
a complaint
when shopping?
Total
N = 441
Yes
(N = 65 or
14.7%)
No
(N = 376 or
85.3%)
Number of Self-dimensions with High
Discrepancy
0
1
2
3 or more
23
18
8
16
(13.6%) (13.6%) (12.5%) (21.1%)
146
(86.4%)
114
(86.4%)
56
(87.5%)
60
(78.9%)
169
132
64
76
The second hypothesis put forward the concept that consumer’s
purchases are influenced in many cases by the symbols associated
with the products. So, consumers with deficiencies in some areas of
the self use consumption to reduce discrepancy and create an
identity for themselves. This presumes that, to some extent, products
such as clothing, footwear, books, music or household goods are
used for this purpose by consumers. In fact, researchers believe that
self-discrepancy is related to impulse purchasing (Dittmar, Beattie, &
Friese, 1995). The correlation between impulse buying and selfdiscrepancies was positive and significant (r = 0.213, p < 0.001).
Thereby, those consumers who buy impulsively are more likely to
have many self-discrepancies in their evaluations.
A consumer feels the need to buy basically because of his or her
high personal involvement. Impulse purchasing, therefore, has a high
degree of symbolism or emotion that is linked to the specific areas of
discrepancy and impulse purchasers. When the emotional element is
present, impulse purchasing is expected to display a high level of
256
LUNA-AROCAS
emotional discrepancy. Taking clothing as example, impulse buyers of
clothing are expected to display a high level of emotional discrepancy.
The present results (see Table 7) showed that 57.9 percent of
consumers who would like to improve emotionally, buy clothes on
impulse. This phenomenon associates clearly with the emotional
component of impulse purchasing. When considering clothing as
being the product, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Other products
related to emotional discrepancy were footwear, household
accessories, food and bakery products and to a certain extent books
and music.
TABLE 7
Percentages of People with Self Discrepancy in the Emotional
Dimension and Products Used in Impulse Buying
4. Much
3. A little
better than
more
better than the way I
am
the way I
am
15.8
0.0
0.0
14.3
Emotional
SelfDimension
Product
Category
1. The
way I
am
2. A little
better
than the
way I am
Emotional
Food
Bakery
products
Household
Goods
Clothing and
Accessories
Footwear
Books and
Music
3.6
6.0
1.6
14.3
4.8
1.6
0.0
28.6
32.5
38.1
57.9
7.1
6.6
22.3
9.5
12.7
15.8
0.0
0.0
21.4
Note: n = 265; 57.36% of the whole sample (N = 462). Only consumers with
self-discrepancy in this emotional dimension were included in data
analysis.
Also, coherent with the third hypothesis, clothing has a symbolic
significance which affects areas of the self: body-appearance and
personal-attractiveness. Likewise, clothing reflects individual image,
and, to a certain extent, the way a consumer would like to be and the
way others see the consumer. The perception of the body and
attractiveness is affected by clothes because in many cases clothes
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
257
may stimulate and alter one’s own perception. The results (Tables 8
and 9) showed that impulse purchasing of clothing was more
prevalent in consumers with higher discrepancy in the area of the
physical self as well as in the area or personal attractiveness,
especially those wishing to be much better than they actually are.
Moreover, social sciences researchers have studied the great
impact of social factors as a main influence in the consumption
process. Hypothesis 4 examines this issue. In this sense, literature
affirms that social buying (its symbolism) is clearly associated with
affective or impulse buying.
TABLE 8
Percentages of Individuals That Can Not Avoid Buying Certain
Products according to the Self-Discrepancy
Selfdimensio
n
Product
category
Emotional Food
Drinks and
Liqueurs
Household
Goods
Books and
Music
4. Much
1. The
3. A little
2. A little
better than
way I am better than
more
the way I better than the way I
am
the way I
am
am
6.3
3.7
28.6
20.0
6.3
7.4
14.3
30.0
4.8
1.6
0.0
28.6
15.7
14.8
14.3
50.0
Note. n = 208; 45.02% of whole sample (N = 462).
