Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Longitudinal analysis versus cross-sectional analysis in assessing the factors

influencing shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior – Do the store ambience
and salesperson interactions really matter?
Bharath Shashanka Katakam a, *, Ramulu Bhukya b, Raja Shekhar Bellamkonda a,
Nagaraj Samala c
a
School of Management Studies, University of Hyderabad, India
b
KLH Business School, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation Hyderabad, India
c
Woxsen School of Business, Woxsen University, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Numerous studies in the marketing literature focused on consumer behavior in general, but relatively few studies
Impulse purchase behavior have examined Impulse purchase behavior (IPB). Although few studies examined IPB, the vast majority of the
Multilevel structural equation modeling studies were conducted using the cross-sectional design. These studies suffer from certain limitations like random
Salesperson interactions
measurement error, common method bias, causality & validity-related issues that are inherently associated with
Secondary customers
the cross-sectional design. Despite these limitations, very few studies have examined the IPB using the longi­
In-store promotions
Store ambience tudinal design. Multilevel structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) is conducted in the study to analyze the
Store crowd longitudinal data for examining the changes in the causal effects of the factors influencing the shoppers’ IPB over
a period of time. Additionally, structural equation modeling (SEM) is conducted to examine changes in the causal
effects of the factors influencing IPB at each time point of data collection. Drawing upon the stern’s model and
stimulus-organism-response model, the study examines the causal effects of the factors influencing the IPB. The
results of ML-SEM indicate significant fluctuations in the factors influencing IPB over time. Similarly, the results
of SEM indicates that few factors (like store ambience and salesperson interactions) have shown a significant
influence on IPB in the initial time points (i.e., during the initial store visits of shoppers), but became insignif­
icant over a period of time in their subsequent store visits. The findings suggest that the store crowd, secondary
customers influence, and in-store promotions show a significant influence on the IPB, compared to the store
ambience and salesperson interactions.

1. Introduction importance of impulsive purchasing in driving greater revenue and

The term ‘impulsive purchasing’ refers to the occurrence of un­
planned and sudden purchases (Dhandra, 2020) and is regarded as a
spontaneous purchase tendency for an instant possession of the goods
(Kacen and Lee, 2002). It is mostly characterized as a shopper’s un­
planned buying behavior, which has attracted the interest of many re­
searchers and practitioners in recent times (Aragoncillo and Orus,
2018). It represents as much as two-thirds of purchases in supermarket
sales (Amos et al., 2014; Kollat and Willett, 1967). The impulse purchase
behavior (IPB) of shoppers is considered as a dynamic act while they go
on shopping and make unplanned purchase decisions. Given the
profits for the retailers, most retailers attempt to manipulate their
shoppers’ in-store purchase behaviors by providing a pleasant,
appealing, and joyful shopping environment besides employing
persuasive sales personnel. In order to facilitate shoppers with a joyful
shopping experience and strengthen the store image, the retailers
engage more in redesigning the shopping environment to accommodate
more and more instore crowds. Unlike purchases in other settings, most
retail purchases occur impulsively due to their proneness to purchase,
which does not require shoppers to come with pre-planned decisions.
Shoppers tend to get influenced by many factors during the time of
shopping and it is difficult to predict what actually influences them to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sunny.faculty1@gmail.com (B.S. Katakam), dr.ramulubhukya@gmail.com (R. Bhukya), brsmsuh@gmail.com (R.S. Bellamkonda), raajsamala.
phd@gmail.com (N. Samala).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102586
Received 18 November 2020; Received in revised form 6 April 2021; Accepted 18 April 2021
Available online 24 April 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.S. Katakam et al.
make purchase decisions spontaneously.
Numerous studies suggest using a longitudinal design to assess pur­
chase behavior and the factors influencing it (Chintagunta and Labroo,
2020; Rindfleisch et al., 2008). Longitudinal analyses of the purchase
behavior and the factors influencing their behavior would help the re­
searchers to understand the changes in the purchase behavior and the
factors influencing their behavior over a period of time (Bolander et al.,
2017). Previous studies indicate a significant change in the causal effects
of the factors influencing the purchase behavior over a period of time
(Hsu et al., 2006; Kollat et al., 1970; Marjanen, 1995). Measuring the
variables at a single time-point using the cross-sectional design hinders
the researchers from observing the changes in the causal effects over a
period of time (Hsu et al., 2006; Román and Martín, 2008). Moreover,
measuring the variables at multiple time-points in the longitudinal
design minimizes the common method bias and random measurement
error associated with the cross-sectional design and increases the val­
idity of the conceptual model (Rindfleisch et al., 2008; M. Wang et al.,
2017). Although there are many benefits in using the longitudinal
design, not many studies have adopted it (Wieseke et al., 2008). In
marketing research, the majority number of studies have focused on the
customer purchase behavior in general, but relatively few studies have
examined the IPB of customers and the factors influencing it (Silvera
et al., 2008). IPB is an important phenomenon to be explored, especially
in the retailing environment like supermarkets, hypermarkets, and other
retail outlets. Despite its importance, a limited number of studies have
examined the factors influencing the customers’ IPB in the supermarkets
(Parsad et al., 2018). The urban population in metropolitan cities
comprises a diversified set of customers with different cultures and
traditions across the country (Ajay et al., 2008). Conducting the study in
such geographical locations provides a heterogenous sample to assess
the shopping behavior of the customers (Patil, 2017). Although few
studies examined the IPB of customers in supermarkets, the majority of
the studies investigated the IPB using the cross-sectional design at a
single time-point, assuming that IPB is stable over a period of time (Iyer
et al., 2020). There are hardly any studies that explores the IPB using the
longitudinal design over a period of time, where the customers make
repeated store visits to the same store (Iyer et al., 2020). In particular,
the previous studies (1) did not examine the causal effects of the factors
influencing the IPB over a period of time, using the longitudinal design
(2) did not compare the changes in the causal effects of these factors
between different time points over a period of time.
