Singh et al.

, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371

[Link]

INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Measuring social media impact on Impulse
Buying Behavior
Prakash Singh1*, Bhuvanesh Kumar Sharma2, Lokesh Arora3 and Vimal Bhatt4

Received: 12 March 2023

Abstract: In today’s ever-evolving business landscape, understanding the shifting
Accepted: 19 September 2023 buying behaviors of consumers has become a formidable challenge for businesses
*Corresponding author: Prakash worldwide. To navigate these changes successfully, businesses are increasingly
Singh, E-Commerce Department, turning to Social Networking Sites (SNS) to attract, connect with, and engage
College of Administrative and
Financial Sciences, Saudi Electronic customers profitably. However, analyzing the influence of social networking sites on
University, Riyadh 11673, Saudi
Arabia
Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB) among customers is challenging for businesses and
E-mail: [Link]@[Link] significant for their sustainability in the market. The main purpose of the present
Reviewing editor: research work is to analyze the influence of social media on Impulse Buying
Jason Wang, Logistics, Marketing,
Hospitality, and Analytics, University
Behavior (IBB) among customers in Saudi Arabia. The present quantitative study
of Huddersfield, United kingdom was conducted by sending a survey questionnaire to 342 Saudi Arabian consumers
Additional information is available at who are also users of social media. Data analysis was done using the PLS-SEM
the end of the article

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Prakash Singh, an Assistant Professor in the E-Commerce department at the College of
Administrative and Financial Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Saudi Arabia. He holds a Ph.D. in
Marketing Management from Savitribai Phule Pune University. With over nine years of experience, he
has authored 11 research papers in prestigious journals indexed in Scopus, ABDC, and Web of Science.
His research interests span Digital Entrepreneurship, Consumer Behavior, E-Learning, Social Commerce,
Mobile Commerce, Customer Engagement, and the Metaverse. He is a blogger, E-content developer,
case study developer, and researcher. Dr. Prakash Singh’s teaching approach, which uses Gamification,
Learning By Doing (LBD), and a Case-based teaching approach, is highly effective in helping his students
learn and succeed. He ensures his students acquire practical skills relevant to the industry.
Dr. Bhuvanesh Kumar Sharma PhD., currently holds the position of Assistant Professor with
a specialization in Marketing. His primary focus areas encompass Sales and Distribution, Consumer
Behavior, and Marketing Research. Dr. Sharma has made significant contributions to his field, with an
Prakash Singh extensive portfolio of 28 research papers published in reputable National and International journals.
Many of his publications have earned recognition by being indexed in prestigious databases including
Scopus, ABDC, and UGC. His research interests span a wide spectrum, including but not limited to Social
Commerce, Online Buying Behavior, and the intricate dynamics of Social Networking Sites.
Dr. Lokesh Arora is a dedicated educator and seasoned researcher, amassing over 15 years of com­
prehensive experience spanning both industry and academia. Dr. Arora has made notable contributions
to the field, boasting an extensive portfolio of more than 15 research papers published in esteemed
National and International journals. Several of these publications have garnered recognition through
indexing in prestigious databases like Scopus, ABDC, and UGC. Dr. Arora’s primary areas of research
expertise encompass Consumer Behavior, Customer Engagement, Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM),
Social Customer Relationship Management (SCRM), Social Media, and Online Shopping Behavior.
Dr. Vimal Bhatt PhD., is currently an esteemed Associate Professor with a dedicated focus on Marketing,
specializing in Consumer Behavior and Brand Management. His notable accomplishments include the
publication of 42 research papers in prestigious National and International journals, a substantial number
of which are indexed in renowned databases such as Scopus, ABDC, and UGC. In addition to his research
prowess, Dr. Bhatt is actively engaged in the innovative application of Artificial Neural Networks and Deep
Learning to predict consumer behavior, showcasing his commitment to advancing the field.

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License ([Link] which permits unrestricted use, distribu­
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on
which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in
a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.

Page 1 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

technique using smart PLS 4.0 software. The findings of the study suggested that
Social Media Advertising (SMA) significantly influenced Impulse Buying Intention
(IBI), but no effect was reported by the Social Media Community (SMC) on Impulse
Buying Intention (IBI). However, the overall model explained 50 percent Impulse
Buying Intention (IBI) and 33 percent Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB). The study will
enable marketers, scholars, and researchers to understand the concept of Impulse
buying by offering managerial implications and future research directions.

Subjects: Consumer Psychology; Consumer Behaviour; Internet / Digital Marketing /

e-Marketing; Industry & Industrial Studies; Information Technology

Keywords: Consumer; Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB); Impulse Buying Intention (IBI);
Social media; Social Media Community (SMC); Social Media Advertisement (SMA)

1. Introduction
Social Networking Sites (SNS) play a significant role in influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions
(Wegmann et al., 2023; Xiang et al., 2022). This influence often leads to spontaneous purchases while
casually scrolling through these platforms, which can be termed as impulse buying (Han, 2023). The
prevalence of social media has contributed to a rise in impulse buying behavior (Johan et al., 2023).
This phenomenon, known as “Impulse buying,” refers to the sudden and unplanned decision to make
a purchase (Amos et al., 2014; Stern, 1962). The modern culture places a high emphasis on shopping,
but it’s crucial to be aware that excessive and uncontrolled buying can lead to undesirable conse­
quences. Social networking sites play a key role in amplifying the tendency toward impulsive buying
among their users (Pahlevan Sharif et al., 2022; She et al., 2021). Since the early 2000s, the use of social
networking sites has skyrocketed, and businesses have capitalized on this trend by implementing
social commerce strategies, resulting in increased revenue (Xiang et al., 2022).

In today’s technological scenario, social media has emerged as the main choice for the recom­
mendation of all brands ’products (Akram et al., 2018). Based on previous research, users are
clearly familiar with SNS such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram (Siriaraya et al., 2019).
As millions of users are actively using social networking sites, it is a great source of promotion of
products and services as per the interests of users. SNS also provide the opportunity to connect
users with each other (Aragoncillo & Orus, 2018; Shiva & Singh, 2019). Through SNS, businesses
influence the buying decision of users. Evident from existing studies that consumer buying beha­
vior is highly influenced by Impulse behavior, and Impulse involves factors like consumer psyche,
social, economic, and consumer attitude. In other words, we can say that impulse buying is not
just unplanned purchasing (Stern, 1962). Unintended purchasing happens when a customer has
a feeling of influential and insistent but unpredictable wish to buy something promptly due to
some emotional connotation (Chen & Wang, 2016; Rook, 1987). Unintended purchasing can be
prompted by inadequate deliberation of the consequences of spending (Zafar et al., 2021).
Consumers behave impulsively towards a diverse range of products such as automobiles, candy,
and fashion (Bansal & Kumar, 2018; Sharma et al., 2018). Consumer buying behavior is sometimes
not a response towards a reasoned action; however, it may be prompted by an added straight and
instant stimulus. In precise, impulsive buying involves an unexpected need to buy something
without intent or idea (Lee & Yi, 2008b). Likewise, Li (2015) defines impulsive behavior as buying
instinctively due to physical closeness and emotional attachment to the wanted product resulting
in individual fulfillment (Hashmi et al., 2019; Li, 2015). More than ninety percent of individuals who
make unplanned purchases accept that they did not plan to buy initially, and forty percent of
overall consumer spending goes to impulse buying (Gaille, 2017). The driving forces influencing
impulse purchases are sales promotion offers, accounting for 88% of the total impulse purchase
(Gaille, 2017; Hashmi et al., 2019; Li, 2015). Similarly, sixty percent of female consumers have
recently made an impulse purchase. Demographically, a higher-income young consumer has
a higher percentage of impulse purchases (Gaille, 2017).

Page 2 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

The business environment has transformed due to technical know-how; it has familiarised many
newest revolutions, such as social networking sites. Though individuals use these platforms
primarily for interacting with others, they also exchange their thoughts, ideas, and involvements
about various products and services on social media (Khokhar et al., 2019). Moreover, Buying and
acquiring knowledge about products or services on virtual platforms have become a universal
exercise (Sharma et al., 2018). Now, the promotion of products is not just limited to traditional
media such as print and electronic media. Businesses are using Social media to promote their
products and services (Rehman et al., 2014). Because companies can quickly reach customers
through emails, content, web-based activities, and display promotions throughout the world, these
technologies have proven quite advantageous for online shops (Rehman et al., 2014). Facebook
and Instagram are the two most popular social networking sites which engage millions of people.
Eventually, the favourite for big brands for promotion (Sharma et al., 2018). Instagram has
70 percent more engagement than Facebook, especially among the young generation. Showing
videos and pictures of the brands with influencers on Instagram drives impulse purchases (Lo
et al., 2016).

