Anda di halaman 1dari 11

International Journal of Business and Management Studies,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 2158-1479 :: 1(1):267277 (2012)


c 2012 by UniversityPublications.net
Copyright

VISUAL MERCHANDISING AS AN ANTECEDENT TO IMPULSE


BUYING: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Sujata Khandai
Institute of Technology & Science, India
Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla
IILM Institute of Higher Education, India

The marketplace is experiencing fierce competition today. Similarity of merchandise is coercing the
retailer to focus on visual merchandising to improve the desirability of products. There is research to
substantially prove that impulse buyers usually do not set out with the specific purpose of visiting a
certain store and purchasing a certain item. This urge is consequent to certain external factors, one of
them being visual merchandising. Impulse buying as a phenomenon has been progressively increasing
during the last decade. One of the factors could be attributed to the relationship that exists between
mass merchandising and impulse buying. Impulse buying is generally considered synonymous with
unplanned buying it essentially describes any purchase a shopper makes but has not planned in
advance. The primary objective of this research is to examine the relationship between respondents
impulse buying behavior and common external factors that trigger impulse buying. The study was
conducted among male and female shoppers in the age group 18 45 years. This research has focused
on effects of four types of visual merchandising on impulse buying behavior. The types of visual
merchandising used as predictors in the study are window display, in-store form/mannequin display,
floor merchandising and promotional signage. : In this study, hypotheses were developed to investigate
relationships between the respondents tendency to purchase on impulse (dependant variable) and four
types of visual merchandising (independent variables): window display, in-store form/mannequin
display, floor merchandising and promotional signage. Questionnaires were administered to more than
200 shoppers who constituted the sample. These were shoppers who were visiting retail outlets at
various shopping malls in different parts of New Delhi, India. The Pearson Correlation test was
conducted to see the correlation between the target audiences impulse buying tendency and each of the
four types of visual merchandising practices. Regression analysis was conducted for hypotheses testing
to find out the relationship between respondents impulse buying tendency (dependant variable) and the
four types of visual merchandising (independent variables).
Keywords: Visual merchandising, Impulse buying, Promotional signage, Advertising, Floor
merchandising.


267

268

Sujata Khandai, Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla

Introduction
The power of impulse buying is immense and retailers have long recognized the same. In fact, this is
indeed a central point in many purchasing activities. For instance, unplanned purchases account for 2762% of purchases in a department store context (Bellenger et al.1978). Impulse buying is generally
considered synonymous with unplanned buying it basically describes any purchase a shopper makes
but has not planned in advance. Broadly, impulse buying is influenced by a variety of economic,
personality, time, location and even cultural factors. These vary not only among different shoppers
considering purchase of the same item, but also under different buying situations.
Impulse buying is related to ease of buying. This phenomenon has been progressively increasing
during the last decade and a reason could be attributed to the relationship that exists between mass
merchandising and impulse buying. Mass merchandising has provided a favorable environment for
impulse buying; and in turn, impulse buying has shaped the development of certain mass merchandising
techniques. Impulse buying may be defined as a purchase decision made in-store with no explicit
recognition of a need for such a purchase, prior to entry into the store (Kollat & Willett, 1967; Kollat,
1966; Bellenger et al, 1978). Occurrence of impulse buying could be attributed to exposure to in-store
stimuli, the latter acting as reminders of shopping needs (Kollet & Willett, 1969) and, in part, to
incomplete measure of purchase plans (Kollet & Willett, 1969). In India, the retail sector is experiencing
an unprecedented boom. Coupled with a rising discretionary income of the vast Indian middle class, the
brands at the various retail outlets are jostling to grab maximum eyeballs so as to enter the shopping
basket of the Indian shopper. The Indian shopper is as susceptible to impulse buying as shoppers in the
world over. The question that arises here and is of supreme interest to all marketers and retailers alike is
how to induce the Indian shopper to make more and more unplanned purchases. To this end,
manufacturers need information on the effectiveness of in-store stimuli and the extent to which they
influence consumer purchasing behavior for their brands. Retailers also need such information to
determine the efficiency of resources designed to stimulate additional sales and perhaps to differentiate
their stores from those of competitors.
Literature Review
Impulse buying is pervasive in the marketplace. In the consumption realm, impulsive behavior has been
linked with being bad and with negative consequences in the areas of personal finance, post purchase
satisfaction, social reactions and overall self-esteem ( Rook, 1987; Rook & Hooch, 1985). Yet it is
possible to conceive of consumption situations in which impulsive buying would be viewed as
normatively neutral or even positively sanctioned behavior. For example, a spontaneous gift for a friends
child, a sudden decision to pick up the tab for a meal or simply taking advantage of a two-in-one in-store
special are impulse buying instances that may represent respectively, kind, generous and practical
activities.
Engell and Blackwell (1982) define an impulse purchase as a buying action undertaken without a
problem previously having been consciously recognized or a buying intention formed prior to entering
the store. Buying compulsively is a consumers tendency to buy spontaneously, unreflectively,
immediately and kinetically (Rook & Hooch, 1985; Rook, 1987; Gardner & Rook, 1988; Rook & Fisher,
1995; Wood, 1998). Past research also suggests that impulse buying is a tendency to buy on whim or an
action with less rational decision making (Rook & Hooch, 1985; Rook, 1987; Gardner & Rook, 1988;
Rook & Fisher, 1995; Wood, 1998). Appenbaum (1951) was the first to suggest that impulse purchasing
may stem from the consumers exposure to stimulus while in the store, Nesbitt (1959) viewed it as
intelligent shopping. It basically implies that smart shoppers do not plan their purchases, but search for
and take advantage on in-store promotions, thus maximizing their buying power.