This research aims to adopt the longitudinal design in assessing the
causal effects of the factors influencing the IPB and understanding the
IPB of shoppers who make repeated store-visits to the same supermarket
store over a period of time (i.e., 5 months) from their initial visit. In
particular, the research study (1) Examine the causal effects of the fac­
tors influencing the IPB over a period of time using the multilevel
modeling (2) Compare the changes in the causal effects of these factors
on IPB between different time points over a period of time, using the
cross-sectional modeling. The study was conducted in Hyderabad, an
Indian metropolitan city. In India, supermarket shopping is considered a
popular leisure activity, where the customers explore and try out new
products (Mulky, 2013). Furthermore, supermarket shopping has
become a new favorite pastime activity for many customers. The cus­
tomers visit the stores every so often with their friends, family members,
relatives in pursuit of recreation and enjoyment (Khare, 2011). More­
over, the majority of Indian shoppers’ are predominantly price sensitive
and tend to get easily attracted by the huge discounts, offers, and
in-store promotions (Grosso et al., 2018). The shoppers prefer to keenly
observe the product purchases of their co-shoppers, seeking the benefits
and/or value (monetary rewards, etc.) associated with those products.
The shoppers in the store are inclined to accumulate at the places where
the store crowd is maximum (Mehta et al., 2013). Store crowd is pre­
sumed to be one of the significant predictors of IPB among Indian
shoppers. The shoppers frequently interact with the in-store staff
searching for information, discounts, and offers on the products. The
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
in-store staff makes an effort to influence the shoppers’ purchases
(Parsad et al., 2017). Therefore, by using the longitudinal study, this
research attempts to understand the significant changes in the effect of
these factors on the shoppers’ IPB overtime.
Stern’s model of IPB (Stern, 1962) and stimulus-organism-response
model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) provide the basis for under­
standing the causal effects of the factors influencing IPB. Therefore, we
adopt both the theories to construct a theoretical framework of IPB and
the factors influencing it. Stern’s theory (Stern, 1962) is widely referred
to in understanding the IPB of shoppers and the factors influencing the
IPB. Previous studies (Iyer et al., 2020; Zhou and Wong, 2004) also
highlighted the importance of stern’s theory and
stimulus-organism-response model in understanding the IPB of shoppers
and the factors influencing the IPB. Previous studies identified few
factors that significantly influence shoppers’ IPB, like store crowd, sec­
ondary customers influence, in-store promotions, store ambience, and
salesperson interactions (H. J. Chang, Yan and Eckman, 2014; Iyer et al.,
2020).
This research contributes to both academicians and practitioners.
From the academicians’ perspective, the study attempts to increase the
research model’s validity using the longitudinal design, where the
research model is tested on the same set of respondents over a period of
time (Summers, 2001; M. Wang et al., 2017). Furthermore, this
approach would minimize the risks of common method bias and random
measurement error associated with the cross-sectional design or single
time-point measures (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). From the practitioners’
perspective, the study provides insights on the changes in the causal
effects of the factors influencing the shoppers’ IPB in their repeated
visits to the same supermarket store over a period of time. These insights
would help the practitioners identify the most and least significant
factors that influence IPB over a period of time. In addition, practitioners
can also identify the fluctuations in these factors over a period of time.
These insights would serve the practitioners in determining the IPB of
shoppers who make repeated visits to the same store over a period of
time.
2. Theoretical framework
Retailers are bound to explore all the possible ways and tactics to
attract shoppers in the present-day challenging competitive retail
landscape (Blut et al., 2018; Bustamante and Rubio, 2017; Meents et al.,
2020; Reinartz et al., 2019) in order to gain more sales from them.
Among those various sales fetching tactics, most of them are directed
towards stimulating the shoppers to make unplanned purchases (Beatty
and Ferrell, 1998; Dhandra, 2020; Foroughi et al., 2013). This phe­
nomenon can be better explained using Hawkins Stern’s impulse buying
theory (1962). This theory offers valuable insights into different cir­
cumstances under which the consumers are likely to indulge in impulse
buying. Stern (1962) categorized impulse buying into four categories
such as, suggestion impulse buying, reminder impulse buying, planned im­
pulse buying, and pure impulse buying. During shopping, a shopper may
undergo the suggestion impulse buying when he/she feels a need for
buying the product, although he/she does not have previous knowledge
of it (Lo et al., 2016). The suggestion impulse buying can be aroused
through salesperson interactions and even by suggestions and opinions
of secondary customers accompany him/her. Similarly, a shopper can
undergo a planned impulse buying when he/she makes an unplanned
product purchase due to promotions or discounts in the retail store (Lo
et al., 2016). Thus, the planned impulse buying can be aroused due to
effective in-store promotions and offers. Moreover, a shopper may un­
dergo a reminder impulse buying when he/she spots an item in the store
aisle and purchases it by recalling an advertisement or remembering
stock availability at home. Therefore, the reminder impulse buying can be
aroused by attractive store ambience, store layout, and in-store pro­
motions. Finally, a shopper may undergo pure impulse buying, when
he/she makes an immediate unplanned and unusual buying decision
B.S. Katakam et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586

spontaneously (Lo et al., 2016). The pure impulse buying is expected to be Table 1
aroused by store crowd, salesperson interactions, attractive store Operational definitions of Constructs.
