A dual systems model of online impulse buying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Consumers often communicate with other consumers and perform impulse buying behavior on social commerce websites. Based on stimulus-organism-response framework and dual systems theory, the present study examines the effects of social interactions and self-control on consumers' impulse purchase. Design/methodology/approach An online survey consisting of 315 participants on social commerce websites was recruited to empirically examine the proposed research model. Partial Least Squares (PLS) was employed to analyze the research model. Findings Our main findings indicate that (1) source credibility, observational learning and review quality are important antecedents of perceived usefulness of online reviews, (2) source credibility, observational learning and perceived usefulness positively affect positive affect, which further results in urge to buy and impulse buying, (3) self-control weakens the effect of positive affect on urge to buy impulsively and also weakens the effect of urge to buy impulsively on impulse buying behavior. Originality/value The present study will bring more attention to social interactions in social networks in practice and encourage scholars to pay more attention to the reflective system in online impulse buying.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".