Visual Merchandising as an Antecedent to Impulse Buying...

269

Rook (1987) describes impulse buying as exhibiting a number of characteristics:


x
x
x
x
x

The feeling of an overwhelming force from the product.


The intense feeling of having to buy the product immediately.
Ignoring any negative consequences from the purchase.
Feelings of excitement, even euphoria.
The conflict between control and indulgence.

Impulse buying tendency has been conceptualized as a personal trait (Dholakia, 2000; Murray, 1938)
that influences consistent responses to environmental stimuli. Largely, traits represent predispotional
attributes of personality that refers to a persons unique psychological makeup. Impulsive individuals may
have difficulty in restricting their own behavior and make frequent and consistent impulse purchases in
several different shopping contexts (Murray, 1938). Rook and Fisher (1995) also mentioned that
consumers who rate high on the impulsivity trait buy things on impulse more frequently than do others.
Rook and Fisher (1995) also indicated that impulse buying behavior is almost exclusively stimulus
driven. Impulsive buyers are likely to be open and flexible to unexpected buying.
By and large, triggers may be divided into two types - external cues and internal cues (Wansink
1994). External cues are specific triggers associated with buying or shopping. They involve marketercontrolled environmental and sensory factors. Internal cues refer to consumers self-feelings, moods, and
emotional states. Recent studies have stated that atmospheric cues in the retail environment (i.e., sights,
sounds, and smells) are important triggers that can influence a desire to purchase impulsively (Eroglu and
Machleit 1993; Mitchell 1994). Also it has been suggested that marketing innovations such as credit
cards, cash machines, instant credit, 24-hour retailing, and telemarketing make it easier than ever before
for consumers to buy things on impulse (Rook 1987; Rook and Fisher 1995). Additionally, marketing mix
cues such as point-of-purchase, displays, promotions, and advertisements also can affect the desire to buy
something on impulse). Thomson et al (1990) argue that while impulse buying is an emotional rather than
rational experience, it is certainly not irrational.
Impulse buying takes place consequent to exposure to in-store stimuli. In-store stimuli remind the
customer of their shopping needs thus leading to an impulse purchase (Kollat & Willet, 1969). In-store
stimuli are promotional techniques primarily used to increase unplanned purchases of products. These
promotional techniques include in-store display, on-shelf positions, point of purchase displays and instore demonstrations (Abnett & Goody, 1990). Cox (1970) found that there exists a positive relationship
between the amount of shelf space given to an impulse product brand and high consumer acceptance. Onshelf position is an important factor influencing impulse buying. Consumers have a natural tendency to
focus and perceive at eye level. Therefore, displays can increase the rate of unplanned purchase in retail
stores (Peak & Peak, 1977; Quelch, 1983). ). The Pope/ Du Pont Consumer Buying Habits Study (1977)
focused on unplanned buying in supermarkets. As per the study, it appears that approximately 65% of all
supermarket purchase decisions were made in-store with over 50% of those buying unplanned. Shoppers
are more likely to respond positively and immediately to buying stimuli such as products, salespeople
and/or store environments. Increased exposure to stimuli also enhances the chances of recognizing
product needs and leads consumers to process new product information (Iyer, 1989). There are definitely
some factors which are influential in spurring impulse buying and these factors include low price,
marginal need for the product/brand, mass distribution, self-service, mass advertising, prominent store
display, small size and ease of storage. This also implies that products that are more expensive and
require more time and effort are less likely to be bought on impulse. Cobb and Hoyer, after an extensive
research concluded that impulse purchasers do very little in-store information processing but value
quality almost as much as do shoppers who plan well in advance.
New research suggests that the way companies market impulse buys need to be rethought. As
consumers progress through their shopping trips, and as they go through more and more choices, they are
likely to behave less and less impulsively. Yet at the checkout counter, when a consumers natural
tendency to behave impulsively has dwindled, a retailer can rekindle a shoppers interest through clever
signage and other promotions. The power of point of purchase merchandising as a marketing tool was