Consumer research has increasingly focused on impulsive buying within the context of social
networking sites (Nasir et al., 2021; Rahman & Hossain, 2023; Rahman et al., 2023). Consequently,
social commerce has become inherently associated with impulse buying, as consumers often
make unplanned product decisions while engaged with social media (Han, 2023; Madhu et al.,
2023). Notably, previous studies have shown that social networking sites encourage consumers to
bypass traditional decision-making evaluation steps, frequently leading to impulsive buying beha­
viors (Djafarova & Bowes, 2021; Han, 2023; Pellegrino et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2020; Yi et al., 2023).
Although impulse buying has been widely discussed in academia from different perspectives, there
is a lack of investigation available on the impact Social Media Community (SMC) driving Impulse
Buying Behavior (IBB). Zhao et al. (2019) argued that SMC events such as online shopping carnival
contributes to driving impulse purchases, resulting in the introduced call to action feature that
induced impulse buying on Instagram (Li, 2015; Sharma, 2019; Sharma et al., 2018). It was also
argued that celebrity interaction with their followers and their posts drives the audience to
purchase the endorsed products impulsively (Handayani et al., 2018; Zafar et al., 2021; Zhao
et al., 2019). However, limited research is available with special attention to how the SMC drive
impulses purchase. Additionally, dearth of information available on social media driving impulse
buying in Saudi Arabia is rare. Therefore, the study tries to fill the gap by addressing various
aspects of SMC and Social Media Advertisement (SMA) and further, their impact on Impulse Buying
Intention (IBI) in the context of Saudi Arabia consumers to measure the impact of social media on
Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB).

The present study is an attempt to measure the impact of social platforms on impulse buying
behavior among Saudi Arabian consumers. Therefore, the present research is an effort to fulfil the
identified gap in the existing literature and assist businesses in understanding the impulse buying
behavior of Saudi consumers. The study has been categorised into six sections. The first section
outlines the significance of conducting this study. The second section includes a literature review
and starts with the theoretical underpinnings related to the research theme, followed by
a literature review on Social Media Community, Social Media Advertisements, and Impulse
Buying Behavior. The review of the literature further helps to find the research gap that eventually
led to hypothesis development and conceptual modelling. The next section explains in detail the
methods and materials adopted in this study to select the sample size, the survey scale adoption
to develop the survey questionnaire, and the hypothesis testing procedures. Subsequently, the
fourth section explains the results and data analysis. Section fifth includes key discussions of the
study followed by sub-sections, namely managerial implications, limitations of present research
work, and directions for future research. Lastly, the conclusion summarises this study with con­
cluding remarks on how this study is different from existing studies, followed by references at
the end.

Page 3 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

2. Literature review

2.1. Theoretical underpinnings

During the 1940s, the concept of “Impulse Buying” first evolved as unsubstantiated actions
(Aragoncillo & Orus, 2018). Few existing studies defined Impulse buying as an unexpected act that
contrasts with intentional buying that is developed lacking thoughtful attention to its continuing
concerns. It can be further understood as unreasonable behaviors (Ahn et al., 2020; Li & Jing, 2012;
Moon et al., 2017; Pradhan, 2016; Zhang et al., 2018). In further studies, writers such as Stern (1962),
Applebaum (1951), and Kollat and Willett (1969), have drawn out the thought by establishing that
unplanned buying developed after the contact to inducement. Applebaum (1951) explained it as an
unplanned purchase by customers while shopping in a store and stimulated them to purchase after
looking at promotional campaigns in the store. Buying may frequently not function as a logical act but
be prompted by a more direct and instant stimulus. Impulsive buying causes an unexpected desire to
purchase something lacking a prior plan or disposition. Impulsive behavior has been defined as buying
instinctively due to familiarity and sensitive attachment to the anticipated products causing personal
fulfilment (Hashmi et al., 2019; Lee & Yi, 2008b; Li, 2015). This concept stimulated various researchers
to conduct research studies on it, and subsequently, many faced issues in assessing it (Kollat & Willett,
1969). However, numerous authors discussed that outlining impulse buying based on unintended
buying is slightly unsophisticated (Kollat & Willett, 1969; Rook, 1987; Stern, 1962) and departed a stage
ahead more by disagreeing that all impulsive buying can be deliberated as unintended, not all
unintended buying can be deliberated as impulsive buying (Koski, 2004). Unintentional buying might
happen as consumers are looking to purchase various products not added in the ongoing sales
promotions launched by sellers, and during their store visits to stores, the moment they find
a better deal, they buy it instantly. However, unintentional buying is not predictably supplemented
by a burning desire or a robust encouraging state of mind that is usually connected to a purchasing
instinct (Amos et al., 2014). Moreover, vis-à-vis the theoretical underpinning of the preceding works of
literature, numerous studies implemented Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) as their basic context
to examine online unplanned buying behavior. Though online impulse buying fascinated the consid­
eration of researchers and scholars in the field of social commerce, the theoretical foundation of
online impulse buying behavior study is presently in its embryonic stage and dispersed. Evolving new
concepts in this field of study is deliberated as one of the perplexing concerns for future research
related to Information Systems (Busalim & Hussin, 2016).

Social media has the potential to impact on Impulse buying nature of consumers. It can play
a noteworthy part in stirring impulse buying behavior among consumers. Furthermore, it also influ­
ences the shopping behavior of consumers (Xiang et al., 2016). Users over social networking sites post
a comprehensive range of involvements, oscillating from what they are in the temperament on
that day, to enthusiastically assessing goods and services i.e., products they want to use (Anderson
et al., 2011). This further leads to impact others social media users through writing comments by
sharing depictions of their existing procurements and offering helpful commendations to potential
buyers. These activities displayed by social media users can fuel unintentional and impulse buying
(Xiang et al., 2016). Hence, theoretically, and empirically, further research exertions are desirable to
examine the reasons for online impulse buying behavior to enhance scholars and researchers’ under­
standings of impulse buying behavior and the impact of social media on it. Most of the prevailing
studies cast off website-related factors as precursors of impulse buying behavior study, and little
consideration was given to social media and marketing related factors. Impulse buying has been
researched for decades in the field of marketing research; consequently, it is significant to investigate
the impact of social media on Impulse buying (Busalim & Hussin, 2016).

The S-O-R framework was first proposed in 1929 which stands for Stimuli (S), Organisms (O) and
Response (R) by Woodworth in his scholarly work (Woodworth, 1929). In this model, “Stimulus” defines
the environmental factor arousing the organismic and internal states (Song et al., 2021). “Organism”
indicates to humans’ affective and mental intermediate states that mediate the impact of the stimulus
on individual customer’ responses (Wu & Li, 2018). “Response” states that consumers’ final purchase

Page 4 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Figure 1. Conceptual model

demonstrating the impact of
Social Media Community (SMC),
Social Media Advertisements
(SMA), and Impulse Buying
Intention (IBI) on Impulse
Buying Behavior (IBB).

decisions and buying behaviors are based on sentimental and mental states (Sherman et al., 1997). As
stated by Mehrabian and Russell (1974), the retail shopping atmosphere encompasses stimuli (S) that
impact organisms (O) & result in methodology or prevention response (R) behaviors concerning the store
and in behaviors like store searching, intention to purchase, & repurchase intention. Stimuli is created by
retailers using advertisements and marketing communications to ignite the customers’ behavior, and
further leads to generate responses by cultivating impulse buying behavior among customers. This
S-O-R framework explores the environmental cues (e.g., music, crowding, color, lighting, layout &
fragrance) and their associated impacts on customers’ internal states & external responses in retail
store ecosystems (e.g., Koo & Ju, 2010; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Richard, 2005; Wang et al., 2010). The
S-O-R is chronological in nature (Kühn & Petzer, 2018), in accordance with the stimulus which is the initial
stage of customers’ state of organism & ultimate response behavior in a consumption or shopping
backdrop. Social media marketing—and impulse buying—concerned aspects are external stimuli that
can activate the S-O-R process (Zhang et al., 2018). The current study has proposed and developed
a conceptual framework based on the S-O-R model (see Figure 1).

2.2. Hypothesis development and conceptual modelling

This section explores the underlined factors that influence the impulse buying behavior of con­
sumers in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, previous studies did not explain the impulse buying
behavior of Saudi Arabia consumers. Hence, present research work attempts to shed light on the
relationship between Social Media Community, Social Media Advertisement, Impulse Buying
Intention, and Impulse Buying Behavior in Saudi Arabian context.

2.2.1. Social Media Community (SMC) and Impulse Buying Intention (IBI)
The influence of social media on consumers’ purchasing behaviors is significant, particularly when
it comes to the emergence of impulsive buying tendencies (Barger et al., 2016; Rydell & Kucera,
2021). This impact is rooted in the way social media platforms have reshaped consumers’ buying
preferences, with the central catalyst being the Social Media Community (SMC) (Rydell & Kucera,
2021). Social media platforms have revolutionized the consumer landscape by enabling users to
effortlessly create and share content, access valuable information, and tap into the lasting
influence of SMCs within their online networks. This phenomenon has played a substantial role
in nurturing impulsive buying behaviors among users of social media (Rydell & Kucera, 2021).