TABLE 9
Percentages of Individuals That Showed Impulse Buying in Clothing
according to the Level of Self-Discrepancy in Certain Self-Dimensions
3. A little 4. Much
Self-dimension 1. The 2. A little
better
more
way I better than
the way I better than than the
am
the way I way I am
am
am
Impulse buying Emotional
32.5
38.1
57.9
7.1
in clothing
Physical
33.0
33.7
63.2
22.6
Attractiveness
32.2
44.3
39.1
14.8
Product
category
258
LUNA-AROCAS
The proposed structural equation model (SEM) was nonsignificant indicating a good fit between the model and the data (chisquare = 28.54, df = 24, p = .23, chi-square/df = 1.18, RMR = .129,
GFI = .96, AGFI = .92, NFI = .94, RFI = .92, IFI = .99, and TLI = .98).
Indeed, Figure 3 shows the significant relationship between impulse
buying and social buying. However, the relationship between rational
buying and social buying was non-significant, as expected.
FIGURE 3
Influence of Rational and Impulse Buying on Social Buying
R1
1.00
Rational
Buying
.83
R2
R3
.98
I1
1.00
I2
I3
.81
-.12
.42
Impulse
Buying
S1
1.00
Social
Buying
.78
.79
S2
S3
.85
Note. The rational buying to social buying path was not significant. All other
paths were significant at p < .001. The latent construct, Rational Buying,
had three items: R1, R2 and R3. I1, I2, and I3 were the items of the
latent Impulse Buying construct. S1, S2, and S3 were related to the
latent Social Buying construct.
DISCUSSION
At the present time, our society enables consumers to present
their own identity through consumer products. This study shows that
Spanish consumers are motivated by their self deficiencies in specific
areas of the self. They consume those products in order to fulfill or
improve their self image both symbolically and affectively. In fact, the
multi-dimensional nature of the self is crucial to the further study of
consumer behavior in impulse buying. Individuals display different
discrepancies in several aspects of the self. The first hypothesis is
confirmed by the descriptive data.
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
259
Only 38.7 percent of the consumers in this study have no
discrepancy in all the seven areas examined. The areas with greater
discrepancy are socio-economic, intellectual, physical-health,
physical-attractiveness, and emotional aspects of self. These findings
may allow researchers to generate accurate and specific intervention
models for consumers. Due to the complexity of individual self,
researchers can not produce totally reliable results based on the
single self. To counteract this, results of the present study suggest a
multi-dimensional approach which analyzes the relationship between
the symbolic contents of products and specific areas of selfdiscrepancy. These discrepancies are related to dissatisfaction in
different areas of the self.
Discrepancy is an important source of motivation. High
discrepancies are not healthy at all for consumers, if an individual
tries to solve the problem of discrepancy only through consumption.
Individuals with high self-discrepancy may engage in a high level of
impulse buying. These results are coherent in a consumption and
materialistic society where buying is a tool to enhance or lift emotions
and fill self-discrepancy gaps. First, the relationship of image (physical
dimensions of self-discrepancy) and emotional gaps with impulse
buying of clothing suggests that clothes may reveal who we are in this
society and what we want to be. Second, the relationship between
impulse buying and social buying emphasizes not only emotions but
also social representation of one’s self.
Implications
Studies on the subject of consumption have related impulse
purchasing to specific products without considering other kinds of
variables. The results of the present study imply that this relationship
should be viewed as the interaction between the meanings that the
product has for the individual and his/her personal discrepancies.
The understanding of the consumer behavior allows us to analyze
consumer’s perception linked to the meanings attributed by the
consumer to the products. These, in turn, are to a large extent related
to present-day culture as well as to the discrepancy generated by the
interaction of the latter with the individual. Therefore, further
research on the consumer presented in this paper will permit a more
accurate understanding of the value which the individual attaches to
the symbolic elements of consumption.
260
LUNA-AROCAS
We believe that consumers need to understand themselves in the
consumption processes and analyze the role of buying behavior in
their identities. Consumption has been analyzed as an important
factor of economic growth. The main concern here is the impact of
consumption on the individual. Education for consumers plays a main
role in the self-realization process of individuals.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. Consumption is difficult to
understand without qualitative analysis of concepts and meanings.
Thus, a more general model is needed to understand the relationship
between all variables in consumption arena. These preliminary
results should encourage researchers to take a step further, dig
deeper into the self-consumption relationship, and analyze the
different areas of self and the different processes in consumptions.