270

Sujata Khandai, Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla

emphasized in a study by the Purchasing Advertising Institute showing that consumers make most of their
product purchase decisions in-store. Effective point-of-purchase merchandising has the ability to spur
impulse buying, generate product exposure, encourage trial, promote new product applications and
present a compelling value statement.
Significance and Rationale of Study
In the burgeoning retail sector of India, there is a preponderance of heightened competition and similarity
of merchandise. In such a scenario, there is extreme pressure on retailers to ensure profitability. To
manage their bottom-line, retailers are striving to ensure their stores are appealing to their target audience.
Merchandise, by itself, is unable to create a differential advantage. Hence the store plays an important
role in market differentiation Under the circumstances, retailers utilize visual merchandising to
differentiate their offerings from others as well as well as to improve the desirability of products. It
becomes critical for retailers to identify variables that influence shoppers impulse buying urges and
decisions. This will help them control their influencing variables through strategic marketing and
merchandising activity. This study is an attempt to provide information as to why visual merchandising
should be considered an important component of a strategic marketing plan for sales enhancement and
positive store/company image. This study will also provide insights to retailers about types of visual
merchandising that can influence impulse buying behavior.
Objective of Study
The primary objective of this research is to examine the relationship between respondents impulse
buying behavior and common external factors that trigger impulse buying. The study was conducted
among male and female shoppers in the age group 18 45 years. This research has focused on effects of
four types of visual merchandising on impulse buying behavior. The types of visual merchandising used
as predictors in the study are window display, in-store form/mannequin display, floor merchandising and
promotional signage.
Data Collection and Sampling
Data was collected, using questionnaires, from a convenience shoppers sample. The questionnaires were
administered to actual shoppers, including male and female and in the age group 18 45 years, shopping
in some the larger malls in and around New Delhi. The questionnaire consisted of six major sections to
measure influence of visual merchandising on shoppers impulse buying tendencies. A five point Likert
scale was used to measure each variable.
Analysis and Discussion of Hypotheses
Pearson Correlation tests were conducted to assess the strength of relationship between the independent
variable and the dependant variables. In addition, a multiple regression analysis was conducted for
hypotheses testing which used impulse buying tendency as a dependant variable and each visual
merchandising variable as predictors in order to test if the hypotheses are significant or not. This would
further indicate the extent of influence of visual merchandising tools on impulse buying.
Hypothesis 1 was designed to test whether or not there was a significant relationship between
shoppers impulse buying behavior and window display. Hypothesis 2 was constructed to determine

Visual Merchandising as an Antecedent to Impulse Buying...