Page 5 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Online SMCs have evolved into dynamic societal frameworks where participants freely exchange
associations and connections, providing a platform for individuals who share similar ideas, values,
attitudes, thoughts, and feelings (Nambisan & Watt, 2011). As a result, SMCs have fundamentally
transformed the traditional approach to seeking product information and recommendations
(Olbrich & Holsing, 2011; Pagani & Mirabello, 2011). With the growing popularity of SMCs, their
capacity to disseminate information, share product knowledge, and influence impulsive buying
behaviors has become increasingly apparent (Chen et al., 2011). This evolution aligns with the
rapid expansion of internet users, prompting businesses to adopt information systems that engage
and acquire customers through online communities (Lu & Hsiao, 2010). The role of online com­
munities within social media platforms has become exceptionally dynamic, offering consumers
a space to exchange product reviews and recommendations, thereby shaping their purchasing
decisions (Miller et al., 2009). As a result, online customers have come to place higher trust in
reviews and opinions found on social media platforms compared to information provided by
companies, perceiving these reviews as more reliable (Segran, 2017).

The relationship between Social Media Community (SMC) and Impulse Buying Intention (IBI) is
a dynamic interplay that significantly influences purchase decisions within the realm of social media.
SMCs serve as vibrant digital ecosystems where individuals connect, share, and interact, ultimately
fostering a sense of community. Within these communities, the sharing of opinions, product reviews,
and recommendations exerts a profound impact on consumers’ IBI (Heinemann, 2023; Reynolds et al.,
2023). As social media users engage with content created by their peers and like-minded individuals
within these communities, the allure of spontaneous and unplanned purchases intensifies.
Consequently, the manifestation of IBI within SMCs can have substantial consequences on the purchase
decisions of social media users. These digital communities not only shape consumer preferences but
also play a pivotal role in steering purchase choices, ultimately influencing the products and brands that
individuals opt for within the social media marketplace (Daniel et al., 2018; Dessart et al., 2015).

Considering this extensive review of literature, we have formulated the following hypothesis to
better understand the relationship between these variables:

H1: Social Media Community positively influences Impulse Buying Intention among Saudi Arabian
consumers.

2.2.2. Social Media Advertising (SMA) and Impulse Buying Intention (IBI)
The rapid expansion of social media usage and the widespread access to internet-enabled devices
have empowered billions of individuals to freely share their past purchasing experiences on social
media platforms. This surge in user-generated content has disrupted the landscape of impulse buying
(Islam et al., 2021; Parsons et al., 2014; Prentice et al., 2020). Social Media Advertising (SMA) has
evolved from simply being a presence on social networking platforms to an indispensable component
of contemporary business strategies. In today’s business environment, nearly all companies are
striving to establish a digital footprint across various social media platforms. These platforms not
only serve as effective tools for promoting products and services but also play a pivotal role in
cultivating impulsive buying tendencies among users. Additionally, factors such as age, gender, and
socio-economic conditions of consumers have been found to influence the relationship between SMA
and IBI (Chawla, 2020; Rodgers et al., 2014; Varghese & Chitra, 2022; Yang et al., 2021). Furthermore,
SMA, coupled with social media users’ comments and feedback, has a transformative effect on
consumer purchasing behavior (Chawla, 2020; Yang et al., 2021). Marketers often employ engaging
content formats, such as memes, images, audio, short videos, and blogs, in SMA efforts to captivate
users and influence their impulse buying behavior. SMA’s ability to target individual customers based
on their demographic profiles surpasses the capabilities of traditional media (Rodgers et al., 2014).
SMA serves as a dynamic platform for information sharing, collaboration, and relationship-building for
both marketers and users. It has proven to be an innovative tool that provides real-time customer
feedback on brands, products, offers, and services (Fauser et al., 2011).

Page 6 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

The interplay between Social Media Advertising (SMA) and Impulse Buying Intention (IBI)
unfolds as a dynamic force shaping purchase decisions within the realm of social media (Volpi
& Clark, 2019). SMA leverages the vast reach of social media platforms to showcase products and
services through captivating content formats, enticing users to make impulsive purchasing
decisions (Wegmann et al., 2023; Xiang et al., 2022). This persuasive advertising strategy not
only captures the attention of social media users but also influences their IBI by presenting
compelling product narratives and tempting offers (Hazari et al., 2023; Lou & Yuan, 2019).
Consequently, the prevalence of SMA within social media environments has profound conse­
quences on purchase decisions, as users are enticed to act on their impulse buying tendencies
(Korkmaz & Seyhan, 2021). In essence, SMA serves as a catalyst for IBI, amplifying its influence
and driving consumers towards spontaneous purchases on social media platforms (Lavuri &
Thaichon, 2023; Pahlevan Sharif et al., 2022; She et al., 2021).

In light of this comprehensive review of literature, we have formulated the following hypothesis
to investigate the relationship between these variables:

H2: Social Media Advertising positively influences Impulse Buying Intention among Saudi Arabian
consumers.

2.2.3. Impulse Buying Intention (IBI) and Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB)
Impulse Buying Intention (IBI) and Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB) share an intricate and
consequential relationship in the context of consumer behavior, particularly within the dynamic
landscape of social media and digital commerce. As consumers navigate the realms of both
online and traditional commerce, the term “impulse buying” has become increasingly familiar,
transcending the boundaries of these shopping environments. Social media has emerged as
a key player in the cultivation of impulse buying behavior among its users (Chawla, 2020;
Varghese & Chitra, 2022; Yang et al., 2021). Within this digital space, social media users often
find themselves influenced not only by their own experiences but also by the interconnected
relationships they form with their peers and the broader online community. These interactions
further fuel their Impulse Buying Intention (IBI), creating a continuous cycle of impulse-driven
purchasing tendencies (Joseph & Enid, 2022). However, it’s noteworthy that recent studies,
such as Joseph and Enid (2022), suggest a shift in the landscape, with indications that the era
of inducing impulse buying through social media may be transitioning to a new phase marked
by more challenging market demands, potentially questioning the obligatory impact of social
media on consumers’ IBI. Furthermore, the convenience of online shopping, facilitated by
E-Commerce platforms, has encouraged consumers to make purchases impulsively (Al-Zyoud,
2018). Impulse buying, characterized by the act of succumbing to immediate and compelling
motives, often leads to a complex emotional struggle, with consumers disregarding the con­
sequences of their purchases (Al-Masri, 2020). For marketers, comprehending the factors that
influence impulsive buying is essential, as it equips them with insights into attracting more
consumers to purchase their goods and services (Al-Masri, 2020). Additionally, the rise of social
media has redefined marketing communication, turning social media users into potential
consumers and active participants in marketing strategies (Al-Zyoud, 2018). Nevertheless,
a research gap remains regarding a comprehensive exploration of how social media influences
impulse buying, particularly among Saudi Arabian consumers (Al-Zyoud, 2018).

The increasing demand for products adhering to Islamic standards has further motivated
researchers to delve into the purchasing behavior of Saudi Arabian consumers, given the country’s
prominent role in Islam (Karoui & Khemakhem, 2019). This exploration has revealed that religion,
specifically Islamic values, plays a substantial role in shaping consumer behavior. In addition to
cultural, social, and psychological factors, positive emotional variables such as pleasure, happi­
ness, honor, pride, and self-satisfaction significantly impact purchasing behavior, aligning with
hedonic values closely related to impulse buying (Hashmi et al., 2019). Moreover, several factors,

Page 7 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

including hedonic motivation, website quality, trust, and variety-seeking behavior, have been
identified as influencers of impulsive buying (Al-Zyoud, 2018). The growth of social media in
Saudi Arabia, with approximately 25 million active users, calls for a deeper exploration of this
phenomenon within the Saudi Arabian context (Al-Zyoud, 2018). The advent of the internet and
social media has revolutionized consumer-company interactions, enabling seamless networking
and transactions.

Social networking sites have created a space for consumers to share a wide range of experi­
ences, including their shopping endeavors, leading to an unexpected surge in impulse buying
behavior (Xiang et al., 2016). Marketers have recognized the significance of social networking
sites in reaching and engaging their target customers, using these platforms to promote products
and services effectively (Tanuri, 2010). Prior research has highlighted that consumers consistently
experience impulsive impulses during their shopping journeys, both online and offline, often unable
to resist these urges despite their best efforts (Baumeister, 2002; Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Dholakia,
2000; Rook, 1987). Online marketing, especially through social media, triggers stimuli that simplify
impulsive buying (Madhavaram & Laverie, 2004). Impulse buying occurs when a consumer experi­
ences an unexpected, intense, and persistent urge to make an immediate purchase (Rook, 1987).
In the context of online impulse buying, studies have affirmed that the desire to buy impulsively
significantly influences impulse buying (Ortiz et al., 2017). Therefore, stimulating consumers’ urge
to buy impulsively, particularly through social media, is essential in promoting impulse buying
behavior. The more stimuli consumers are exposed to, the stronger their urge to buy impulsively
becomes, ultimately intensifying impulse buying behavior during online shopping over social media
platforms and websites (Huang, 2016; Kusmaharani & Halim, 2020; Lin et al., 2022; Zafar et al.,
2021; Zhang et al., 2018).

In summary, a clear and intricate relationship exists between Impulse Buying Intention (IBI)
and the desire to buy impulsively, forming the foundation for the following hypothesis:

H3: Impulse Buying Intention positively influences the Impulse Buying Behavior of Saudi Arabian
consumers.

