Effects of Busy Mindset and Self-Worth on Impulsive Buying: In the Category of Hedonic Products

Abstract

Purpose: The research aims to examine whether perception about busyness can affect the way people view themselves and then make an impact on purchase decision-making. Based on a proposed theoretical framework, the current research examines whether or not perception about busyness affects perceived self-worth and has an impact on impulsive buying. Research design, data, and methodology: The paper conducted a survey in which two scenarios are used for manipulating degree of busy mindset. For analyzing data, analysis of variance and regression analysis are applied, in conjunction with analysis of moderating effects. Results: Busy mindset has a positive effect on perceived self-worth. The effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth is greater in the group of high perceived social mobility. In the category of hedonic products, perceived self-worth has a positive effect on impulsive buying intention. Conclusions: These results imply that a sense of self-worth can affect impulsive buying behavior on the basis that people sometimes buy things on impulse as a way of self-indulgence or self-reward for their efforts. Managerial implications of the results suggest a busy appeal to consumers would be more effective for hedonic products.

1. Introduction

As an advanced society gets more complex than before, people tend to live a busy life. As for modern consumers, Schulte (2014) noted that busyness is the main characteristic for modern consumers and they perceive busyness more than ever. Recently busyness and overwork have become a symbol of one’s social status. One probably gets the responses such as ‘Busy,’ ‘Too busy,’ ‘Tied up or hectic’ for the question ‘How are you doing? In the current American society. Many entertainment celebrities often complain in the Twitter, ‘I have no personal life,’ ‘I desperately need a break,’ and so on (Alford, 2012). However, people sometimes enjoy their tasks and responsibilities because busyness signifies they are important figure and are relieved to live a meaningful life.

People in the world are likely to complain about not enough vacations. Korea is not an exception to it. Koreans, seven out of ten, express their opinion that they lack vacations. Thirty-two percent of the respondents in a survey needed to check their e-mails even during the off-duty periods (Financial News, 2018). In Korean society, people like to make more efficient use of their time, as more flexible choices of working time are possible. Since IT(information technologies) and business platforms have developed, a two-job syndrome spread widely based on a variety of secondary jobs in addition to the primary job. Thus Korean people are expected to live more busily than ever, thanks to rapid economic growth and severe competition in Korean society.

Many advertisements with the creative of busy CF(commercial film) models are delivered to target consumer segments. Varied products and services are introduced in the Korean market to solve the problems associated with consumer busyness. Among those kinds of products are Siri by Apple, AI (artificial intelligence), and personal secretary application. Apple Siri’s famous advertising copy is “Siri does more than ever. Even before you ask.” The copy emphasizes the point that Siri is capable of providing any information needed by the user. It is highly intriguing what busyness mindset has if any, effect on consumer decision-making.

In the existing literature, busyness mindset has a significant impact on consumer purchase decision (Gershuny, 2005, 2011; Bellezza et al., 2017; Kim, 2019). Busyness mindset is a perception that there are a lot of things to do and, and not just the notion of time shortage (Gershuny, 2005). According to Gershuny (2005), the busy mindset and a long working time can serve as a symbol of high social status. Social status shows how one is respected by others and how one is viewed highly by others.

In the United States, people who have confidence in that the ones working hard are able to succeed, tend to view highly of busy persons (Bellezza et al., 2017). According to Kim et al. (2019), consumer busy mindset affects consumer decision-making by improving self-importance. Busy people tend to deposit more money in the bank account in this research. Consumer self-perception has an effect on purchase decision (Levy, 1959). One’s high capability and power are likely to lead to larger spending on products. Thus perceived self-worth is expected to drive impulsive buying. Most prior research on busyness (e.g., Gershuny, 2005, 2011; Bellezza et al., 2017; Kim, 2019) has been done in American society. It is wondering whether the results of the prior research can be also the case in Korean society. Accordingly, research on busy mindset is necessary with focus on the Korean consumers.

This research intends to validate empirically the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth and to confirm the effect in the presence of moderating effects of social mobility. Further, the research aims to explore the effect of self-worth on impulsive buying. Since impulsive buying is classified as hedonic purchase associated with affective and socio-psychological motive (Sharma et al., 2010), this research also intends to the moderating effect of product type (utilitarian vs. hedonic) in the effect of self-worth on impulsive buying.