ambience, secondary customer influence, and in-store promotions. Stern Construct Operational Definition Sources
(1962) argues that shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior can be influ­
Store Crowd The subjective estimate of the Rapoport (1975)
enced by manipulating certain external factors. Various such external number of people present in the
factors that stimulate shoppers’ purchase behavior are documented well store.
in several prior studies, e.g., i. salesperson interactions, ii. Secondary cus­ Secondary The influence of persons accompany Bearden et al. (1989)
tomers influence iii. In-store promotions, iv. Store ambience, v. store crowd, Customers the focal customer
Influence
etc. (H. J. Chang et al., 2014; Iyer et al., 2020). Salesperson interactions In-Store Any sales-related efforts that are (McColl et al., 2020;
appear to influence shoppers’ orientation of product evaluation by their Promotions made to promote products/services Silva-Risso et al.,
persuasive sales interactions, which in turn, stimulate shoppers’ pur­ inside the store. 1999)
chase decisions and ultimately leads to impulsive purchases (Argo and Store Ambience Presence of physical (e.g., store Foster & McLelland
layout, interiors, exteriors, flooring, (2015)
Dahl, 2020). Similarly, secondary customers who accompany the focal
shelving, etc.) and non-physical
customers tend to influence focal customers’ purchase behavior by their elements (e.g., music, scent, smell,
opinions and recommendations. Interestingly, shoppers seem to spend lighting, etc.) in the store.
more than actually planned while shopping with secondary customers Salesperson The occurrence of sales-related Argo & Dahl (2020)
(Kurt et al., 2011; Pradhan, 2016). The store-related factors like in-store Interactions verbal and non-verbal interactions
between salespersons and the focal
promotions and store ambience appear to have a significant influence on customer.
shoppers’ purchase behavior. Shoppers may go for a higher amount of Impulse Purchase The customers’ tendency of making (Dhandra, 2020; Peck
purchases than actually planned when they find fair sales deals such as Behavior unplanned and instant purchases. and Childers, 2006)
discounts, coupons, rewards, cashbacks, and so on (Kaveh, Nazari, van
der Rest and Mira, 2020; Purnamasari et al., 2020; Roggeveen et al.,
3. Literature review and hypotheses development
2020). Stores with better ambience have become hotspots for shoppers
these days. They prefer the stores with an impressive store ambience and
3.1. Store crowd
tend to spend more time and thus purchase more (Badgaiyan and Verma,
2015; Gudonavičienė and Alijošienė, 2015; Memon et al., 2019). Store
Store crowd is shown to influence the shoppers’ purchase behavior
crowd also appears to have a greater influence on shoppers’ purchase
and complements impulsive purchases as well (Li et al., 2009; Parsad
decisions because most shoppers consider the store with a huge crowd as
et al., 2017). The store crowd present in the supermarket passively in­
a signal of the trusted store, preferred store, value provider, etc. The
fluences the focal customers by their product purchases, which further
customers’ attention gets drifted away by the store crowd’s purchases,
stimulates the focal customers to buy the same products (Mehta et al.,
thereby stimulating the customers’ minds to make unplanned/impulsive
2013). Subsequently, the focal customers’ attention is being drifted by
purchases (Byun and Mann, 2011; Knoeferle et al., 2017; Mehta, 2013).
the store crowd towards such unplanned purchases (Lee et al., 2011; Li
The theory proposed by the stimulus-organism-response (S–O-R) model
et al., 2009). The chances of impulsive/unplanned purchases of the
argues that the environmental stimuli (stimulus) trigger an emotional
customers increase by observing the other customers’ purchases in the
state in the individual (organism), leading to the behavioral response
store crowd (Byun and Mann, 2011; Mehta, 2013; Prashar et al., 2015).
(response) of an individual (Jacoby, 2002; Mehrabian and Russell, 1974;
Although few studies (Grossbart et al., 1990; Machleit et al., 2005)
Peng and Kim, 2014). The retailing environment stimuli such as store
suggest a negative influence on the customers due to the excess
ambience, salesperson interactions, store crowd, in-store promotions,
crowding, the studies conducted in the optimal store crowd environment
secondary customers influence would trigger the positive emotional
indicate a positive influence on the impulse or unplanned buying
states (pleasure, arousal) in the shoppers leading to the purchase
behavior of customers (Bell et al., 2011; Parsad et al., 2018; Prashar
behavior (Iyer et al., 2019; Vieira, 2013). Thus stimulating the response
et al., 2015; Rintamäki et al., 2006). Therefore, this study assumes that
(i.e., purchase behaviors) in the organism (shoppers of the retail store).
the store crowd has a positive influence on shoppers’ impulse purchase
Prior studies have validated the role of these retailing environment
behavior and is hypothesized as follows;
stimuli in increasing the shoppers’ IPB (H.-J. Chang, Eckman and Yan,
2011; Thang and Tan, 2003). Therefore, the study assumes all these five H1. Store Crowd influences shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior
external factors to influence the shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior significantly over a period of time.
and included them in the hypothetical conceptual model (see Fig. 1) and
for the operational definitions of these factors (see Table 1). The con­
ceptual model is developed based on the premises of both stern’s im­ 3.2. Secondary customers influence
pulse purchase behavior theory (Stern, 1962) and the
stimulus-organism-response model (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). In today’s modern retailing environment, customers prefer to shop

Fig. 1. Conceptual hypothetical Model.