2.2.4. Conceptual model

Conceptual model as shown in Figure 1 was built on the contributions received from S-O-R model.
The model was proposed by Woodworth in 1929. The model is an advancement of Pavlov (2010)
classical theory of stimulus-Response model. The S-O-R model helps in understanding what causes
individuals’ behavior and can therefore be used to address human behavior issues.

In general, the S-O-R model is used to inspect the relationship between stimulus and response,
as well as how organisms affect those relations. Therefore, the present study adopted the
S-O-R model to determine various stimulus and their impact on consumer behavior. We have
used social media advertisement (SMA) and social media community (SMC) as marketing stimuli,
that leads to Impulse buying intention (IBI) representing Organism (O), that finally lead to
response (R) in terms of Impulse buying or using the products and services unplanned.

3. Methods and materials

3.1. Data collection instrument

A close-ended questionnaire was developed and floated among Saudi Arabian consumers. The
questionnaire consists of two parts; the first part was focuses on the respondents’ general
information, such as their age, sex, and shopping frequency, and the second focuses on the
specific questions related to the variables under investigation. Questions were asked on the five-
point Likert scale from strongly agree to disagree strongly, where 1= strongly disagree, and 5=
strongly agree. An online survey was conducted to collect the primary data. The questionnaire

Page 8 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

items were adopted from the work of Verplanken and Herabadi (2001); Sharma et al. (2018), the
similar studies which were published in Indian context. This ensures the validity and the reliability
of the instrument.

3.2. Pilot survey and data collection

Before executing the final survey, a pilot study was conducted on 43 respondents to check the
instrument reliability and content validity. Additionally, the questionnaire was also checked and
verified by professors and industry professionals to ensure the content validity of the question­
naire. During the pilot survey, those items showing low Cronbach alpha values (<0.70) were
removed from the further analysis. Finally, the survey was executed to a large sample for data
collection. A survey link from google Forms was emailed to approximately 2549 respondents.
These are mostly the students and social media connections such as followers and those who
follows the authors from Saudi Arabia. Out of 2549 respondents, we received 342 responses
within six months of conducting the survey. Incomplete filled responses were removed during
scrutiny, which was approximately 83. So, the final sample selected for the study was 259
respondents. These responses were sufficient to conduct further analysis. The description of
the sample is described in Table 1.

3.3. Sample size justification

The study adopted the thumb rule proposed by Hair et al. (2019) to select the sample size. The
sample size should preferably be five to ten times as large as the number of variables in the
study, according to the thumb rule that has been used to determine sample size in multivariate
research (including multiple regression analyses). The questionnaire contained 25, thus 250
people would have to complete the survey to undertake the minimum sample size necessary
for the multivariate analysis. As a result, the sample size was suitable for carrying out the
statistical analysis.

The demographic details of the respondents are shown in Table 1. As demonstrated, a mixed
bag of samples was selected for the study. The sample comprised 69.1 percent male and 30.9 per­
cent of female respondents. Similarly, 40 percent of respondents belong to the age group of 27 to
35. Followed by 25.1 percent and 23.6 percent of 36 to 44 and 18 to 26 years of age. Only
11.2 percent of respondents were above 45 or above. All respondents had at least one social
media account; most used Instagram as their preferred social media channel. Most respondents
(62.2 percent) were light to medium social media users (19.3 percent used 6 to 9 hours daily).
Approximately 60 percent preferred social media for online shopping and were mostly interested
in purchasing books, followed by fashion accessories and mobile and other electronic devices from
social media.

3.4. Data analysis and hypothesis testing

The collected data were analyzed using the PLS-SEM method with the help of Smart PLS 4.0
software. The description of the sample collected through an online survey is shown in
Table 2. For hypothesis testing, the study adopted a cross-sectional research design to
measure the constructs such as social media community, social media advertisement,
impulse buying intention and impulse buying Behavior; the study adopted a previously vali­
dated scale recommended by researchers and academicians (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001).

4. Hypothesis testing
The study employs covariance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypoth­
esis and fitness of the model by using smart PLS 4.0 version software. Most researchers recom­
mend PLS-SEM to analyze the data due to its various benefits over other software; in contrast to
CB-SEM, PLS-SEM does not take into account normal distribution and has the highest potential for
concurrently evaluating the connections of all included factors, even in small sample sizes (Hair
et al., 2016).

Page 9 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Table 1. Description of the sample selected for the study

S. No Variables Categories Frequency Percent
1 Gender Male 179 69.1
Female 80 30.9
2 Do you have social Yes 259 100
media account?
No 0 0
3 Which social media Facebook 69 26.6
account you have?
Twitter 25 9.7
LinkedIn 36 13.9
Instagram 129 49.8
Any other 0 .0
4 How frequently you Less than an hour 29 11.2
use social media? in a day
2 to 5 hours in 161 62.2
a day
6 to 9 hours in 50 19.3
a day
More than 9 hours 19 7.3
in a day
5 Which age bracket 18–26 years 61 23.6
do you fall?
27–35 years 104 40.2
36–44 years 65 25.1
Above 45 years 29 11.2
6 Do you prefer social Yes 155 59.8
media for online
No 104 40.2
shopping?
7 Which category of Fashion and 59 22.8
products you prefer accessories
to buy online from
Mobiles, Tablets, 42 16.2
social media?
and accessories
Footwear 12 4.6
Books 118 45.6
Movies, Music, and 9 3.5
video games
Holiday packages 19 7.3
Total 259 100

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity

Cronbach’s Composite Composite Average
Alpha Reliability Reliability Variance
(rho_a) (rho_c) Extracted (AVE)
IBB .897 .899 .917 0.582
IBI .840 .839 .904 0.757
SMA .810 .821 .876 0.639
SMC .859 .865 .904 0.701
SMC= Social Media Community, SMA = Social Media Advertisement, IBI= Impulse Buying Intention, IBB= Impulse
Buying Behavior

Page 10 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

4.1. Common method bias

The same respondents’ data was obtained for both dependent and independent conceptions
using a single instrument, resulting in Common method bias (CMB) or common method
variation. We used the latent factor test and Harman’s one-factor test were all used to
evaluate the CMB. The test findings showed that all of the items were properly loaded into
their respective constructs and that there was no preponderance of a single factor that
accounted for most of the variation. The latent factor test results also show no difference of
more than 0.2 in the factor loading of the items on their underlying latent construct (Podsakoff
et al., 2003).

4.2. Measurement model

Testing the measurement model’s validity and reliability was done in this study (Hair et al., 2016).
Table 3‘s results showed that Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and factor loadings were all
over the threshold of 0.70. Average variance extracted (AVE) values for all reflective constructs
exceeded the criterion of 0.50. These findings line up with earlier research (Hair et al., 2016).
Table 3 presents comprehensive findings.

Additionally, the Fornell and Larcker criteria and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) correlation
ratio were used to evaluate discriminant validity (DV). All square root of AVE values in the Fornell
and Larcker criteria were greater than the correlation values of the constructs (Refer Table 4).

Every HTMT reading fell below the threshold of 0.85. (Refer Table 5). These findings demonstrate
that DV is not problematic for this study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

4.3. Structural model

Table 6 illustrates the outcome of the structural model. According to that, the value of R2 that
indicates the total variance of the dependent variable explained by the independent variable is
0.500 for impulse buying intention and 0.336 for impulse buying Behavior. These values exceed the
recommended value of 0.1. Additionally, it was discovered that, with the exception of the H1, the
majority of the factors’ standardized regression path weights were greater than 0.2, and the effect
size (f2) values, which assess whether independent variables have a sizable impact on dependent
variables, were significant (f2 > 0.02). H2 and H3 were accepted out of three hypotheses, but H1
was rejected. Finally, the SRMR (Standardised Root Mean-square Residual) score of 0.045 indicated
that the model had a satisfactory fit. This measurement compares the difference between the
actual correlation and the projected correlation as an adjustment assessment for the model.

The model results indicated in Figure 2 states that the social media community does not
significantly affect impulse buying intention and impulse buying Behavior. Whereas social media
advertisement significantly affects impulse buying intention and impulse buying Behavior. The
results also concluded that impulse buying intention significantly affects impulse buying Behavior.
Therefore, increasing social media advertisements leads to increased positive impulse intentions,
which further leads to increased consumer impulse behavior. The study results indicate
a significant positive effect of social media advertisements on impulse purchase intention.
However, the social media community doesn’t significantly impact impulse buying intention.
Therefore, it can be said that effective advertising on social media with a sound customer
engagement strategy can influence impulse buying.

In contrast, the social media community doesn’t consider it an important tool to influence
impulse buying. Both SMC and SMA significantly covariate and explain 59.3% variance of each
other. Therefore, it can be interpreted that effective advertising on social media can influence
community opinion towards companies’ products and services which may drive the consumer’s
impulse Behavior.

Page 11 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Table 3. Constructs with factor loadings

Constructs Variables Factor loadings
Social Media Community (SMC) (1) Social media help me to con­ 0.851
nect with the people.