2. Literature Reviews

2.1. Busy Mindset

According to Dictionary.com, busyness refers to the state of being or appearing to be actively engaged in an activity (www.dictionary.com). The concept of busyness has been widely explored in the existing literature. Gershuny (2005) posits busy mindset is a subjective perception of a lot of work or businesses to do and is based on personal judgement of activity pattern. Bellezza et al. (2017) refers to busyness as doing paid work for a long time and lacking leisure time.

The causes of busyness can be classified into environmental factors, relational factors, personal factors, and cultural factors. The examples of environmental factors include workload, lack of workforce, physical space and layout, disturbances, and so on. Relational factors, like environmental factors, influence both the physical and psychological aspects of busyness. Relational factors are due to an unsmooth relationship with one’s colleagues, supervisors, and family members. Busyness can depend on personal factors such as personal characteristics, personal needs, and individual ability to cope with it. Cultural factors refer to attitudes, convictions, rituals obtained through socialization and learning process (Drennan, 1992). Those within the organization that recognize and compensate busyness are reluctant to be lazy and want to stay busy for pursuing motive and meanings in their beings (Bellezza et al., 2017). Williams (1986) suggests there are many people who feel guilty a bit for not working too long and even feel insecure in case of certain leisure time.

Busy mindset is defined in considering the relationship between busyness and time pressure. (Gershuny, 2005). Based on the prior research (Williams, 1986; Gershuny, 2005; Kim et al., 2019; Bellezza et al., 2017), subjective perception of busyness can depend on individuals and their situations while time constraints for accomplishing a job can influence how busy they are. Busyness is nothing but a perception of having a lot of work to do, and it has nothing to do with the notion of accomplishing many things under time pressure. Regarding this point, Kim et al. (2019) posit busyness is differentiated from time pressure even though these two are related to each other. In more detail, the meaning of “I am busy” is best associated with “I am occupied,” “I have a lot to do,” and “I am working hard.” The meaning of “I feel pressed for time” is best associated with “I don’t have enough time to finish everything,” “I am worried about completing all the tasks,” and “Deadline is approaching.” In other words, time pressure does not necessarily bring in the notion of busyness. Thus this research defines busy mindset as lack of leisure time or perception of a lot of work to do.

2.2. Perceived Self-worth and Busy Mindset

Self-worth refers to the perception of self-value and how one like oneself. This notion is concerned with the ways of evaluating oneself such as self-esteem, self-image, and self-perception (Erol & Orth, 2011). Self-importance refers to self-evaluation of how important one views oneself (Kim et al., 2019). Self-importance shows how one regards and evaluate oneself. Self-importance is an aspect of global self-view. Many researchers have cast doubts on any linear relationship between global self-view and self-control. For instance, positive self-view postpones any immediate satisfaction and improves one’s ability to wait for greater compensation in the future (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988). Pyszczynski et al. (2004) show that those who have high self-esteem are more likely to choose long-term profits rather than short-term pleasure.

As rapid changes have been vested in modern societies and workplaces, lack of leisure time can be a symbol of one’s value. In the past, leisure had been a signal of one’s wealth with no need for work (Williams, 1986). Unlike the past, since busyness, ambition, diligence, and success become characteristics of respect and value in modern society, people get to demonstrate they are busy more openly.

In a similar vein, people tend to show their social status by owning premium products. “Right place to live,” “right car to drive,” and “right clothing to wear” are used as a symbol of social status (Çiğdem et al., 2019). Bellezza et al. (2017) find that those who are busy without leisure time are regarded as higher in social status than the people with enough leisure. Based on Bellezza and Dubois (2014), one’s social status does not represent just one’s social class, but also how highly he or she is respected or judged. Such social status can be determined by both wealth and honor endowed from one’s family, and one’s accomplishments such as academic degree, occupation, organizational position, and so on.

In general, those who are highly skilled and capable tend to live a busy life (Gershuny, 2011). Those who accumulate more human capital are more motivated to live busy than the people who do not (Linder, 1970). In our society, those who are considered important people tend to make greater profits by investing their time. Work on the job is central to their lives and is greatly meaningful. Furthermore busy people are more likely to have features that are highly needed by the employment market, and they tend to be more important and busier than others (Kim et al., 2019).