3
B.S. Katakam et al.
accompanying other known customers like family members, friends,
colleagues, and neighbors. These persons accompanying the focal
customer are referred to as secondary customers, who have a greater
influence on shoppers’ purchase behavior (Argo and Dahl, 2020;
Badgaiyan and Verma, 2014). Shoppers accompanied by secondary
customers typically spend more time evaluating all the possible alter­
native product choices and thus spending more money than they shop
unaccompanied. It happens both in adult shoppers (Granbois, 1968;
Luo, 2005; Sommer et al., 1992; Woodside and Sims, 1976) and teenage
shoppers (Mangleburg et al., 2004). The amount of spending is higher
when shoppers are accompanied by known secondary customers than
strangers (Ali and Sudan, 2018; Argo and Dahl, 2020). Interestingly, this
increased spending could result from the shoppers’ effort towards
managing impression among his/her social group to show off his/her
perceived richness. Furthermore, the secondary customers also influ­
ence the focal customers’ purchases by their opinions and recommen­
dations (Iyer et al., 2020). Thus, secondary customers have a greater
influence on focal customers’ purchase behavior in general; few studies
(Khare, 2011; Kurt et al., 2011; Pradhan, 2016) reported the positive
influence of secondary customers on shoppers’ impulse purchase
behavior. Therefore, it is hypothesized as:
H2. Secondary customers influence positively influences the shoppers’
impulse purchase behavior over a period of time.
3.3. In-store promotions
Firms engage continuously in the in-store promotions activity to gain
more sales from their shoppers (Atulkar and Kesari, 2018; Chandukala
et al., 2017) through various in-store promotional activities like
providing product sampling, instant coupons, vouchers, lucky draws,
and so on. This helps the retailers to increase shoppers’ engagement
(Kaveh et al., 2020) and in-store experience, which in turn garners
impulsive purchases (Nagadeepa et al., 2015; Tendai and Crispen,
2009). Generally, retailers design these in-store promotions strategically
to stimulate shoppers to make purchases impulsively and has been well
documented in recent studies (Hultén and Vanyushyn, 2014; Kaveh
et al., 2020; Khare et al., 2014; Purnamasari et al., 2020; Roggeveen
et al., 2020). The majority of impulsive purchases are stimulated by
in-store promotions like coupons, discounts, and other product-related
offers (Das & Kumar, 2009; Youn and Faber, 2000). Customers’ atten­
tion is being drifted towards those promotions, and they get strongly
influenced to purchase the products that were not being planned to
purchase (Abratt and Goodey, 1990). Thus, customers are influenced
towards the unplanned/impulsive purchases by the in-store promotions.
Therefore, it is hypothesized as:
H3. In-store promotions positively influence the shoppers’ impulse
purchase behavior over a period of time.
3.4. Store ambience
The store ambience has received substantial interest from retailers
and market researchers in recent times due to its importance in facili­
tating more in-store purchases (Mohan et al., 2013; Tendai and Crispen,
2009). Store ambience includes both the physical (e.g., store layout,
interiors, exteriors, flooring, shelving, etc.) and non-physical elements
(e.g., music, scent, smell, lighting, etc.) (Foster and McLelland, 2015).
Retailers use these elements to provide an enhanced in-store shopping
experience to their shoppers, thereby stimulating the purchase behav­
iors positively (Mattila and Wirtz, 2008). The attractive store displays
and layouts engage the customers and stimulate them to make more
purchases (Badgaiyan and Verma, 2015; Prashar et al., 2015). The in­
fluence of store ambience on the purchases has been explored and
confirmed in the context of the purchase behavior by prior studies (Iyer
et al., 2020; Parsad et al., 2017; Roggeveen et al., 2020; Turley and
Milliman, 2000). Therefore, this study assumes that store ambience has
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
a positive influence on shopper’s impulse purchase behavior and posited
the hypothesis as follows;
H4. Store ambience positively influences shoppers’ impulse purchase
behavior over a period of time.
3.5. 5. Salesperson interactions
Sales-related interactions between shoppers and sales personnel are
apparent in any shopping environment, particularly in the retail context.
These interactions can be in the form of verbal or non-verbal commu­
nication (Argo and Dahl, 2020). Salespersons usually are mindful of
various kinds of shoppers in the market and the application of appro­
priate selling tactics to make successful selling (Badgaiyan and Verma,
2014; Simintiras et al., 2013). Generally, salespersons are attributed to
have a greater influence on shoppers’ purchase behavior (Argo and
Dahl, 2020; Ghosh et al., 2010), and they do so by applying various sales
tactics. The sales tactics that have recently been explored in the retail
context includes: mimicking the shoppers (Jacob et al., 2011; Singh and
Venugopal, 2015), the demeanor of the salesperson (Mattila and Wirtz,
2008; X. Zhang, Li, Burke and Leykin, 2014), flattery and matching
incidental similarities (Argo and Dahl, 2020; Punwatkar and Verghese,
2014). Among these sales tactics, most sales personnel apply flattery
selling tactics during their interactions with shoppers. When a sales­
person mimics the shoppers, they tend to evaluate both the salesperson
and retailer more favorably (Jacob et al., 2011). This personal touch
wins customers’ trust, which positively influences shoppers’ purchase
decisions (Das, 2016; Mohan et al., 2013). Another selling tactic that has
got the attention of the market researchers recently is, matching the
incidental similarities between a salesperson and the shopper. Shoppers
tend to positively evaluate a salesperson’s interactions when they show
incidental similarities shared with the shoppers, which, in turn, in­
creases the shoppers’ intention to purchase products/services from that
retailer (Mohan et al., 2013). Apart from various selling tactics, sales
personnel’s commitment, and job involvement play a significant role in
influencing shoppers’ purchase behavior (Lau and Bin, 1999). In addi­
tion, the demeanor of the salespersons has shown to have a positive
influence on shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior (Mattila and Wirtz,
2008; X. Zhang et al., 2014). Thus, most of the studies in marketing
literature (Babin et al., 1999;Belonax et al., 2007; DeShields et al., 1996;
Hartmann et al., 2020; McGee and Spiro, 1991; Punwatkar and Vergh­
ese, 2014) have found the impact of salesperson interactions on the
shoppers’ purchase behavior and how salesperson interactions signifi­
cantly manipulate shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior. A few other
studies (Mattila and Wirtz, 2008; Parsad et al., 2017; X. Zhang et al.,
2014) also showed a significant positive effect of the salesperson in­
teractions on shoppers’ impulse purchase behavior. Therefore, it is hy­
pothesized as:
H5. Salesperson interactions positively influence the shoppers’ im­
pulse purchase behavior over a period of time.
