Product (un)availability and shopping mind-set in sequential purchases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51359/2526-7884.2020.245300Keywords:
out-of-stock, product availability, sequential choice, shopping mind-set.Abstract
Drawing on consumer choice process and implementation theory, this study investigates how product (un)availability influences consumers shopping mind-set and the likelihood of purchasing a second unrelated product. Two studies were applied using a single factor experimental design with two conditions (product: availability vs. unavailability) on consumer’ purchase intention. The results demonstrate when the product is out-of-stock (i.e., unavailable) the propensity to purchase a second unrelated product is higher, compared to when the first product is available for purchase. This study contributes to the literature of the constructive choice process showing that product unavailability does not reduce the shopping implementation. Once a choice is made but not performed, consumers will try to implement their purchase intention in subsequent options. From a managerial perspective, this study provides possibilities for managers to redirect the shopping implementation to alternative options.References
Achtziger, A., & P. Gollwitzer. (2008). Motivation and Volition in the Course of Action. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and Action (pp. 272-295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bettman, J. R., M. F. Luce, & J. W. Payne. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 187–217.
Boland, W. A., M. Brucks, & J. H. Nielsen. (2012). The Attribute Carryover Effect: What the “Runner-Up” Option Tells Us about Consumer Choice Processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 38 (5), 872–885.
Business Insider. (2018). Walmart just had its worst day in 30 years — here’s why. Accessed: August 1, 2018. <https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-inventory-problems-slow-online-sales-growth-2018-2>.
Cheng, C., & A. K. Leung. (2012). Revisiting the Multicultural Experience–Creativity Link: The Effects of Perceived Cultural Distance and Comparison Mind-Set. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4 (4), 475-482.
Dhar, R., J. Huber, & U. Khan. (2007). The shopping momentum effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 370-378.
Diels, J. L., Wiebach, N., & Hildebrandt, L. (2013). The impact of promotions on consumer choices and preferences in out-of-stock situations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 587-598.
Ehrich, K. R., & J. R. Irwin. (2005). Willful Ignorance in the Request for Product Attribute Information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (3), 266-277.
Fitzsimons. G. J. (2000). Consumer Response to Stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 249–266.
Fujita, K., P. M. Gollwitzer, & G. Oettingen. (2007). Mind-sets and pre-conscious open-mindedness to incidental information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (1), 48-61.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In: Higgins, E. T.; Sorrentino, R. M. Handbook of motivation and cognition. Foundations of social behavior, 2, pp. 53- 92. New York: Guilford Press, 1990.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & U. Bayer. (1999). Deliberative versus implemental mind-sets in the control of action. In: Chaiken, S. (Ed.). Dual-process theories in social psychology, pp. 403-422. New York [u.a.]: Guilford Press.
Henderson, M. D., Y. Liver, & P. M. Gollwitzer. (2008). The Effects of an Implemental Mind-Set on Attitude Strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (3), 396-411.
Hsuan-Hsuan, K., K. Chien-Chih, & H. Wan-Ting. (2017). Message-related effects on consumer switching when the preferred product is out of stock. European Journal of Marketing, 51 (5/6), 1091-1109.
Huang, Y., & Y. C. Zhang. (2016). The out-of-stock (Oos) effect on choice shares of available options. Journal of Retailing, 92(1), 13–24.
Kim, K., & J. Meyers-Levy. (2007). Context Effects in Diverse-Category Brand Environments: The Influence of Target Product Positioning and Consumers' Processing Mind-Set. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 882–896.
Kristofferson, K., B. McFerran, A. C. Morales, & D. W. Dahl. (2017). The Dark Side of Scarcity Promotions: How Exposure to Limited-Quantity Promotions Can Induce Aggression. Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (5), 683–706.
Leisti, T., & J. Häkkinen, J. (2017). Learning to Decide with and without Reasoning: How Task Experience Affects Attribute Weighting and Preference Stability. Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 367–379.
Ma, K., T.Chen, & C. Zheng. (2018). Influence of thinking style and attribution on consumer response to online stockouts. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 218–225.
Puligadda, S., W. T Ross, J. Chen, & E. Howlettc. (2012). When loyalties clash purchase behavior when a preferred brand is stocked out: The tradeoff between brand and store loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19 (6), 570-577.
Raeva, D., E.van Dijk, & M. Zeelenberg. (2011). How comparing decision outcomes affects subsequent decisions: The carry-over of a comparative mind-set. Judgment and Decision Making, 6 (4), 343-350.
Ramanathan, S., & S. K. Dhar. 2010. The Effect of Sales Promotions on the Size and Composition of the Shopping Basket: Regulatory Compatibility from Framing and Temporal Restrictions. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (3), 542-552.
Stilley, K., M., J. J. Inman, & K. L. Wakefield. (2010). Spending on the Fly: Mental Budgets, Promotions, and Spending Behavior. Journal of Marketing, 74 (3), 34-47.
Xu, A. J., & R.S., Jr. Wyer. (2007). The effect of mind-sets on consumer decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 556–566.
Xu, A. J., & R. S. Jr. Wyer .2008. “The comparative mind-set: from animal comparisons to increased purchase intentions.” Psychological Science, 19(9), 859-864.
Wyer, R. S. Jr. .2018. “The role of mindsets, productions, and perceptual symbols in goal‐directed information processing.” Consumer Psychology Review, 1, 90-109.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Statement
- The authors authorize the publication of the article in the journal.
- The opinions and ideas expressed in articles are the authors' sole responsibility.
- The authors guarantee that the article is not the result of plagiarism. Failure to do so may result in penalties for the situation.
- Editors can adjust the text and formatting to fit the article according to the journal's publication standards.
- The articles published are the property of CBR and are protected by copyright. However, authors can disclose and make their articles available for free.