Based on the above prior research on the positive relationship between one’s busyness and one’s perceived importance (Linder, 1970; Gershuny, 2011; Kim et al., 2019), the busier a person, the higher subjective evaluation of one’s value and importance. Busy mindset is hypothesized to influence positively perceived self-worth.

H 1: Busy mindset has a positive effect on perceived self-worth.

2.3. Perceived Social Mobility

Social mobility refers to vertical and horizontal mobilization between social classes within a society (Corneo & Grüner, 2002). Social mobility can measure social fairness or whether one can succeed with one’s own efforts (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2005; Corneo & Grüner, 2002; Bjørnskov et al., 2013). High social mobility alludes the possibility that one can achieve the intended social position by making a lot of efforts and one’s capability. Thereby compensations depend on actual accomplishments. Low social mobility can be viewed as opportunity inequality and social inelasticity rather than individual efforts. Social mobility in the US culture is reflected in the American Dream where individuals can realize his or her objective of life through hard work and free choice, irrespective of the constraints of one’s social class, religion, and race. Accordingly, those who have confidence in social mobility regard hard work as instrument for higher social position.

Crocker and Park (2012) conjectures that perception of self is determined by what is considered as the core of self. For example, pro-society behavior is compatible with the people who appreciate generosity to themselves. Thus those who believe hard work can lead to what they want to get are likely to evaluate highly the people working hard. This conjecture is empirically validated by Bellezza et al. (2017). In their research, it is analyzed how busyness at work is perceived by others. In the research, scenarios were manipulated where a 35-year old hypothetical figure is used for experimental group while another hypothetical figure who does not work hard and enjoys a free life is used for the control group. Respondents in the experimental group perceive the stimulus as high in social position. This alludes the moderating effect of social mobility is significant. In other words, those who are confident that hard work brings about higher social status tend to regard busy people as high in social class. Based on the above prior research on social mobility (Bellezza et al., 2017; Crocker and Park 2012; Alesina and La Ferrara, 2005; Corneo & Grüner, 2002; Bjørnskov et al., 2013), social mobility is hypothesized to have a moderating role on the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth.

H2: Positive effect of busy mindset on self-worth depends on perceived social mobility.

2.4. Impulsive Buying

by subjective disposition of rushed decision and immediate ownership (Rook and Gardner, 1993). Bayley and Nancarrow (1998) defines impulsive buying as outcome of impulsive purchase decision and buying behavior without considering product information and choice. Engel and Blackwell (1982) posits that impulsive buying does not accompany purchase intention before entering into a store. Impulsive buying is based on temporary failure of self-control (Baumeister, 2002).

The factors influencing impulsive buying consists of internal and external factors. External factors for impulsive buying include in-store layout and stimuli related to shopping and marketing environments for stimulating consumer purchase. Shopping environments include store scale, store ambience, store design, etc. while marketing environments include promotional and advertising activities and programs (Piron, 1991). Applebaum (1951) addressed that impulsive buying occurs with consumer exposure to stimuli in the store. Varied stimuli in the store influence customers both directly and indirectly. For example, customer purchase decision is affected by the marketing factors such as store lighting, store layout, product display, background music, uniforms and behavior of store employees, and so on. Promotional activities and programs such as incentives for using specific credit cards and extra shopping, and alliance with credit card companies can enhance customer benefits and stimulate impulsive buying. Internal factors for impulsive buying include customer individual characteristics. Chang et.al (2011) asserts that customers with positive emotional response are more likely to buy on impulse. Hawkins et al. (2007) also postulate that customer seeking for variety can incur impulsive buying or brand switching. In a similar research, Sneath et al. (2009) posits that customer variety-seeking behavior is related to impulsive buying. Some consumers buy on impulse to relieve their depression or improve their mood. Verplanken and Herabadi (2001) found comparable results and alluded that impulsive buying is linked to intention to elude negative emotional state. Mood and emotion have effect on consumer decision process (Puccinelli et al., 2009; Ling & Lee, 2018). Consumer mood determines shopping time, consumer ways of product comparison and evaluation (Swinyard, 1993; Cho, 2012; Chun & Park, 2018), information search and brand assessment process (Gardner, 1985; Shin & Park, 2020), and consumption expenditures (Murray et al., 2010). Consumers in a positive mood are likely to spend more on shopping (Murray et al., 2010). According to Youn and Faber (2000), both positive mood and negative mood can cause impulsive buying and impulsive buying can come from consumer characteristics like lack of self-control.