271

whether or not there was a significant relationship between shoppers impulse buying behavior and instore/mannequin display. Hypothesis 3 was prepared to test whether or not there was a significant
relationship between shoppers impulse buying behavior and floor merchandising. Hypothesis 4 was
designed to determine whether or not there was a significant relationship between shoppers impulse
buying behavior and any type of in-store promotional signage.
H1: Consumers who purchase on impulse are influenced by window displays.
H2: Consumers who purchase on impulse are influenced by in-store/mannequin display
H3: Consumers who purchase on impulse are influenced by floor merchandising
H4: Consumers who purchase on impulse are influenced by in-store promotional signage.
H1: Consumers Who Purchase on Impulse are Influenced by Window Displays
YIB = a1 + 1XWD + 1
1is the regression coefficient which gives the coefficient value for the model as indicated above, where
the dependent variable is impulse buying and the independent variable is window display Where a1 is a
constant factor and 1 is residual error, IB indicates impulse buying and WD indicates window display.
Table 1.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.808473
R Square
0.653629
Adjusted R
Square
0.652515
Standard Error
4.487836
Observations
313
ANOVA
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
XVariable

df
1
311
312

SS
11820.18
6263.748
18083.93

MS
11820.18
20.14067

F
586.8813

Significance F
1.398E-73

Coefficients
7.71391

Standard
Error
0.998079

t Stat
7.728757

P-value
1.51E-13

Lower 95%
5.7500685

Upper
95%
9.677751

Lower
95.0%
5.750068

Upper
95.0%
9.677751

1.701033

0.070216

24.22563

1.4E-73

1.56287431

1.839192

1.562874

1.839192

The R Square (coefficient of determination) value as indicated in Table 1 is 0.653629. This validates
the model that 65% of the time, the data fits in the model. The P value is 1.398E 73 which is less than
the = 5%=0.05.(level of significance). This implies that we fail to reject Hypothesis 1 and accept that
window display significantly influences respondents impulse buying behavior.

272

Sujata Khandai, Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla

The Pearson Correlation test indicates a significant correlation between impulse buying and window
display with a p-value less than 0.001(Table 1). Since the p-value (p < .001) was smaller than an alpha
level of 0.01, the data provided sufficient evidence that window display is sufficiently related with
consumers impulse buying behavior. The Pearson Correlation test also indicates a significant correlation
between impulse buying and window display with the multiple R(coefficient of correlation) being
0.8084733. This indicates that there is a strong correlation between impulse buying and window display
i.e 80% of the time, consumers impulse buying behavior is influenced by window displays at the store.
Also, it is positive which indicates that both impulse buying and window display move are in the same
direction.
H2: Consumers Who Purchase on Impulse are Influenced by in-Store/Mannequin Display

YIB = a2 + 2XMD + 2
2 is the regression coefficient, where impulse buying is the dependant variable and mannequin display is
the independent variable. Where a2 is a constant factor and 2 is residual error, IB indicates impulse
buying and MD indicates mannequin display.
Table 2.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.699527
R Square
0.489339
Adjusted R
Square
0.487697
Standard Error
5.449199
Observations
313
ANOVA
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
X Variable 1

df
1
311
312

Coefficients Standard
Error
11.06338 1.200782
1.134436 0.065715

SS
8849.167
9234.763
18083.93
t Stat
9.213479
17.26309

MS
8849.167
29.69377

P-value
4.86E-18
2.65E-47

F
298.0142

Lower
95%
8.700695
1.005135

Significance F
2.65E-47

Upper
95%
13.42606
1.263737

Lower
95.0%
8.700695
1.005135

Upper
95.0%
13.42606
1.263737

Since the R-Square value (co-efficient of determination) is 0.699527 (Table 2), this adequately
validates this model that 69% of the time, the data fits in the model. The P value is 2.65E-47 which is less
than = 5%=0.05.(level of significance) which implies we fail to reject Hypothesis 2 and that mannequin
display significantly influences impulse buying.