This study examines consumers in Valencia, Spain. Researchers may
want to test this model using consumers in other populations and
cultures in the future.
CONCLUSION
Based on results of this study, consumers’ self-discrepancies are
related to dissatisfaction in consumption in general and impulse
buying in particular. Emotional and physical dimensions of selfdiscrepancy are clearly related to the purchase of clothing. The
concept of self-discrepancy may provide important theoretical
contributions concerning why consumers are involved in the buying
process. This article provides some new insights related to this
concept of the buying processes. Moreover, it underlines the
importance of impulse buying as an act of social buying and related
with self-discrepancies. This article contributes information to the
consumption process, consumer dissatisfaction, self-discrepancies,
and products symbolism. In this sense, it adds a piece of information
in this process of understanding consumption. More research is
needed in this direction.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1999). “The Malleable Self: the Role of Self-Expression in
Persuasion.” Journal of Marketing Research, 35: 45-57.
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
261
Allen, M. W., & Hung, S. (1999). “The Direct and Indirect Influences of
Human Values on Product Ownership.” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 20: 5-39.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1990). “Measuring the Hedonic and
Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes.” Marketing Letters, 2:
159-170.
Baudrillard, J. (1968/1988). “The System of Objects.” In M. Poster &
Jean Baudrillard (Eds.), Selected Writings (pp. 10-28). Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1970/1988). “Consumer Society.” In M. Poster &
Jean Baudrillard (Eds.), Selected Writings (pp. 29-56). Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press.
Belk, R. W. (1984). “Three Scales to Measure Constructs related to
Materialism: Reliability, Validity, and Relationship.” Advances in
Consumer Research, 11: 291-297.
Belk, R. W. (1985). “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the
Material World.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12: 265-280.
Belk, R. W. (1988). “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 15: 139-168.
Boote, A. (1980, April). “Psychographics: Mind over Matter.” American
Demographics, 2 (4): 26-29.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The Meaning of
Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). “Consumer Choice between
Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods.” Journal of Marketing Research,
37: 60-71.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To
Have is to Be. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Dittmar, H., Beattie, J., & Friese, S. (1995). “Gender Identity and
Material Symbols: Objects and Decision considerations in Impulse
Purchases.” Journal of Economic Psychology, 16: 491-511.
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The World of Goods. New York:
Basic Books.
262
LUNA-AROCAS
Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., & Flynn, L. R. (1999). “Status
Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and
Validation.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7 (3): 4152.
Elliot, R. (1994). “Addictive Consumption: Function and
Fragmentation in Postmodernity.” Journal of Consumer Policy, 17:
159-179.
Featherstone, M. (1991). Consumer Culture and Postmodernism.
London, UK: Sage.
Fiske, S. T. & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). “Category-based versus
Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses. Developments in SchemaTriggered Affect.” In R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (Eds.)
Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (pp. 167-203). New York:
Guilford Press.
Gardner, M. P. (1985). “Mood States and Consumer Behavior: A
Critical Review.” Journal of Consumer Research, 12: 281-300.
Grubb, E. L., & Grathwohl, L. (1967). “Consumer Self-Concept,
Symbolism and Market Behavior: a Theoretical Approach.”
Journal of Marketing, 31: 22-27.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). “Self-Discrepancy: a Theory Relating Self and
Affect.” Psychological Review, 94: 319-340.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. (1982). “Hedonic Consumption:
Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.” Journal of
Marketing, 46: 92-101.
Hogg, M. K., & Michell, P. C. N. (1996). “Identity, Self and
Consumption: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Marketing
Management, 12: 629-644.
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.
Kranjecec, R., & Polic, M. (2003, September 1-4). “Some Factors
influencing Material Consumption of Students.” Paper Presented
at the 28th Annual Colloquium of the International Association for
Research in Economic Psychology, Christchurch, Australia.
Lee, D. H. (1990). “Symbolic Interactionism: Some Implications for
Consumer Self-Concept and Product Symbolism Research.” In M.
E. Goldberg, G. Gornand, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.), Advances in
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
263
Consumer Research, Volume XVII (pp. 386-393). Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research,
Levy, S. J. (1959). “Symbols for Sale.” Harvard Business Review, 37:
117-124.