2.5. Self-worth and Impulsive Buying

Consumers sometimes buy on impulse to retain their positive emotional state. Beatty and Ferrell (1998) postulate that positive emotional state stimulates more impulsive buying than a negative emotional state. In a similar vein, Hill and Gardner (1987) posit that consumers tend to make a faster buying decision, to spend less time evaluating products, and not to consider additional information about products. Ozer & Gultekin (2015) empirically validated that people in a positive mood do more impulsive buying.

Many researchers (Bellenger et al., 1978; Cobb and Hoyer, 1986) define impulsive buying as unplanned purchase. According to Hawkins and Mothersbaugh (2010), unplanned purchase consists of two components: reminder buying and impulsive buying. Buying a certain product out of stock at home while looking around in the store is not impulsive buying, but reminder buying (Hawkins and Mothersbaugh, 2010). This research aims to explore impulsive buying by excluding reminder buying. Impulsive buying refers to not predetermined or unplanned purchase (Baumeister, 2002) and also suddenly immediate purchase (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). Impulsive buying is accompanied by intense feeling (Wood, 1998). Since impulsive buying depends on personal consumption tendency, and not environmental factors (Puri, 1996), it is determined by perceived self-worth how customers consume products for themselves (Rucker et al., 2011). According to Kim et al. (2019), self-worth enhances self-regulatory behaviors such as savings. On the other hand, consumers in impulsive buying decide to purchase without considering long-term goals and plans such as savings (Baumeister, 2002)

Research on self-gifting suggests that perceived selfworth can stimulate impulsive buying. According to Mick and DeMoss (1990), self-gifting consists of four major motives: hedonic, reward, celebratory, therapeutic (e.g., relieving negative mood, reinforcing positive mood). Reward self-gifting stimulates consumers experiencing success with a sense of deservingness to actively buy on impulse (Mick & Faure, 1998). To be more specific, consumers can self-gift by impulsive buying, given the sacrifice for achieving their goals (Hausman, 2000). This is analogous to the case that people on diet eat whatever they want after weight loss, or that students after the final exam amuse themselves at their will. Mick and DeMoss (1990) posit that some people rationalize and reconin ppiscile themselves with buying unnecessary products for making compensation for efforts for achieving their goals. Mortimer et al. (2015) shows that impulsive shopping behavior has positive association with self-gifting. People tend to make a purchase to satisfy need for self-actualization and need for esteem. For example, consumers think they have a need for keeping up with fashion since other people judge them by their appearances, clothing in particular. When they find their favorite clothing, they tend to persuade themselves to buy on impulse despite that they have no prior plan for it. Moreover, people with high capability and power feel that they have large assets and are worthy of spending more on shopping (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

Based on prior research, in this research (Mick & DeMoss 1990; Hausman, 2000; Mortimer et al., 2015; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), it is hypothesized that people with high self-worth are more likely to buy on impulse.

H3: Self-worth has a positive effect on impulsive buying intention.

2.6. Product Type (utilitarian vs. hedonic)

Products are classified into two types by consumer objective of buying: hedonic and utilitarian product. Hedonic products intend to primarily satisfy consumer emotional needs such as enjoyment and pleasure (Woods, 1960; Holbrook, 1986). Consumers can express actual and ideal self-image by hedonic products (Khalil, 2000). Keller (1993) conjectures that brand personality such as symbolic attributes act as a more important criterion than concrete product-related attributes. On the other hand, utilitarian products intended for functional benefits (Woods, 1960). In buying utilitarian products, consumers regard product attributes as an important and deterministic factor is utilitarian benefits of the products. Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) postulate that consumers use different methods of evaluation and choice for hedonic products and utilitarian products when they have a high impulsive tendency. Regarding product type and impulsive buying, Ramanathan and Williams (2007) posits that characteristics of impulsive buying are similar to attributes of experiential pleasure. In the hierarchy of needs by Maslow (1943), need for esteem and need for self-actualization would escalate impulsive buying (Hausman, 2000). Sharma et al. (2010) conjecture that impulsive buying is a hedonic behavior related to affective and socio-psychological motive, and not a rational behavior related to functional benefits. Thus it is hypothesized that product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) has a moderating role in the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying.