(2) I always like to interact with 0.851

people on social media.

(3) It is always easy to find people 0.848

of the same interest group on
social media.

(4) Social Media Community help 0.799

me in taking purchase deci­
sion through their Likes and
Comments on products and
services.

Social media advertisement (SMA) (1) Do you concur that when you 0.713
saw a social media commer­
cial, you didn’t have any plans
to purchase anything?

(2) Do you concur that the social 0.851

networking site’s product
advertisements prompt you to
consider making a purchase?

(3) Do you agree that sometimes 0.849

you make a purchase just
because the discount offered
in the social media marketing
appeals to you and isn’t
offered in physical stores?

(4) Ongoing promotional offers 0.778

with Instant benefits such as
cashback triggers my
unplanned purchase.

Impulse Buying Intention (1) I feel the impulse to buy 0.842

(IBI) things other than or in addi­
tion to my specified purchas­
ing aim when I utilize social
media.

(2) I find that when I utilize social 0.893

media, I have an unforeseen
drive to purchase goods and
services.

(3) I have a tendency to make 0.875

purchases when exploring
social networking websites
that are unrelated to my
intended shopping list.

(Continued)

Page 12 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Constructs Variables Factor loadings

Impulse Buying Behavior (IBB) (1) “Just do it” describes the way 0.725
I buy things.

(2) “Buy now, think about it later” 0.802

describes me.

(3) I usually have the need to 0.752

make impulsive purchases.

(4) I can buy a good or service 0.745

right away if I think I’ll need it.

(5) I end myself making more on- 0.757

the-spot purchases than I had
anticipated.

(6) I often buy stuff without hav­ 0.768

ing any prior plans to do so.

(7) I purchase items that I had no 0.760

idea existed before I went
shopping.

(8) It is enjoyable to make 0.789

impulsive purchases.

Table 4. Discriminant validity: Fornell-Larcker criterion

IBB IBI SMA SMC
IBB 0.763
IBI 0.580 0.870
SMA 0.581 0.704 0.800
SMC 0.311 0.470 0.588 0.838
SMC= Social Media Community, SMA = Social Media Advertisement, IBI= Impulse Buying Intention, IBB= Impulse
Buying Behavior.

Table 5. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) – matrix

IBB IBI SMA SMC
IBB
IBI 0.663
SMA 0.676 0.840
SMC 0.338 0.543 0.691

5. Discussions
The result of the analysis stated that Social Media Community (SMC) does not significantly impact
the Impulse Buying Intention (IBI) with a path coefficient value (Beta) of 0.086 at 5 percent
significance level. Therefore, the first hypothesis, H1: Social Media Community positively influences
the Impulse Buying Intention among Saudi Arabian consumers, was not accepted. The results
pointed out that there is no positive impact of the Social Media Community on Saudi Arabian
consumers’ impulse buying intentions despite the increasing trend of social platforms and virtual
communities in Saudi Arabia. Despite many literature suggested the massive adoption of social
media in Saudi Arabia due to various advantages such as easy access and share information and

Page 13 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results

Relationship- Hypothesis Path R2 f2 SRMR
Construct Coefficient
SMC → IBI H1 0.086NS 0.010
SMA → IBI H2 .653** 0.558
IBI → IBB H3 .580** 0.506
IBI 0.500
IBB 0.336
0.046
**p < 0.01, NS =Non-Significant

Figure 2. Path diagram.

knowledge (Chen et al., 2011), Managing social relations and sharing information with others,
online communities, and Social Networking Sites (SNSs) have become effective web technology (Lu
& Hsiao, 2010), create and share valued knowledge with other users (Füller et al., 2009), sharing
ideas, thoughts, and knowledge in a fraction of a second (Molly McLure & Samer, 2005) and better
customer engagement (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Still, due to high uncertainty avoidance index of
Saudi Arabia consumer, avoidance of uncertainty and risk is very high. They may only show trust
and readiness for any new technology if they have enough information about the product to avoid
uncertainty (Asiri, 2020; Sheikh et al., 2017). This could be the potential reason for non-acceptance
of the H1.

Page 14 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

The impact of SMC on IBI Social media marketing manages customer relations, public relations,
promoting products, etc (Stephen & Galak, 2010; Tanuri, 2010). Social Media Platforms that include
social media communities, online discussion forums, and blogs impact the marketing performance
of companies (Stephen & Galak, 2010). Hence, there is a need to understand the reasons why SMC
has no positive influence on Saudi Arabian consumers.

In contrast to H1, Social Media Advertisements (SMA) significantly influence Impulse Buying
Intention (IBI) as the value of the path coefficient is 0.653 at 0.01 significant level. Additionally,
55.8 percent variance in IBI is explained by SMA (f2). Therefore, the second hypothesis, H2: Social
Media Advertisement positively influences Impulse Buying Intention among Saudi Arabian con­
sumers, was accepted. The results support that SMA positively influences Saudi Arabian consu­
mers’ impulse buying intentions. Moreover, Saudi Arabians, on average, spend more than 2 hours
and 30 minutes on social media a day across different devices such as a laptop or smartphones.
Among Saudi Arabian users, using social media as a platform for shopping, primarily through
Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, is very common (Asiri, 2020). In the context of E-Commerce or
shopping through social media in Saudi Arabia, it includes factors such as quality of information,
system, service, trust, relationship, and knowledge sharing (Alkenani, 2019). Consumers begin to
actively participate in social e-commerce after ensuring that the information from the platform is
of good quality and necessary and appropriate information is available on the said platform
(ALNefaie et al., 2019). While purchasing from social media, service elements such as quality of
service, assurance, empathy, convenience, and reliability impact consumers’ impulsive buying
behavior. These factors contribute to the trust and relationship established on the platform; trust
is one of the core elements that encourage Saudi Arabian consumers to purchase from social
media platforms like Instagram (Asiri, 2020). Lastly, Saudi Arabia consumers are motivated to join
social media commerce because of knowledge sharing, which is the foundation for commercial
activities that consumers participate in (Alkenani, 2019).

Social Media Marketing positively influenced impulse buying behavior among Jordanian consu­
mers, especially women. Moreover, the various products and services offered through social
networking sites attract shoppers’ impulsive purchasing behavior. Hence, companies might con­
sider emphasising more on SMA to attract and retain consumers profitably, in the long run, more
efficiently. Similarly, Impulse Buying Intention (IBI) significantly predicts the actual Impulse Buying
Behavior (IBB) with a path coefficient value of 0.580 at 0.01 significance level. Also, 50.6 percent
variance in IBB explained by IBI (f2) further validates the claim. Therefore, the third hypothesis, H3:
Impulse Buying Intention positively influences the Impulse Buying Behavior of Saudi Arabian
consumers, was accepted. The results indicate that Saudi Arabian consumers are shifting towards
impulse buying with a transformation in their buying Behavior due to the positive influence of
impulse buying intention. A similar study also confirms the influence of impulse buying in which
key factors affecting Impulse buying in Saudi Arabia were identified. These key factors include
lower perceived risks such as rewards and discounts, product ratings from other consumers, and
the perceived proximity of the product to reality, like zoomable pictures or real-like representations
of the products (Moser et al., 2019). Additionally, in another study by Karoui and Khemakhem
(2019), it is suggested that Saudi Arabian consumer buying behavior was influenced by hedonic
variables such as pleasure and happiness. These factors also affect the impulse buying behavior of
Saudi Arabian customers (Hashmi et al., 2019; Karoui & Khemakhem, 2019).

In general, dimensions of impulse buying include hedonic inspiration, variety seeking, website
quality and belief (Al-Zyoud, 2018). Due to external stimuli, consumers experience an instant
desire to purchase without any prior planning. This unexpected and frequent wish to purchase is
termed Impulse buying, is hedonically difficult and may boost responsive engagement. Besides,
impulse buying is inclined to ensue with moderated concern for its significance on consumer
buying (Rook, 1987). A connection between the hedonic values of Saudi Arabia consumers and
impulse buying has been drawn, and the factors affecting the success of social media in Saudi
Arabia are reported. Still, the research gap on how social media influences impulse purchasing in

Page 15 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Saudi Arabia calls for further studies on the topic (Alkenani, 2019; Hashmi et al., 2019; Karoui &
Khemakhem, 2019). Presently customers are managing social interactions and relations through
online forums and communities that directly impact customers’ impulsive buying behavior. Hence,
companies and marketers in Saudi Arabia might consider investigating the disruptive behavioral
changes in the impulse buying nature of Saudi Arabian consumers.

5.1. Managerial implications

The present research proposes a few administrative recommendations for advertisers. To inspire and
increase the tendency of impulse buying amongst consumers, companies should develop an environ­
ment wherein consumers can positively respond to impulse buying. To improve the attitude of Saudi
customers, businesses can strain reasoned action purchasing and some attractive non-monetary
promotion efforts (Rook & Fisher, 1995). The present study reveals that impulse buying behaviors of
Saudi Arabian consumers are influenced by Social Media Advertising. Hence, it is recommended that
advertisers and marketers should expand their social media marketing to enhance the tendency of
impulsive buying among consumers. In the present global business scenario, the impulse buying trend
is growing and consistent with previous studies, Saudi Arabian consumers show a positive response
towards social media advertisements (Winters, 1986). Further, it is recommended to the companies
that they should create a very good corporate image through social media advertisements and
connect their corporate website with social media platforms so that customers can further authenti­
cate the information shared by the companies. Additionally, it will enhance the confidence and belief
of their customers. Social media advertisement should be planned so that it can create a long-lasting
and unforgettable imprint in the mind of consumers (Baek et al., 2014).