4. Methodology
To test these hypotheses, a survey was conducted on the female
shoppers of the supermarkets in the selected gated communities. The
study was conducted in supermarkets of the gated communities located
in Hyderabad (metropolitan city), India. The gated communities in such
metropolitan towns as Hyderabad have a densely distributed urban
population from different regions of the country with diversified cul­
tures and traditions (Ajay et al., 2008; Plaut, 2011). Thus, it acts as an
ideal geographical location to study the customers’ shopping behaviors
in retailing. Although the study followed the convenience sampling
technique to select the respondents, certain pre-screening criteria were
met by the respondents to participate in the study. The pre-screening
criteria were determined based on the prior literature (Iyer et al.,
2020). The variables, such as optimal crowding, gender, age, secondary
B.S. Katakam et al.
customers, show a significant influence on the IPB of the customers (Iyer
et al., 2020; Machleit et al., 2005). Thus, to mitigate the influences of
these variables, they were controlled by using the pre-screening criteria.
Firstly, the participants should be the newly joined female residents of
the gated community. Secondly, the participants should be first-time
visitors to the supermarket. Thirdly, the participants have to be
accompanied by the secondary customers like their family members,
neighbors, friends, relatives, etc., at every time point of the data
collection, during their shopping in the supermarket. Fourthly, the age
group of the participants should be in the range of 30–55 years. Fifthly,
to ensure the optimal store crowding, instead of excessive crowding in
the stores (which usually happens during the festive occasions), the data
collection was done typically on Sunday’s during the non-festive occa­
sions when the store was optimally crowded. The respondents were
allowed to participate in the study only after qualifying all the
pre-screening criteria. Prior to the data collection, the respondents were
informed about the study procedure. The data was longitudinal in nature
and was collected at five different time points, i.e., once every month
over a period of five months in the year 2019. Monetary rewards were
offered to the respondents for participating in this study. The re­
spondents’ participation in the study is completely voluntary, and they
were free to withdraw from the study at any point in time. The consented
participants were selected as the study respondents. In total, 183 resi­
dents of 9 select gated communities, who visited the supermarket for the
first time, were selected. Of the 183 respondents, 37 failed to respond for
all the five time-points, 9 respondents were eliminated due to the
extremely outlying values in their data. Finally, 137 respondents were
selected for the data analysis. The participants of this study were newly
joined residents in the gated communities, who made the repeated store
visits to the same supermarket store. The data was collected from the
participants at the time of their shopping in the supermarket. The study
uses the multilevel structural equation modeling (ML-SEM) to test the
causal effects of the factors influencing the IPB of shoppers over a period
of time (Jang et al., 2012). ML-SEM consists of within-person modeling
(i.e., state-level modeling) and between-person modeling (i.e.,
trait-level modeling) (Davidov et al., 2012). Within-person modeling
measures the fluctuations in the causal effects of the factors on IPB over
a period of time. Between-person modeling measures the average causal
effects of the factors on IPB over a period of time (i.e., the average causal
effect value of all the time points) (Wardell et al., 2015). The current
study aims to achieve the following objectives: (1) To test whether the
factors influencing the IPB show a significant effect on IPB over a period
of time by using the within-person modeling (i.e., state-level modeling)
(2) To test whether the causal effects of the factors influencing IPB show
a significant effect on IPB at every time point by using the cross-sectional
modeling (3) To assess the findings of multilevel modeling and
cross-sectional modeling to provider deeper insights to the academicians
and practitioners.
4.1. Items and measures
The scales used in the study are shown in the appendices. Nine-point
likert-type scales are used to measure the study constructs. The construct
‘store crowd’ is measured by four items and was adapted from various
scales (Machleit et al., 1994; Parsad et al., 2017). The construct ‘sec­
ondary customers influence’ is measured by three items and was
adapted from various scales (Bearden et al., 1989). The construct
‘in-store promotions’ is measured by three items and was adapted from
(Shukla and Banerjee, 2014). The construct ‘store ambience’ is
measured by three items and was adapted from various scales (Parsad
et al., 2017). The construct ‘salesperson interactions’ is measured by
three items and was adapted from (Parsad et al., 2017). The construct
‘impulse purchase behavior’ is measured by three items and was adapted
from (Shukla and Banerjee, 2014).
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
5. Data analyses
5.1. Multilevel modeling
Multilevel modeling mainly consists of two levels: the within-level
model (i.e., within-person model) and the between-level model (i.e.,
between-person model). The within-level model is also called a state-
level model, where it examines the changes in the study variables of
the model at multiple state-levels (i.e., multiple time points) over a
period of time. The between-level model is also called a trait-level
model, where it measures the average value (i.e., trait-level value) of
the study variables in the model at multiple state-levels and then ex­
amines the changes in the study variables of the model at the trait-level
(Z. Zhang, Lee and Wong, 2016). ML-SEM is used to examine the
within-person causal effects and between-person causal effects of the
factors influencing the IPB of shoppers. The within-person model ex­
amines the changes in the causal effects of the factors influencing the IPB
over a period of time at the state-level. The between-person model ex­
amines the changes in the causal effects of the factors influencing IPB
over a period of time at the trait-level (Curran and Bauer, 2011).