H4: The effect of self-worth on impulsive buying intention depends on product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian).

In sum, this research aims to clarify the following effects. Busy mindset has a positive effect on perceived self-worth. Social mobility has a moderating role in the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth. Perceived self-worth has a positive effect on impulsive buying. The effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying depends on product type(hedonic vs. utilitarian).

3. Data and Research Methodology

3.1. Pretest

3.1.1. Pretest for Selecting Stimuli Products of Each Type

This research intends to explore whether product type has any moderating role in the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying. Product type is classified into two categories: hedonic vs. utilitarian. The list of 10 stimuli product candidates includes shampoo, fragrance candle, wallet, bracelet, moisturizing cream, sunglasses, running shoes, perfume, smartphone, and luxury wristwatch. For controlling the confounding effect of price level, a pair of hedonic and utilitarian products at the same price range was given to the respondents for the pretest (Table 1).

Table 1: List of products and measurement items for pretest

Fifty respondents at their 20’s to 50’s in the pretest. All the items (Product A makes me pleasant; Product A makes me feel joy; Product A is convenient to me; Product A is useful to me) are measured by 5-point Likert Scale (1=very disagree, 5=very agree).

3.1.2. Results of Pretest

Based on the results of the pretest, a fragrance candle was selected as hedonic product stimuli and shampoo was selected as utilitarian product stimuli. By t-test of the paired sample, fragrance candle has higher hedonic than utilitarian value (M=3.18 vs. M=2.45; t= 4.761, p= 0.000). Shampoo has higher utilitarian value than hedonic value (M=3.58 vs. M=2.58; t= 5.247, p= 0.000). In terms of hedonic value, fragrance candle has higher hedonic value than shampoo (t= 2.782, p= 0.008). In terms of utilitarian value, shampoo has higher hedonic value than fragrance candle (t= 5.173, p= 0.000). Accordingly, fragrance candle was used as hedonic stimuli while shampoo was used as utilitarian stimuli.

3.2. Operationalization and Measurement of Variables

3.2.1. Busy Mindset

In this research, busy mindset is operationalized for testing the effect of busy mindset on self-worth. The operationalization of busy mindset is done by modifying the measuring items of Kim et al. (2019). In the experimental group, a scenario was used; “Korean people live a busy life, according to a study. In the study, seven out of 10 responded that they lack vacations. Even during vacations, 32% of respondents told they needed to check the e-mail every day. The experimental group was given the above scenario and asked to respond how they are busy. In the control group, the participants were asked to write down three activities on an ordinary day scenario without any scenario on busyness. Then they were also asked to respond how they are busy (How busy do you think you are?), on the Likert 7-point scale.

3.2.2. Perceived Social Mobility

Perceived social mobility is defined as vertical and horizontal movement between the classes of a society (Sorokin 1927). Perceived social mobility was measured by the three items in Cha and Lee (2017); “One can someday improve one’s social status with hard working in our society,” “Education and chance for success is open to poor people in our society,“ and “One can live a peaceful life by working diligently.” All the items are measured by the Likert 7-point scale (1=completely disagree, 7=completely agree).

3.2.3. Self-worth

Self-worth is defined as one’s own evaluation on how important he or she is (Kim et al., 2019). Perceived self-worth was measured by the modified five items from (Kim et al., 2019); “I think I am an important person,” “I feel I am an unreplaceable person to others,” “I think my life has an important meaning,” “I think I am important to my friends and my family,” “I think my life is precious.” All the items are measured by the Likert 7-point scale (1=completely disagree, 7=completely agree).

3.2.4. Impulse Buying

Impulse buying is measured in a hypothetical situation where participants find fragrance candle and shampoo after they shop around a while. The measuring items for impulse buying include ; “I tend to buy some products without prior plan,” “I make an unplanned purchases,” “I tend to buy first the products of interest,” “It is interesting to buy products on impulse, “I tend not to buy the products that are not on the shopping list.” The fifth item was reverse-coded. All the items are measured by the Likert 7-point scale(1=completely disagree, 7=completely agree).