5.2. Limitations of the study and future research directions

However, despite its involvement, this study also has some restrictions. First, the study is grounded on
one geographic location, and as an outcome of this, consequences are not completely extrapolated
and might be evident to be effective only in this background. Consequently, it is endorsed that future
studies can be conducted in cross-cultural environments to enhance generalizability. Second, the
collected sample size is only 259 respondents, and further studies should be conducted with a larger
sample. Furthermore, upcoming studies can identify the role of gender-related transformations along
with the varied culture of various countries across the globe. For future studies, scholars can examine
the impact of social media advertising on the buying behavior of customers with respect to various
types of products or services. Additionally, researchers might discover other variables which can also
moderate the path between social media advertising and behavioral intention. These variables, which
have not been addressed in the present study, such as product, place, price, promotion, firm-related
factors, customer mood, demographics, available time, money and further its impact on impulse
buying, can be addressed in future research. Therefore, upcoming studies may possibly consider
cultural modifications to assess the roles of gender-related mental and behavioral modifications.

6. Conclusion
The research aimed to measure the impulse buying tendency and investigate the influence of
social media on impulse buying intention of customers in the context of Saudi Arabia. The
sample considered for the study was social media users. The key findings of this research
contradict the preceding study conducted by Chen et al. (2011). Despite so many advantages
of the Social Media Community, they identify the product information and recommend it to
others (Olbrich & Holsing, 2011; Pagani & Mirabello, 2011). The flexibility of getting the data can
be easily shared with community members sharing product knowledge doesn’t induce impulsive
tendencies among social media users (Chen et al., 2011). The hypothesis results also conclude
that social media advertisements are significantly influencing impulse buying intention.
Businesses use attractive content to grab the target market’s attention through memes, images,
audio, videos, and blogs for SMA and try to influence consumers to stimulate impulse buying
behavior. Bansal and Kumar (2018) suggested that apart from Social Media Advertisement, trust,
website quality, and hedonic motivation when used together, will have a substantial impact on
impulse buying intention.

Page 16 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

The study examined the effects of age and gender on impulse buying intention. It was also
observed that age and gender don’t have a significant impact on impulse buying intention.
Impulse buying intention decreases with an increase in respondents’ age when shopping on social
platforms. However, there is no evidence to accept the impact of gender on impulse buying
intention. Hence the respondents cannot be differentiated based on gender. Finally, the study
concluded that Saudi Arabian consumers are not impulsive buyers and social media has a limited
or nominal impact on their impulse buying behavior. Saudi Arabian consumers carefully plan their
purchases in advance and only buy the products and services they think they need, and those
products and services have some utility for them. Social media helps to find like-minded people
that eventually form an online Social Media Community (Rydell & Kucera, 2021; Segran, 2017). It
has been found that the SMC doesn’t significantly affect Impulse buying intention. Concurrently,
Social media users are also exposed to flooded advertisements on social media pages of various
companies offering products and related information, which certify the power of social media on
consumers’ buying behavior. Therefore, the impact of the SMC and SMA on IBB further needs to be
investigated in more detail in varied geographical and sectoral settings so that contemporary
businesses may get a cutting edge by developing competitive advantages and surviving in their
respective markets for a longer period.

Acknowledgments Akram, U., Hui, P., Khan, M. K., Yan, C., & Akram, Z. (2018).
We are grateful to the Editors and the anonymous Factors affecting online impulse buying: Evidence
reviewers for their constructive guidance. from Chinese social commerce environment.
Sustainability, 10(2), 352. [Link]
Funding su10020352
This research received no external funding. Alkenani, A. A. N. (2019, March). Factors influencing social
e-commerce success in Saudi Arabia-a review.
Author details Proceedings of the 2019 6th International Conference
Prakash Singh1 on Computing for Sustainable Global Development
E-mail: [Link]@[Link] (INDIACom), 13-15 March 2019, New Delhi, India (pp.
ORCID ID: [Link] 1331–1335). IEEE
Bhuvanesh Kumar Sharma2 Al-Masri, A. R. I. (2020). Impulsive buying behavior and its
ORCID ID: [Link] relation to the emotional balance. International
Lokesh Arora3 Journal of Psychological and Brain Sciences, 5(1),
ORCID ID: [Link] 5–20. [Link]
Vimal Bhatt4 ALNefaie, M., Khan, S., & Muthaly, S. (2019). Consumers’
ORCID ID: [Link] electronic word of mouth-seeking intentions on
1
E-Commerce Department, College of Administrative and social media sites concerning Saudi bloggers’
Financial Sciences, Saudi Electronic University, Riyadh, YouTube fashion channels: An eclectic approach.
Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business Forecasting and
2
Management Department, Symbiosis Institute of Marketing Intelligence, 5(1), 1–22. [Link]
Business Management, Pune. Symbiosis International 1504/IJBFMI.2019.099000
(Deemed University), Pune, India. Al-Zyoud, M. F. (2018). Does social media marketing
3
Management Department, IIMS Pune, Pune, enhance impulse purchasing among female customers
Maharashtra, India. case study of Jordanian female shoppers. Journal of
4
Management Department, Symbiosis Institute of Business & Retail Management Research, 13(2). https://
Business Management, Symbiosis International [Link]/10.24052/JBRMR/V13IS02/ART-13
(Deemed University), Pune, India. Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Keneson, W. C. (2014). A
meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal
Disclosure statement of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 86–97.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the [Link]
author(s). Anderson, M., Sims, J., Price, J., & Brusa, J. (2011). Turning
“like” to “buy” social media emerges as a commerce
Data availability statement channel. Booz & Company Inc, 2(1), 102–128.
Data is available. Applebaum, W. (1951). Studying customer behavior in
retail stores. Journal of Marketing, 16(2), 172–178.
Citation information [Link]
Cite this article as: Measuring social media impact on Aragoncillo, L., & Orus, C. (2018). Impulse buying beha­
Impulse Buying Behavior, Prakash Singh, Bhuvanesh vior: An online-offline comparative and the impact of
Kumar Sharma, Lokesh Arora & Vimal Bhatt, Cogent social media. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 22
Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371. (1), 42–62. [Link]
007
References Asiri, G. (2020). Buyer Behavior toward Instagram based
Ahn, J., Lee, S., & Kwon, J. (2020). Impulsive buying in businesses in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation).
hospitality and tourism journals. Annals of Tourism [Link]
Research, 82(1), 102764. [Link] Baek, Y., Ko, R., & Marsh, T., (Eds.). (2014). Trends and
annals.2019.102764 applications of serious gaming and social media.

Page 17 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Springer Singapore. [Link] 18(1), 39–50. [Link]