5.2. Cross-sectional modeling
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to examine the causal
effects of the factors influencing IPB at each time-point separately
(Byrne, 2010). Doing this would allow us to find out the changes in the
causal effects of these factors at each time point separately. Thereby we
can identify the factor(s) that show a significant/insignificant effect on
the IPB of shoppers at each time point over a period of time.
6. Results
6.1. Measurement model
The constructs store crowd, secondary customers influence, in-store
promotions, store ambience and salesperson interactions are found to be
significantly fit. The multilevel measurement model fit indices of the
constructs store crowd (χ2/df = 0.36, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA =
0.011, SRMR = 0.007), secondary customers influence (χ2/df = 0.00,
CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.001), in-store pro­
motions (χ2/df = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR =
0.001), store ambience (χ2/df = 0.00, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA =
0.00, SRMR = 0.002) salesperson interactions (χ2/df = 1.00, CFI = 1.00,
TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.00) and impulse purchase
behavior (χ2/df = 0.00, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR
= 0.001) are found within the acceptable range (Bentler, 1990; Bentler
and Bonett, 1980; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Parry, 2017).
6.2. Hypotheses testing of the within-person model
ML-SEM is used to examine the hypotheses. The multilevel structural
model fit indices of the proposed model are as follows (χ2/df = 0.791,
CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, SRMR = 0.028) (Bentler, 1990;
Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Parry, 2017). ML-SEM
is conducted using Mplus 8.2 (Muthén and Muthén, 2018) to test the
within-person model’s hypotheses. The results of the within-person
model (see Table 2) shows that three out of five hypotheses are
accepted at p ≤ 0.001 (Cochran, 1964; Cowles and Davis, 1982). The
factors such as store crowd (β = 0.201, p ≤ 0.001), secondary customers
influence (β = 0.505, p ≤ 0.001) and in-store promotions (β = 0.286, p
≤ 0.001), shows a significant effect on the IPB of shoppers, over a period
of time. Whereas, the factors store ambience (β = 0.021, p ≥ 0.10) and
salesperson interactions (β = 0.014, p ≥ 0.10) show an insignificant
effect on the IPB over a period of time (see Fig. 2).
B.S. Katakam et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586

Table 2 shoppers who make repeated store visits to the same supermarket. The
Results of within-person modeling. within-person model results indicate that the factors store crowd, sec­
Causal effects Level β -value P-value ondary customers influence, in-store promotions show a significant ef­
fect on the IPB over a period of time. In contrast, the causal effects of
Store crowd → IPB Within- 0.201 0.00
level (***) other factors like store ambience and salesperson interactions became
Secondary customers → IPB Within- 0.505 0.00 insignificant over a period of time. This suggests that the shoppers who
influence level (***) make repeated store visits over a period of time to the same store are
In-store promotions → IPB Within- 0.286 0.00 highly influenced by the store crowd, secondary customers influence, in-
level (***)
Store ambience → IPB Within- 0.021 0.71
store promotions than the store ambience and salesperson interactions.
Salesperson interactions → IPB level 0.014 (NS) But the majority of the cross-sectional studies on the IPB reported a
Within- 0.80 strong association between IPB and the factors like store ambience and
level (NS) salesperson interactions (Mattila and Wirtz, 2008; Roggeveen et al.,
β - value = standardized regression weights, (***) ≤ 0.001, (**) ≤ 0.05, (*) ≤ 2020). To clarify this contradiction, we have conducted a cross-sectional
0.10, (NS) ≥ 0.10 (Cochran, 1964). analysis of the longitudinal data by segregating the data into 5 different
time points. Thus, 5 different cross-sectional model outputs were pro­
6.3. Analysis of the between-person model duced for 5 different time points. The cross-sectional model results at 5
different time points indicated that the factors store ambience and
The between-person model results show that the factors store crowd, salesperson interactions show a significant effect on the IPB of shoppers
secondary customers influence, in-store promotions, store ambience, at the initial time points but later became insignificant over a period of
and salesperson interactions do not show any significant effect on the time. This suggests that the shoppers who make repeated visits to the
IPB and are rejected at the p ≤ 0.10 (see Table 3) (Cochran, 1964; same supermarket store are influenced by the store ambience and
Cowles and Davis, 1982). The composite scores of all the constructs are salesperson interactions in their initial visits. But, these factors do not
calculated, as done in the path analysis. A composite score of a construct show any significant influence on the IPB in the later time points where
is computed by summing up the likert scale values of all the items under the shoppers make the repeated store visits. By the repeated store visits,
the construct and calculating the mean score of that summated likert the shoppers get habituated to the supermarket, and therefore the store
scale values of all the items (Hsiao et al., 2018). The composite scores of ambience and salesperson interactions become no longer significant to
all constructs are presented in Table 4. The mean composite score of the their IPB in their subsequent visits. These results are in line with the
construct is calculated by averaging the composite scores of the findings of the “law of diminishing marginal utility theory”(Alvino et al.,
construct at all the time points. The mean composite scores (i.e., the 2018). The shoppers’ marginal utility towards the factors store ambi­
trait-level values) of the constructs (see Table 4) also show that the ence and salesperson interactions decreases gradually over a period of
factors store crowd, secondary customers influence, and in-store pro­ time due to their repeated store visits. This suggests that the shoppers do
motions are higher than the mean composite scores of the factors store not find much utility value of the store ambience and salesperson in­
ambience and salesperson interactions. This infers that the trait-level teractions in their repeated store visits. Thus, the store crowd, secondary
values of the store crowd, secondary customers influence, and in-store customers influence, and in-store promotions evolve to be the strong
promotions may show a strong influence on the trait-level value of IPB predictors of IPB over a period of time. Few studies indicated a negative
than the trait-level values of the store ambience and salesperson association between the store crowd and the IPB of the shoppers
interactions. (Grossbart et al., 1990; Machleit et al., 2005). However, those studies
were conducted in an excessive store crowd environment, which nega­