3.3. Demographics of Data

Frequency analysis is done for analyzing demographics of the sample. In main test, 200 people participated; 87 men (43.5%) and 13 women (56.5%). In terms of age of sample, 86 people in their 20’s (43%), 89 people in their 30’s (45%), 18 people in their 40’s (9%), and 7 people in their 50’s (4%). In occupation of sample, 78 office workers (39%), 43 students (21.5%), 37 professionals (18.5%), 12 sales people (6%), 5 housewives (2.5%), and 25 the others (12.5%).

4. Results

4.1. Results of Operationalization of Busy Mindset

As discussed early, busy mindset is operationalized for confirming the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth. Independent sample t-test was used to confirm any difference in busyness between the experimental group and the control group. Busyness of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group (M=5.09, SD=1.19 vs. M=3.77, SD=1.41; t= 7.166, p= 0.000).

4.2. Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model

In order to check the construct validity of the key variables, a factor analysis with orthogonal rotation was performed. Since KMO0 value is greater than 0.7 and Bartlett chi-square statistic is significant, the data of the research is satisfactory for the factor analysis. The factor loadings of all the variables is above 0.6 and the construct validity was confirmed. The three factors have eigenvalue higher than 1. 66.5 % of total variance was explained by the three factors.

The reliability of measurement items is tested by using the Cronbach alpha. The Cronbach alpha for perceived self-worth, perceived social mobility, and impulsive buying are 0.902, 0.804, and 0.796, respectively. Since the three reliability coefficients are above 0.7, the reliability of measurement model is confirmed.

Table 2: Factor analysis and reliability analysis*

*KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olin) = 0.81, Bartlett chi-square=1241.37 (d.f.=91, p-value=0.000)

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

4.3.1. Testing of Hypothesis 1

The results of testing the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth (Hypothesis 1) are analyzed. In the regression analysis, the effect is significantly greater in the experimental group than in control group (p=0.019). Thus Hypothesis 1 supported.

Table 3: T-test of hypothesis 1

4.3.2. Testing of Hypothesis 2

Prior to testing Hypothesis 2, the effect of interaction of busy mindset and perceived social mobility on perceived self-worth is analyzed. In the regression analysis, the effect is significant in the experimental and the control group (Table 4).

Table 4: Interaction of busy mindset & social mobility on self-worth

For testing Hypothesis 2, two groups are divided in terms of social mobility; high vs. low. The average score of self-worth in each group is compared. In the high social mobility group, the group of high busy mindset is greater than the group of low busy mindset in self-worth (Mhigh*high= 5.82, Mhigh*low= 5.21, p<0.01). In the low social mobility group, the group of high busy mindset is greater than the group of low busy mindset in self-worth (Mlow*high= 5.55, Mlow*low= 4.28, p<0.01) ([Figure 1]). The effect of busy mindset on self-worth is greater in the low social mobility group. Thus Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Figure 1: Interaction of busy mindset & social mobility on self-worth

In addition, the effect of perceived social mobility on perceived self-worth is compared between the experimental group and control group. In the experimental group, perceived self-worth of one group with high perceived social mobility is not significantly higher than that of the other group with low perceived social mobility (M=5.24 vs. M=5.58; p=0.132). In the control group, on the other hand, perceived self-worth of one group with high perceived social mobility is higher than that of the other group with low perceived social mobility (M=4.55 vs. M=5.40; p<0.01). Thus Hypothesis 2 is also supported. The results are illustrated by Figure 2.

Figure 2: Moderating effect of social mobility on the effect of busyness on self-worth

4.3.3. Testing of Hypothesis 3

For testing Hypothesis 3, the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying, average score of impulsive buying intention for one group with high self-worth is compared with that for the other group with low self-worth. In the independent sample t-test, impulsive buying intention for the high self-worth group is not significantly greater than that for the low self-worth group (M=3.99 vs. M=4.26; p=0.114). Hypothesis 3 is not supported.

4.3.4. Testing of Hypothesis 4

For testing Hypothesis 4, average score of impulsive buying intention for one group with top 1/3 of perceived self-worth is compared with that for the other group with bottom 1/3 of self-worth. In case of utilitarian product, impulsive buying intention for the high self-worth group is not significantly greater than that for the low self-worth group (M=4.39 vs. M=4.30; p=0.776).