Visual Merchandising as an Antecedent to Impulse Buying...

273

There is a significant correlation between impulse buying and mannequin display as indicated by the
p-value which is less than 0.001 (Table2). Since the p-value (p < .001) is lesser than the level of .01,
this is sufficient evidence to indicate that mannequin display is significantly related to impulse buying.
The value of Multiple R (coefficient of correlation) is .699527 which indicates that there is a fairly strong
correlation between impulse buying and mannequin display with the predictor variable influencing the
dependant variable at least 69.9% of the time. Since it is positive, it implies that impulse buying and
mannequin display move in the same direction.
H3: Consumers Who Purchase on Impulse are Influenced by Floor Merchandising

YIB = a3 + 3XFD + 3
The dependant variable is impulse buying (IB) and the independent variable is floor merchandising
(FD). a3 is a constant factor and 3 is the residual error. As always, IB indicates impulse buying
(dependant variable) and FD denotes floor merchandising (independent variable).
Table 3.
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.30273
R Square
0.091645
Adjusted R
Square
0.088725
Standard
Error
7.267649
Observations
313
ANOVA

Regression
Residual
Total

df
1
311
312

SS
1657.307
16426.62
18083.93

Intercept
X Variable 1

Coefficients
22.15787
0.708862

Standard
Error
1.64821
0.126548

MS
1657.307
52.81872

F
31.37727

Significance
F
4.68E-08

t Stat
13.4436
5.601541

P-value
8.53E-33
4.68E-08

Lower 95%
18.91482
0.459864

Upper
95%
25.40093
0.957859

Lower
95.0%
18.91482
0.459864

Upper
95.0%
25.40093
0.957859

As per Table 3, the R Square (coefficient of determination) value is 0.0916453. This implies that it is
only 9.1% of the time that the data fits in the model. The p value is 4.68E-08 which is less than =
5%=0.05.(level of significance) which implies we fail to reject Hypothesis 3 and that window display
influences impulse buying. The coefficient of correlation, i.e. the Multiple R value is 0.3027297. This

274

Sujata Khandai, Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla

indicates that there is low correlation between the two variables. It indicates that floor merchandising is
able to influence impulse buying only 30% of the time.
H4: Consumers Who Purchase on Impulse are Influenced by Promotional Signage

YIB = a4 + 4XPS + 4
Table 4.

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.426801
R Square
0.182159
Adjusted R
Square
0.179529
Standard
Error
6.896054
Observations
313
ANOVA

Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
X Variable 1

df
1
311
312

SS
3294.151
14789.78
18083.93

Coefficients
19.72371
0.625413

Standard
Error
1.421258
0.075144

MS
3294.151
47.55556

F
69.26952

Significance
F
2.75E-15

t Stat
13.87764
8.322831

P-value
2.06E-34
2.75E-15

Lower 95%
16.92721
0.477558

Upper
95%
22.52021
0.773269

Lower
95.0%
16.92721
0.477558

Upper
95.0%
22.52021
0.773269

The R square value is 0.1821590 which implies that it is only 18% of the time that the data fits in
with the model. . The p value is 2.75E-15 which is less than = 5%=0.05.(level of significance) which
implies we fail to reject Hypothesis 4 and that promotional signage does influence impulse buying.
The coefficient of correlation as depicted by the Multiple R value is 0.179529 which indicates that
promotional signage is able to influence impulse buying only 17% of the time. There is correlation
between impulse buying and promotional signage but it is low.
Findings and Conclusions
This study attempted to investigate some external factors that influence impulse buying behavior. To
examine this relationship further, this study attempted to explain the relationship between respondents
impulse buying behavior and various types of visual merchandising. An important finding of this study
was that visual merchandising practices certainly influence respondents impulse buying behavior. The
results proved that there were significant relationships between respondents impulse buying behavior and

Visual Merchandising as an Antecedent to Impulse Buying...

