Please wait a minute...
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
靳菲1; 朱华伟2
(1北京大学光华管理学院, 北京 100871) (2武汉大学经济与管理学院, 武汉 430072)
Consumers’ power states and impulsive buying
JIN Fei1; ZHU Huawei2
(1 Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China) (2 Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China)
全文: PDF(489 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

本文探究消费者的权力感对冲动购买的影响。通过3组实验研究发现, 权力感影响人们对不同类型产品的冲动购买意愿, 其机制在于高(低)权力感的人面对实用品(享乐品)有更高的信息加工流畅性; 进一步, 当高权力感的人具有享乐目标时, 他们反而在享乐品上表现出更高的冲动购买意愿。最后, 本文就研究结果的理论贡献及管理启示进行了探讨, 并提出了本研究的局限性和未来研究的方向。

E-mail Alert
关键词 权力感 冲动购买 加工流畅性 享乐目标    

Power has long been a common and fundamental component of social systems and organizations and it is also a psychological state of individuals. The circumstance around us can change our current power state at any moment. The influence of power on human behavior and the underlying mechanism have been pervasively examined in the psychology and other sociology literatures. These literatures suggest that power is an omnipresent force which can affect humans’ cognition, preference and behavior. However, it has been largely neglected in consumer behavior research. Prior research has been focused on product preference, consumption utilities and brand switch behavior. Based on current literatures, we explored the relationship between power states and impulsive buying which is very common in consumer behavior but underexplored. We proposed the impulsive buying was largely due to a fluency effect derived from match between different power states and product categories. Given this finding, the authors then demonstrated an important boundary condition by priming powerful participants’ hedonic goals. Three studies were conducted to check the propositions. Experiment 1 supported the interaction effects of power and product categories on impulsive buying through 2 (power: high vs. low) × 2 (product category: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects design. 123 university students participated the experiment. Study 2 primed power states via role play. A total of 168 participants completed a study with a 2 (power: high vs. low) × 2 (product category: utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects design. In this study, we utilized a new product (i.e. a smart watch) to enhance the external validity. Further, we aimed to check the underlying mechanism. Based on extant research, we tested the role of fluency and deservingness. In study 3, we changed the product presentation mode to assess the basic proposition and the moderating role of hedonic goals among participants in high power state. 115 undergraduate students participated the 2 (power: high vs. low) × 2 (hedonic goal: stimulate vs. no stimulate) × 2 (product categories: utilitarian vs. hedonic) mixed design, with power and hedonic goal between-subjects design and product within-subjects design. The results of these three studies provided supports for our theorizing: (1) Participants in high power state showed more impulsive intention in utilitarian condition, whereas those in low power state prefer hedonic product. (2) Study 2 provided robust evidence for the interaction effects and the underlying mechanism of processing fluency when participants in different power states faced different product types. (3) Participants in high power state preferred the hedonic product when they were stimulated hedonic goals. However, such effect was not applied to participants in the low power state which confirmed our basic proposition that the power states and the product categories affected impulsive buying again. The research concluded by discussing the theoretical contributions of our findings and managerial implications for practice. Firstly, we propose a new means to broaden the understanding of power and consumer behavior, which enriches the relevant research on power. Secondly, by showing the relation between power and impulsive buying and that processing fluency plays a mediating role in this effect, our research offers a new explanation to understand impulses. Last but not the least, the result makes beneficial supplement to Approach-Inhibition Theory by showing the powerless may buy hedonic product impulsively. Beyond the theoretical implications, this article offers critical insights for marketers.

Key wordsimpulsive buying    power    fluency    hedonic goals.
收稿日期: 2015-09-03      出版日期: 2016-07-25

国家自然科学基金项目(71372127; 71002078); 武汉大学自主科研项目(人文社会科学); 中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助。

通讯作者: 朱华伟, E-mail:   
靳菲; 朱华伟;. 消费者的权力感与冲动购买[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00880.
JIN Fei; ZHU Huawei. Consumers’ power states and impulsive buying. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 880-890.
链接本文:      或
[1] 杨文琪;李强;郭名扬;范谦;何伊丽. 权力感对个体的影响:调节定向的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[2] 段锦云;黄彩云. 个人权力感对进谏行为的影响机制:权力认知的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(2): 217-230.
[3] 常亚平;肖万福;覃伍;阎俊. 网络环境下第三方评论对冲动购买意愿的影响机制:以产品类别和评论员级别为调节变量[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1244-1264.
[4] 李小平,杨晟宇,李梦遥. 权威人格与权力感对道德思维方式的影响[J]. , 2012, 44(7): 964-971.
[5] 侯瑞鹤,俞国良. 加工流畅性和提取流畅性与学习不良儿童学习判断的关系[J]. , 2008, 40(09): 994-1001.
Full text



版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持