4560-26-9 002224378101800104
Bansal, M., & Kumar, S. (2018). Impact of social media Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2009).
marketing on online impulse buying behavior. Consumer empowerment through internet-based
Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in co-creation. Journal of Management Information
Allied Education, 15(5), 136–139. [Link] Systems, 26(3), 71–102. [Link]
29070/15/57560 MIS0742-1222260303
Barger, V., Peltier, J. W., & Schultz, D. E. (2016). Social Gaille, B. (2017). 19 dramatic impulse buying statistics.
media and consumer engagement: A review and Retrieved March 22, 2017. from [Link]
research agenda. Journal of Research in Interactive com/18-dramatic-impulse-buying-statistics/
Marketing, 10(4), 268–287. [Link] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
JRIM-06-2016-0065 (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Learning.
Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and con­ Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M.
sumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved hetero­
670–676. [Link] geneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–method. European
Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Business Review, 28(1), 63–76. [Link]
Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 1108/EBR-09-2015-0094
169–191. [Link] Han, M. C. (2023). Checkout button and online consumer
80092-X impulse-buying behavior in social commerce: A trust
Busalim, A. H., & Hussin, A. R. C. (2016). Understanding transfer perspective. Journal of Retailing and
social commerce: A systematic literature review and Consumer Services, 74, 103431. [Link]
directions for further research. International Journal 1016/[Link].2023.103431
of Information Management, 36(6), 1075–1088. Handayani, R. C., Purwandari, B., Solichah, I., & Prima, P.
[Link] (2018). The impact of Instagram “call-to-action”
Chawla, A. (2020). Role of Facebook Video advertisements buttons on customers’ impulse buying. ACM
in influencing the impulsive buying behavior of International Conference Proceeding Series, 50–56.
consumers. Journal of Content, Community and [Link]
Communication Amity School of Communication, 11, Hashmi, H., Attiq, S., & Rasheed, F. (2019). Factors
231–246. [Link] affecting online impulsive buying behavior:
Chen, Y. F., & Wang, R. Y. (2016). Are humans rational? A stimulus organism response model approach.
Exploring factors influencing impulse buying inten­ Market Forces, 14(1), 19–42.
tion and continuous impulse buying intention. Hazari, S., Talpade, S., & Brown, C. O. M. (2023). Do brand
Journal of Consumer Behavior, 15(2), 186–197. influencers matter on TikTok? A social influence the­
[Link] ory perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory &
Chen, J., Xu, H., & Whinston, A. B. (2011). Moderated Practice, 1–19. [Link]
online communities and quality of user-generated 2023.2217488
content. Journal of Management Information Heinemann, G. (2023). Meta-targeting and Business ideas
Systems, 28(2), 237–268. [Link] in online Retailing. In The new online trade: Business
MIS0742-1222280209 models, business systems and benchmarks in
Daniel, E. S., Jr., Crawford Jackson, E. C., & e-commerce(pp. 1–63). Springer Fachmedien
Westerman, D. K. (2018). The influence of social Wiesbaden. [Link]
media influencers: Understanding online vaping 40757-5_1
communities and parasocial interaction through the Huang, L. T. (2016). Flow and social capital theory in
lens of Taylor’s six-segment strategy wheel. Journal online impulse buying. Journal of Business Research,
of Interactive Advertising, 18(2), 96–109. [Link] 69(6), 2277–2283. [Link]
org/10.1080/15252019.2018.1488637 2015.12.042
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015). Islam, T., Pitafi, A. H., Arya, V., Wang, Y., Akhtar, N.,
Consumer engagement in online brand communities: Mubarik, S., & Xiaobei, L. (2021). Panic buying in the
A social media perspective. Journal of Product & COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country examination.
Brand Management, 24(1), 28–42. [Link] Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59
1108/JPBM-06-2014-0635 (March), 102357. [Link]
Dholakia, U. M. (2000). Temptation and resistance: An 2020.102357
integrated model of consumption impulse formation Johan, A., Prayoga, R., Putra, A. P., Fauzi, I. R., &
and enactment. Psychology & Marketing, 17(11), Pangestu, D. (2023). Heavy social media use and
955–982. [Link] hedonic lifestyle, dan hedonic shopping terhadap
(200011)17:11<955:AID-MAR3>[Link];2-J online compulsive buying. Resmilitaris, 13(1),
Djafarova, E., & Bowes, T. (2021). ‘Instagram made me 2783–2797.
buy it’: Generation Z impulse purchases in fashion Joseph, K. G., & Enid, A. (2022). Social media usage and
industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, impulse buying tendency in Uganda: The mediating
59, 102345. [Link] effect of brand community. International Journal of
102345 Social Science and Humanities Research, 10(1), 91–97.
Fauser, S. G., Wiedenhofer, J., & Lorenz, M. (2011). Karoui, S., & Khemakhem, R. (2019). Factors affecting the
Touchpoint social web”: An explorative study about Islamic purchasing behavior–a qualitative study.
using the social web for influencing high involvement Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(4), 1104–1127.
purchase decisions. Problems and Perspectives in [Link]
Management, 9(1), 39–45. Khokhar, A. A., Baker Qureshi, P. A., Murtaza, F., &
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural Kazi, A. G. (2019). The impact of social media on
equation models with unobservable variables and impulse buying behavior in Hyderabad Sindh
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, Pakistan. International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Page 18 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Research, 2(2), 8–12. [Link] Madhu, S., Soundararajan, V., & Parayitam, S. (2023).
v2i2.907 Online promotions and hedonic motives as modera­
Kollat, D. T., & Willett, R. P. (1969). Is impulse purchasing tors in the relationship between e-impulsive buying
really a useful concept for marketing decisions? tendency and customer satisfaction: Evidence from
Journal of Marketing, 33(1), 79–83. [Link] India. Journal of Internet Commerce, 22(3), 395–431.
1177/002224296903300113 [Link]
Koo, D. M., & Ju, S. H. (2010). The interactional effects of Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to
atmospherics and perceptual curiosity on emotions environmental psychology Cambridge. Massachusetts
and online shopping intention. Computers in Human Institute of Technology.
Behavior, 26(3), 377–388. [Link] Miller, K. D., Fabian, F., & Lin, S. J. (2009). Strategies for
chb.2009.11.009 online communities. Strategic Management Journal,
Korkmaz, S., & Seyhan, F. (2021). The effect of social 30(3), 305–322. [Link]
media on impulse buying behavior during the Molly McLure, W., & Samer, F. (2005). Why should I share?
COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Health Examining social capital and knowledge contribution
Management and Tourism, 6(3), 621–646. [Link] in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29
org/10.31201/ijhmt.994064 (1), 35–57. [Link]
Koski, N. (2004). Impulse buying on the internet: Moon, M. A., Farooq, A., & Kiran, M. (2017). Social shop­
Encouraging and discouraging. Frontiers of E-Business ping motivations of impulsive and compulsive buying
Research. behaviors. UW Journal of Management Sciences, 1(1),
Kühn, S. W., & Petzer, D. J. (2018). Fostering purchase 15–27. [Link]
intentions toward online retailer websites in an [Link]
emerging market: An SOR perspective. Journal of Moser, C., Schoene Beck, S. Y., & Resnick, P. (2019, May).
Internet Commerce, 17(3), 255–282. [Link] Impulse buying: Design practices and consumer
10.1080/15332861.2018.1463799 needs. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on
Kusmaharani, A. S., & Halim, R. E. (2020). Social influence Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–15. https://
and online impulse buying of Indonesian indie cos­ [Link]/10.1145/3290605.3300472
metic products. MIX: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 10(2), Nambisan, P., & Watt, J. H. (2011). Managing customer
237–248. [Link] experiences in online product communities. Journal
Lavuri, R., & Thaichon, P. (2023). Do extrinsic factors of Business Research, 64(8), 889–895. [Link]
encourage shoppers’ compulsive buying? Store 10.1016/[Link].2010.09.006
environment and product characteristics. Marketing Nasir, V. A., Keserel, A. C., Surgit, O. E., & Nalbant, M.
Intelligence & Planning, 41(6), 722–740. [Link] (2021). Segmenting consumers based on social
org/10.1108/MIP-03-2023-0097 media advertising perceptions: How does purchase
Lee, G. Y., & Yi, Y. (2008b). The effect of shopping emo­ intention differ across segments? Telematics and
tions and perceived risk on impulsive buying: The Informatics, 64, 101687. [Link]
moderating role of buying impulsiveness trait. Seoul tele.2021.101687
Journal of Business, 14(2), 67–92. [Link] Olbrich, R., & Holsing, C. (2011). Modeling consumer pur­
35152/snusjb.2008.14.2.004 chasing behavior in social shopping communities
Li, Y. (2015). Impact of impulsive buying behavior on post with clickstream data. International Journal of
impulsive buying satisfaction. Social Behavior and Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 15–40. [Link]
Personality, 43(2), 339–352. [Link] 2753/JEC1086-4415160202
sbp.2015.43.2.339 Ortiz, J., Chiu, T. S., Wen-Hai, C., & Hsu, C. W. (2017).
Li, Y. L., & Jing, F. J. (2012). Post-impulsive buying beha­ Perceived justice, emotions, and behavioral inten­
vior satisfaction based on the analysis of impulsive tions in the Taiwanese food and beverage industry.
buying predisposing factors. Chinese Journal of International Journal of Conflict Management, 28(4),
Management, 9(3), 437–445. 437–463. [Link]
Lin, S. C., Tseng, H. T., Shirazi, F., Hajli, N., & Tsai, P. T. 0084
(2022). Exploring factors influencing impulse buying Pagani, M., & Mirabello, A. (2011). The influence of per­
in live streaming shopping: A stimulus-organism- sonal and social-interactive engagement in social TV
response (SOR) perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of web sites. International Journal of Electronic
Marketing & Logistics, 35(6), 1383–1403. [Link] Commerce, 16(2), 41–68. [Link]
org/10.1108/APJML-12-2021-0903 JEC1086-4415160203
Lo, L. Y. S., Lin, S. W., & Hsu, L. Y. (2016). Motivation for Pahlevan Sharif, S., She, L., Yeoh, K. K., & Naghavi, N.
online impulse buying: A two-factor theory (2022). Heavy social networking and online compul­
perspective. International Journal of Information sive buying: The mediating role of financial social
Management, 36(5), 759–772. [Link] comparison and materialism. Journal of Marketing
1016/[Link].2016.04.012 Theory & Practice, 30(2), 213–225. [Link]
Lou, C., & Yuan, S. (2019). Influencer marketing: How 1080/10696679.2021.1909425
message value and credibility affect consumer trust Parsons, A. G., Ballantine, P. W., Ali, A., & Grey, H. (2014).
of branded content on social media. Journal of Deal is on! Why people buy from daily deal websites.
Interactive Advertising, 19(1), 58–73. [Link] Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(1),
10.1080/15252019.2018.1533501 37–42. [Link]
Lu, H. P., & Hsiao, K. L. (2010). The influence of extro/ 003
introversion on the intention to pay for social net­ Pavlov, P. I. (2010). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation
working sites. Information & Management, 47(3), of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex.
150–157. [Link] Annals of Neurosciences, 17(3), 136. [Link]
Madhavaram, S. R., & Laverie, D. A. (2004). Exploring 10.5214/ans.0972-7531.1017309
impulse purchasing on the internet. Advances in Pellegrino, A., Abe, M., & Shannon, R. (2022). The dark side
Consumer Research, 31, 59–66. [Link] of social media: Content effects on the relationship
[Link]/volumes/8849/volumes/v31/NA-31 between materialism and consumption behaviors.