275

window display and in-store/mannequin display. Even floor merchandising and promotional signage are
correlated to impulse buying but the level of correlation is rather low. It can be assumed that all types of
visual merchandising (i.e. window display, in-store/mannequin display, floor merchandising and in-store
promotional signage) are significantly correlated with the impulse buying behavior of the respondents.
This study explicitly denotes that there is a rather strong relationship between respondents impulse
buying behavior and two types of visual merchandising practices: window display and instore/mannequin display. The other visual merchandising practices including floor merchandising and instore promotional signage do not appear to have a very impact upon respondents impulse buying
behavior. All this adequately suggests that visual merchandising practices like window display and instore/mannequin display serve as strong stimuli, inducing and motivating the consumer to make an
unplanned purchase decision upon entering the store. Effectively, this study shows usefulness of visual
merchandising in understanding impulse buying.
Managerial Implications
Impulse buying occurs when a consumer experiences a sudden, powerful and persistent urge to purchase
something immediately. The impulse to buy that something is hedonically complex (Rook 1987). To feed
their hedonistic instincts, consumers like to shop by browsing in stores which induces in them positive
feelings. Also, while browsing, consumers necessarily are exposed to stimuli such as retail settings. Retail
settings, such as visual merchandising, thus have the impact of influencing consumers impulse buying
behavior by providing information or serving as a reminder of unfulfilled needs as well as providing
positive feelings. Retailers need to take care to display their merchandise effectively using window
display and mannequins. This should constitute an important consideration in the strategic
marketing/merchandising plan. Retailers should consistently reinforce usage of window display and instore/mannequin display to create a favorable shopping environment and experience to proactively
influence consumers in-store responses and future choice decisions. Though floor merchandising and instore promotional signage did not significantly impact consumers impulse buying behavior, retailers
should take care not to completely ignore them as visual merchandising tools. The keyword is
differentiation to grab maximum eyeballs and in-store promotional signage and floor merchandising in a
creative manner may lead higher level of impact on consumers impulse buying behavior.
The findings of this study provided sufficient evidence that retailers can effectively utilize visual
merchandising to increase desirability of products and to help customers become aware of the products as
well as to create favorable attitudes. Positive impulse buying experiences contribute to establishing store
loyalty and customers perceived value and satisfaction influence future buying decisions. Effective
visual merchandising practices can influence customers impulse purchase experiences.
Limitations of Study
The study suffered from the following limitations:
x
x

Sample was geographically limited as the data was collected from New Delhi only. Data
collected in other areas may produce different results.
The instrument was limited to a quantitative method. The survey asked participants to answer the
questions based on their recent impulse buying experiences as long as they were aware of their
behavior and influences. However, the qualitative research methods may bring different results.

276

Sujata Khandai, Bhawna Agrawal and Anju Gulla

References
1.

Abnett, R & Goody, S D (1990), Unplanned Buying and In-store Stimuli in Supermarkets, Managerial &
Decision Economics, Vol 11, No 2, pp. 111121.

2.

Alpert, J.I. and Alpert, M.I. (1990), Music Inuences on Mood and Purchase Intentions, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 7, Summer, pp. 10934.

3.

Appenbaum, W (1951), Studying Consumer Behavior in Retail Stores, Journal of Marketing, Vol 16, pp.
3240.

4.

Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), Seeking Something Different? A Model of Schema Typicality, Consumer
Affect, Purchase Intentions and Perceived Shopping Value, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp.
8996.

5.

Bellenger, D.N., Robertson, D.H. & Hirschman, E.C. (1978), Impulse Buying Varies by Product, Journal
of Advertising Research, 18, 1518.

6.

Bellizzi, J.A. and Hite, R.E. (1992), Environmental Color, Consumer Feelings, and Purchase Likelihood,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 34763.

7.

Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P.S. (1999), Scents in the Marketplace: Explaining a Fraction of Olfaction, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 24362.