tively influences the IPB. The current study was conducted in an optimal
6.4. Analysis of the cross-sectional model store crowd environment, where the store crowd shows a positive in­
fluence on the IPB. These findings are consistent with the earlier studies
Structural equation modeling is conducted using Mplus 8.2 (J. Wang (Bell et al., 2011; Graa et al., 2014). The data results of the
and Wang, 2019) to test the cross-sectional model at each time point between-person model indicate that none of the factors show a signifi­
separately. The data collected at each time point provides a separate cant effect on shoppers’ IPB. Based on the prior studies, we hypothesized
cross-sectional model. Thus, five separate cross-sectional models are a significant effect of these factors on the IPB in the between-person
generated from five different time points. The cross-sectional model model. We expected the factors like store crowd, secondary customers
analysis involves testing the causal effects between the IPB and the influence, and in-store promotions to show a significant effect on the IPB
factors influencing it at each time point. The results of the in the between-person model. However, the results do not support the
cross-sectional model (see Table 5) at each time point showed that the hypotheses. This may have occurred due to the low sample size or lesser
factors store crowd, secondary customers influence, and in-store pro­ number of time points in the longitudinal design. Perhaps, increasing the
motions show a significant effect on the IPB of shoppers at almost all the sample size, the number of time points of data collection would provide
five-time points. But, the factors like store ambience and salesperson a significant effect of these factors on the IPB in the between-person
interactions do not show a significant effect on IPB, at all the five time model (McNeish and Stapleton, 2016).
points. Store ambience and salesperson interactions are significant at the
initial time points, but these factors lost their significance in the later 7.1. Academic implications
time points over a period of time. The cross-sectional model linking
these factors to the IPB shows a significant model fit at each time point In the survey research, the mood fluctuations of the sample re­
over a period of time, and the results are presented in Table 6. spondents are transient and dynamic in nature (Heide & Gronhaug,
1991). Such dynamic fluctuations in the mood states can inflate or
7. Discussion deflate the likert scale responses leading to the measurement error.
These fluctuations are not systematic but occur randomly during the
This study aims to assess the causal effects of the factors influencing measurement process. Such random occurrences of the measurement
the IPB of shoppers who visit the same store over a period of time. In error are referred to as random measurement error (Schmidt and
addition, the study also assessed the change in the causal effects of these Hunter, 1996). Likewise, the survey research also suffers from common
factors at each time point separately over a period of time. The study method bias caused due to the leniency and social desirability bias of the
results revealed several key findings of the factors influencing the IPB of sample respondents (Kamakura, 2010). Marketing researchers

6
B.S. Katakam et al.
Fig. 2. Within-person model of the factors influencing Impulse purchase behavior.
recommended using longitudinal analysis and multilevel modeling to
minimize the random measurement error and common method bias by
measuring the study variables at multiple time points (Wieseke et al.,
2008). The current study conducted longitudinal analysis and multilevel
modeling to minimize the random measurement error and common
method bias in the survey research (Rindfleisch et al., 2008).
Consumer research studies using the cross-sectional design also
suffers from model validity issues. Prior researchers suggested using the
longitudinal analysis to enhance the statistical validity of the research
models (Rindfleisch et al., 2008). This study highlights the statistical
validity issues in the research model by conducting longitudinal
modeling and cross-sectional modeling over a period of time. The
research model’s model fit linking the IPB and its causal antecedents
(store crowd, secondary customers influence, in-store promotions, store
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
ambience, salesperson interactions) were significant in the initial time
points. Later the research model with the five antecedents became
insignificant over a period of time. Therefore, the study results of both
longitudinal and cross-sectional modeling of the research model at
five-time points indicated that the model validity is not significant over a
period of time. This study enhances the statistical validity of the research
model by analyzing the fluctuations in the research model over a period
of time (M. Wang et al., 2017).
The study’s theoretical model is developed based on two popular
theories, namely, “Impulse buying theory & Stimulus-Organism-
Response model”. The study uses these theories to explain the dy­
namic fluctuations in the causal effects of the factors influencing IPB
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Stern, 1962). Researchers should make
use of such theories to understand the IPB of shoppers in their repeated
B.S. Katakam et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586

Table 3 different time points, this research identifies the temporal fluctuations in
Results of between-person modeling. the factors influencing IPB. The cross-sectional studies do not capture
Causal effects Level β -value P-value these fluctuations and are inadequate in determining the causality ef­
fects due to the measurement of the study variables at a single time-point
Store crowd → IPB Between- − 0.480 0.66
level (NS) (Liao and Chuang, 2004). Using the longitudinal analysis, the study
Secondary customers → IPB Between- 0.214 0.74 establishes the causality effects between the IPB and the factors influ­
influence level (NS) encing it over a period of time (Taris and Kompier, 2014). There is a
In-store promotions → IPB Between- 0.378 0.54 significant change in the causal effects of the factors influencing shop­
level (NS)
Store ambience → IPB Between- 0.841 0.24
pers’ IPB in the subsequent store visits when compared to the initial
Salesperson interactions → IPB level 0.176 (NS) store visits. Academic researchers have to consider such temporal effects
Between- 0.37 while examining the conceptual models that involve repeated store
level (NS) visits of shoppers. Prior studies have suggested incorporating the
β - value = standardized regression weights, (***) ≤ 0.001, (**) ≤ 0.05, (*) ≤ multilevel modeling techniques to model the causality effects and
0.10, (NS) ≥ 0.10 (Cochran, 1964). transient fluctuations in the research model over a period of time
(Ployhart and Vandenberg, 2010). This study addresses the prior
studies’ calls to conduct longitudinal analysis in determining the cau­
Table 4 sality effects (Rindfleisch et al., 2008; Walley et al., 2009).