In case of hedonic product, however, impulsive buying intention for the high self-worth group is significantly greater than that for the low self-worth group (M=4.24 vs. M=3.59; p=0.027). Thus in the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention, product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) plays a moderating role. Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Figure 3: Moderating effect of product type on the effect of self-worth on impulsive buying

Table 5: Results of hypothesis testing

5. Discussions & Conclusions

5.1. Summary & Discussions

In this research, the relationship between busy mindset and perceived self-worth is empirically tested and the moderating effect of perceived social mobility on the relationship is confirmed. The effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention is also tested. The key results of this research are summarized as followed.

Firstly, busy mindset can raise perceived self-worth. The busier people are, the more important they perceive themselves than others. This result is consistent with Kim et al. (2019). In other words, it is empirically supported that people evaluate one’s social status and value by one’s busyness in Korean society as well as in the American society.

Secondly, the positive effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth depends on the perceived social mobility. In other words, those who have trust in social equity tent to want to live a busy life and believe that busy mindset is a good way of enhancing one’s meaning and value. This is consistent with Bellezza et al. (2017) that suggest people tend to think that those who strongly believe in social mobility regard busy people as higher in social status. In the same context, the current research confirmed that perceived social mobility plays a moderating role in the effect of busy mindset on perceived self-worth.

Thirdly, the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention was not found. This result is also confirmed in Kim et al. (2019). In the prior research, it is shown that perceived self-worth brings about one’s self-control or self-regulation. In the choice out of healthy food and unhealthy food, busy people tend to prefer healthy food. In the similar vein, the linear effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention was not significant in the current research.

Fourthly, in the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention, product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) has a moderating role. Even though the linear effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention was not significant, product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) is added and its moderating effect is confirmed.

As a result, it is shown that in case of hedonic product, the positive effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intention was significant while it is not in case of utilitarian product. Thus the moderating effect of the product type is confirmed. This suggests busy appeal to consumers would be more effective for hedonic products. The busy appeal would raise perceived self-worth and thereby induce impulsive buying intention for hedonic products. Furthermore, the results of this research are shown to support Hausman (2000), Mick & DeMoss (1990), and Mortimer et al. (2015) in that one tend to buy on impulse as a reward for one’s achievement.

5.2. Managerial Implications

This research is done in a situation where there is rare research on consumer busy mindset on Korean society. More research on busy mindset in varied situations are expected and more interesting results and implications would ensue. Based on the above results, critical managerial implications are suggested.

Firstly, advertising and promotion concept for hedonic products should focus on the busy life of target consumers. In the presence of busy Koreans’ life, many products with multi-tasking functions are introduced in the market of busy consumers. In marketing and promoting these products, it is more effective for brand managers to focus on any benefits provided for consumers’ exhausted lives, rather than on some abstract attributes of the products.

Secondly, it would be more effective for managers of hedonic products to remind consumers of impulsive buying intention by stimulating their self-gifting or self-rewarding behavior through customer communications, sales promotion, personal selling and so on.

Thirdly, advertising messages of hedonic products would rather emphasize self-importance or self-esteem of target consumer segments so that the target consumers with high self-esteem are more likely to consider buying hedonic products.

Fourthly, due to the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease2019), consumers are reluctant to search and buy products in stores. Under these circumstances, attractive and highdefinition displays of hedonic products in the Internet or mobile shopping sites are highly effective and online communication strategies on product information through SNS (social networking services) are critical.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The current research has the following limitations and suggests directions for future research.

Firstly, impulsive buying intentions of shampoo and fragrance candle are measured in this research. These two products are priced at a low range. Future research can be done with high priced pairs of products.

Secondly, product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian) plays a moderating role in the effect of perceived self-worth on impulsive buying intentions. It would be worthwhile to explore other variables such as regulatory focus, emotional control, and so on.

Thirdly, participants in the experiments of the current research were asked to imagine a situation of buying a product, when their intentions of impulsive buying were measured. In future research, the measurements can be made in a real consumer purchase situation and those results can be generalized more widely.

Fourthly, the survey was done in the condition that busy mindset are not related to time pressure, based on the existing research in the U.S.A. In future research, it is desirable to validate whether Koreans differentiate busy mindset from time pressure or not.