Page 19 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 870614. [Link] [Link]/jspui/bitstream/10603/232122/8/chap

10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870614 [Link]
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Sharma, B. K., Mishra, S., & Arora, L. (2018). Does social
Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in medium influence impulse buying of Indian buyers?
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature Journal of Management Research, 18(1), 27–36.
and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Sheikh, Z., Islam, T., Rana, S., Hameed, Z., & Saeed, U.
Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Link] (2017). Acceptance of social commerce framework in
0021-9010.88.5.879 Saudi Arabia. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8),
Pradhan, V. (2016). Study on impulsive buying behavior 1693–1708. [Link]
among consumers in supermarket in Kathmandu 003
Valley. Journal of Business and Social Sciences She, L., Rasiah, R., Waheed, H., & Pahlevan Sharif, S.
Research, 1(2), 215–233. [Link] (2021). Excessive use of social networking sites and
jbssr.v1i2.20926 financial well-being among young adults: The med­
Prentice, C., Chen, J., & Stantic, B. (2020). Timed inter­ iating role of online compulsive buying. Young
vention in COVID-19 and panic buying. Journal of Consumers, 22(2), 272–289. [Link]
Retailing and Consumer Services, 57(November), YC-11-2020-1252
102203. [Link] Sherman, E., Mathur, A., & Smith, R. B. (1997). Store
102203 environment and consumer purchase behavior:
Rahman, M. S., Bag, S., Hossain, M. A., Fattah, F. A. M. A., Mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology &
Gani, M. O., & Rana, N. P. (2023). The new wave of AI- Marketing, 14(4), 361–378. [Link]
powered luxury brands online shopping experience: (SICI)1520-6793(199707)14:4<361:AID-MAR4>3.0.
The role of digital multisensory cues and customers’ CO;2-7
engagement. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Shiva, A., & Singh, M. (2019). Stock hunting or blue chip
Services, 72, 103273. [Link] investments? investors’ preferences for stocks in vir­
conser.2023.103273 tual geographies of social networks. Qualitative
Rahman, M. F., & Hossain, M. S. (2023). The impact of Research in Financial Markets, 12(1), 1–23. [Link]
website quality on online compulsive buying beha­ org/10.1108/QRFM-11-2018-0120
vior: Evidence from online shopping organizations. Siriaraya, P., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Kawai, Y., Mittal, M.,
South Asian Journal of Marketing, 4(1), 1–16. https:// Jeszenszky, P., & Jatowt, A. (2019, November).
[Link]/10.1108/SAJM-03-2021-0038 Witnessing crime through tweets: A crime investiga­
Rehman, F., Ilyas, M., Nawaz, T., & Hyder, S. (2014). How tion tool based on social media. In Proceedings of the
Facebook advertising affects buying behavior of 27th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on
young consumers: The moderating role of gender. Advances in Geographic Information Systems,
Undefined, 5(4), 395–404. 568–571. [Link]
Reynolds, L., Doering, H., Koenig-Lewis, N., & Peattie, K. Song, S., Yao, X., & Wen, N. (2021). What motivates
(2023). Engagement and estrangement: A “tale of Chinese consumers to avoid information about the
two cities” for Bristol’s green branding. European COVID-19 pandemic?: The perspective of the
Journal of Marketing. [Link] stimulus-organism-response model. Information
2021-0602 Processing & Management, 58(1), 102407. [Link]
Richard, M. O. (2005). Modeling the impact of internet org/10.1016/[Link].2020.102407
atmospherics on surfer behavior. Journal of Business Stephen, A. T., & Galak, J. (2010). The complementary
Research, 58(12), 1632–1642. [Link] roles of traditional and social media publicity in
1016/[Link].2004.07.009 driving marketing performance. Fontainebleau:
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community INSEAD working paper collection, 1–40.
attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Stern, H. (1962). The significance of impulse buying today.
Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Journal of Marketing, 26(2), 59–62. [Link]
JCMC10110. [Link] 1177/002224296202600212
2004.tb00229.x Tanuri, I. (2010). A literature review: Role of social media
Rodgers, S., Thorson, E., & Jin, Y. (2014). Social science in contemporary marketing. Retrieved from: http://
theories of traditional and internet advertising. An [Link]/groovygenie/role-ofsocial-media-
Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and incontemporary-marketing
Research, 212–234. Varghese, B. A., & Chitra, S. (2022). The role of social
Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of media on impulse buying behavior of customers in
Consumer Research, 14(2), 189–199. [Link] Kottarakara Taluk Kerala. Journal of Positive School
10.1086/209105 Psychology, 6(3), 7921–7929.
Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differ­
impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer ences in impulse buying tendency: Feeling and no
Research, 22(3), 305–313. [Link] thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15
209452 (1_suppl), S71–S83. [Link]
Rydell, L., & Kucera, J. (2021). Cognitive attitudes, beha­ Volpi, F., & Clark, J. A. (2019). Activism in the middle East
vioral choices, and purchasing habits during the and North Africa in times of upheaval: Social net­
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Self-Governance and works’ actions and interactions. Social Movement
Management Economics, 9(4), 35–47. [Link] Studies, 18(1), 1–16. [Link]
10.22381/jsme9420213 14742837.2018.1538876
Segran, E. (2017). Why hasn’t Zara paid Istanbul workers Wang, Y. J., Hernandez, M. D., & Minor, M. S. (2010). Web
in over a year? Angry customers want to know. Fast aesthetics effects on perceived online service quality
Company Online. and satisfaction in an e-tail environment: The mod­
Sharma, B. K. (2019). Impact of social media on consumer erating role of purchase task. Journal of Business
buying behavior with reference to e retailing compa­ Research, 63(9–10), 935–942. [Link]
nies. Jiwaji University. [Link] 1016/[Link].2009.01.016

Page 20 of 21
Singh et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2262371
[Link]

Wegmann, E., Müller, S. M., Kessling, A., Joshi, M., Ihle, E., commerce platform: The role of para social interac­
Wolf, O. T., & Müller, A. (2023). Online compulsive tion. International Journal of Information
buying-shopping disorder and social networks-use Management, 36(3), 333–347. [Link]
disorder: More similarities than differences? 1016/[Link].2015.11.002
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 124, 152392. [Link] Yang, F., Tang, J., Men, J., & Zheng, X. (2021). Consumer
org/10.1016/[Link].2023.152392 perceived value and impulse buying behavior on mobile
Winters, L. C. (1986). The effect of brand advertising on commerce: The moderating effect of social influence.
company image-implications for corporate Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, 102683.
advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 26(2), [Link]
54–59. Yi, Q., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., & Zhao, S. (2023). Impulse
Woodworth, R. S. (1929). Psychology. Henry Holt & Co. buying tendency in live-stream commerce: The role
Department of Psychology University of Vermont of viewing frequency and anticipated emotions
Burlington, Vermont. influencing scarcity-induced purchase decision.
Wu, L., Chiu, M. L., & Chen, K. W. (2020). Defining the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 75,
determinants of online impulse buying through 103534. [Link]
a shopping process of integrating perceived risk, 103534
expectation-confirmation model, and flow theory Zafar, A. U., Qiu, J., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Shahzad, M. (2021).
issues. International Journal of Information The impact of social media celebrities’ posts and
Management, 52, 102099. [Link] contextual interactions on impulse buying in social
ijinfomgt.2020.102099 commerce. Computers in Human Behavior, 115,
Wu, Y. L., & Li, E. Y. (2018). Marketing mix, customer 106178. [Link]
value, and customer loyalty in social commerce: A Zhang, M., Ren, C., Wang, G. A., & He, Z. (2018). The
stimulus-organism-response perspective. Internet impact of channel integration on consumer
Research, 28(1), 74–104. [Link] responses in omni-channel retailing: The mediating
IntR-08-2016-0250 effect of consumer empowerment. Electronic
Xiang, H., Chau, K. Y., Iqbal, W., Irfan, M., & Dagar, V. Commerce Research and Applications, 28, 181–193.
(2022). Determinants of social commerce usage and [Link]
online impulse purchase: Implications for business Zhao, Z., Chen, M., & Zhang, W. (2019). Social community,
and digital revolution. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, personal involvement, and psychological processes:
837042. [Link] A study of impulse buying in the online shopping
Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M. K., & Zhao, D. (2016). Exploring carnival. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 20
consumers’ impulse buying behavior on social (4), 255–272.

Page 21 of 21
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor and
Francis Group. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License [Link]/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content
in accordance with the terms of the License.