8.

Cobb, C. J.; Hoyer, W. B (1986), Planned versus Impulse Purchase Behavior, Journal of Retailing, Winter
86, Vol. 62 Issue 4, p384, 26p.

9.

Cox, K(1970), The Effect of Shelf Space upon Sales of Branded Products, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol 7 (February), pp. 5558.

10.

Dholakia, U.M. (2000), Temptation and Resistance: an Integrated Model of Consumption Impulse
Formation and Enactment, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 95582.

11.

Engell, F. and Blackwell, R. (1982) Consumer Behavior, 4th ed., New York: The Dryden Press.

12.

Eroglu, S. A. and Machleit, K. A. (1993), "Atmospheric Factors in the Retail Environment: Sights, Sounds
and Smells," Advances in Consumer Research, 20,34.

13.

Gardner, M.P. & Rook, D.W. (1988), Effects of Impulse Purchases on Consumers Affective States,
Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 127130.

14.

Hitt, J. (1996), The Theory of Supermarkets, , 10 March, pp. 5661, 94, 98 New York Times Magazine.

15.

Iyer, E. S. (1989), "Unplanned Purchasing: Knowledge Of Shopping Environment", Journal of Retailing;


Spring Vol 65(1)

16.

Koelemeijer, K. and Oppewal, H. (1999), Assessing the Effects of Assortment and Ambience: a Choice
Experimental Approach, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 31945.

17.

Kollat D T (1966), A Decision-Process Approach to Impulse Purchasing, Science, Technology and


Marketing, American Marketing Association, September, p. 626.

18.

Kollat, D.T. & Willett, R.P. (1967). Consumer Impulse Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research,
4 (February), 2131.

19.

Kollat D T and Willett R P (1969), Is Impulse Purchasing Really a Useful Concept for Marketing
Decisions?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, January, pp. 7983.

20.

Kumar, V. and Leone, R.P. (1988), Measuring the Effect of Retail Store Promotions on Brand and Store
Substitution, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 17885.

21.

Murray, H. (1938), Explorations in Personality, Oxford University, New York, NY.

22.

Nesbitt, S. (1959), "Todays Housewives Plan Menus as they Shop"., Nesbitt Associates Release, pp. 23.

Visual Merchandising as an Antecedent to Impulse Buying...

277

23.

Peak H S and Peak E F (1977), Supermarket Merchandising and Management, Englewood Cliffs, PrenticeHall, NJ.

24.

Popai/DuPont (1977) (Point-of-Purchase Institute of the United States of America), Consumer Buying Habits
Study-Supermarkets, New York.

25.

Quelch J A (1983), Its Time to Make Trade Promotion More Productive, Harvard Business Review,
May/June, pp. 130136.

26.

Rook, D.W. & Hoch, S.J. (1985). Consuming Impulses. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 237.

27.

Rook, D. W. (1987), "The Buying Impulse," Journal of Consumer Research, 14,189199.

28.

Rook, D.W. & Fisher, R.J. (1995). Trait and Normative Aspects of Impulsive Buying Behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research, 22 (3), 30513.

29.

Simonson, I. and Winer, R.S. (1992), The Inuence of Purchase Quantity and Display Format on Consumer
Preference for Variety, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1338.

30.

Stassen, R.E., Mittelstaedt, J. and Mittelstaedt, R.A. (1999), Assortment Overlap: Its Effect on Shopping
Patterns in a Retail Market when the Distributions of Prices and Goods are Known, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 37186.

31.

Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B., and Pollio, H.R. (1990), The Lived Meaning of Free Choice: An
Existentialist-Phenomenological Description of Everyday Consumer Experiences of Contemporary Married
Women, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 17.

32.

Wansink, B. (1994), "The Dark Side of Consumer Behavior: Empirical Examinations of Impulsive and
Compulsive Consumption," Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 508.

33.

Wood M (1998), Socio-Economic Status, Delay of Gratification, and Impulse Vuying, Journal of
Economic Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 295320.