Levy, S. J. (1981). “Interpreting Consumer Mythology: A Structural
Approach to Consumer Behavior.” Journal of Marketing, 45: 4961.
Luna-Arocas, R. (1995). Los Estilos de Compra y la Satisfacción del
Consumidor en el Contexto de la Psicología Económica (Buying
Styles and Consumer Satisfaction from an Economic Psychology
Perspective). Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Luna-Arocas, R., & Fierres, R. (1998). “La Incidencia de la Compra
por Impulso en la Ciudad de Valencia” (The Incidence of Impulse
Buying in the City of Valencia). Investigación y Marketing, 60: 3642.
Luna-Arocas, R., & Quintanilla, I. (1999). “El Consumo y la
Construcción de la Identidad” (Consumption and Identity
Construction). Información Psicológica, 71: 21-24.
Luna-Arocas, R., & Quintanilla, I. (2000). “El Modelo de Compra ACB.
Una Nueva Conceptualización de la Compra por Impulso” (The
ACB Model: A New Conceptualization of Impulse Buying). Esic
Market, 106: 151-163.
Luna-Arocas, R., Galluccio, C., Costa Pereira, F., & Miranda, S. (2001,
September 6-10). “Consumption in Southern Europe (Spain,
Portugal and Italy.” Paper presented at the 28th Annual
Colloquium of the International Association for Research in
Economic Psychology, Bath, UK.
Mair, J. M. M. (1977). “The Community of Self.” In D. Bannister (Ed.),
New Perspectives in Personal Construct Theory (pp. 125-149).
New York: Academic.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). “Stability and Malleability of the SelfConcept.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 858866.
264
LUNA-AROCAS
Mason, R. (1992). “Modeling the Demand for Status Goods.”
(Working Paper). Salford, UK: Department of Business and
Management Studies, University of Salford.
Mason, R. (1998). The Economics of Conspicuous Consumption.
Theory and Thought since 1700. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
McCracken, G. (1981). “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical
Account of the Structure and Movement of the Culture Meaning of
Consumer Goods.” Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1986). “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical
Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning
of consumer goods.” Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1990). Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: IN:
Indiana University Press.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Mittal, B. (1988). “The Role of Affective Choice Mode in the Consumer
Purchase of Expressive Products”. Journal of Economic
Psychology, 9: 499-524.
Ogilvy, J. (1977). Many Dimensional Man. New York, MA: Oxford
University Press.
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: 422-433.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). “A Consumer Values Orientations
for Materialism and its Measurement: Scale Development and
Validation.” Journal of Consumer Research, 19: 303-315.
Rook, D. W. (1987). “The Buying Impulse.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 14: 189-199.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Slama, M., & Wolfe, R. (1999). “Consumption as Self-Presentation: a
Socioanalytic Interpretation of Mrs. Cage.” Journal of Marketing,
63 (4): 135-145.
SELF-DISCREPANCY AND IMPULSE BUYING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
265
Schenk, C. T. and Holman, R. H. (1980). “A Sociological Approach to
Brand Choice: The Concept of Situational Self Image.” In Jerry C.
Olson (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Volume VII, pp.
610-614). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Schouten, J. W. (1991). “Selves in Transition: Symbolic Consumption
in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity Reconstruction.” Journal
of Consumer Research, 17: 412-425.
Solomon, M. R. (2002) Consumer Behaviour Buying, Having and
Being, (5th ed.). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Solomon, M. R., & Assael, H. (1987). “The Forest or the Trees? A
Gestalt Approach to Symbolic Consumption” (pp. 189-217). In J.
Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in
the Study of Signs for Sale. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tang, T. L. T., Luna-Arocas, R., & Quintanilla, I. (2001, September 610). The Development of the Possession Obsession Scale and
Money Ethic in Spain. Paper Presented at the 28th Annual
Colloquium of the International Association for Research in
Economic Psychology, Bath, UK.
Tauber, E. M. (1982). “Marketing Notes and Communications: Why do
People Shop?” Journal of Marketing, 36: 46-59.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (1982). Symbolic Self-Completion.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.