Composite scores of the constructs at various time-points over a period of time.
Construct Composite Scores at Time Points Mean composite 7.2. Practical implications
score
1 2 3 4 5
The cross-sectional results at every time point indicate that the sig­
Store crowd 5.40 5.44 5.50 5.57 5.55 5.492
Secondary customers 5.32 5.39 5.33 5.35 5.35 5.348 nificant effect of the store ambience and salesperson interactions on the
influence IPB has been decreased over a period of time. The factors like store
In-store promotions 5.21 5.23 5.04 5.23 5.02 5.146 ambience and salesperson interactions are found significant during the
Store ambience 5.19 3.07 3.07 3.05 3.10 3.496 initial time points. However, these factors gradually lost their signifi­
Salesperson 4.60 3.14 3.42 3.16 3.17 3.498
interactions
cance in the later time points, when the shoppers make the repeated
store visits to the same retail store over a period of time. During their
initial visits, the shoppers paid considerable attention to the store
ambience and salesperson interactions. These factors also have a sig­
Table 5
nificant effect on the shoppers’ IPB in their initial visits. But, when the
Regression coefficients of the cross-sectional model at various time points.
shoppers got habituated to the retail store by making the repeated store
Factors time time time time time visits, the focus on the store ambience and salesperson interactions
point 1 point 2 point 3 point 4 point 5
decreased significantly, leading to the insignificant effect of these factors
β - value β - value β - value β - value β - value on IPB in their subsequent visits. These results are also evident in the
Store crowd 0.020 0.215** 0.367*** 0.267** 0.458*** within-level model. Practitioners can use these study results and design
Sec. cust. 0.384*** 0.538*** 0.404*** 0.391*** 0.176* the relevant strategies for the new customers who make the initial visits
Influence
and the existing customers who make repeated visits. Among the
In-store 0.160* 0.246** 0.228** 0.342*** 0.337**
promotions
remaining three factors that are statistically significant, the secondary
Store 0.316** 0.011 − 0.046 0.046 0.040 customers influence evolved to be the most significant predictor of the
ambience IPB, followed by the in-store promotions and store crowd. Therefore, a
Sales per. 0.134* − 0.010 0.079 0.038 0.074* practitioner has to pay considerable attention to these factors and design
interact.
the relevant strategies that trigger shoppers’ IPB. Practitioners should
β - value = standardized regression weights, (***) ≤ 0.001, (**) ≤ 0.05, (*) ≤ organize events in the supermarket stores where the shoppers are invited
0.10, (NS) ≥ 0.10 (Cochran, 1964). along with their family, friends, neighbors, and relatives. These sec­
ondary customers would greatly influence the focal customers to make
impulse purchases, thereby increasing the store’s revenue (Iyer et al.,
Table 6
2020). The data results reveal that secondary customers influence the
Model fit indices of the cross-sectional model at five-time points.
IPB to a greater extent. Therefore, the higher the secondary customers
Timepoints χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR visit, the higher the chances of increasing IPB. Although none of the
1 0.065 0.993 0.991 0.037 0.017 trait-level relationships are significant, the mean composite score values
2 0.203 0.995 0.994 0.027 0.034 of the factors influencing IPB inferred some insights. By calculating the
3 0.257 0.996 0.995 0.023 0.034
mean composite scores of these factors, this study tries to identify the
4 0.234 0.996 0.995 0.025 0.045
5 0.436 0.999 0.999 0.01 0.043 highly rated factors by the shoppers, influencing their IPB. The mean
composite scores reveal that the trait level values of the factors sec­
χ2/df = Chi-square value, CFI = Comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker Lewis ondary customers influence, in-store promotions, and store crowd are
index, RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation, SRMR = Stan­
significantly higher than the trait-level values of the store ambience and
dardized root mean square residual (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Parry, 2017).
salesperson interactions. This indicates that the shoppers gave consid­
erable importance to the secondary customers influence, in-store pro­
store visits. The factors like store crowd, secondary customers influence, motions and store crowd than the store ambience and salesperson
in-store promotions remained significant in all the time points, unlike interactions at their trait-level. Therefore, practitioners have to give due
the store ambience and salesperson interactions. Therefore, academi­ importance to the secondary customers influence, in-store promotions,
cians have to give due importance to the significant factors while and store crowd than the store ambience and salesperson interactions in
examining the IPB of shoppers in their repeated store visits. the long run. The shoppers get carried away by the store ambience and
The causal effects of the factors influencing IPB exhibit temporal salesperson interactions in the initial visits, but very soon, the shoppers
fluctuations that fluctuate at every time point of purchase (Iyer et al., tend to ignore these factors in their subsequent visits and are influenced
2019; Massara et al., 2014). By analyzing the study results at five mainly by the remaining three factors that lead to the IPB. The mean

8
B.S. Katakam et al.
composite score value of the store crowd is higher than all other con­
structs, i.e., at an average the shoppers gave high likert scores to the
store crowd construct at all the time points. This indicates that the store
crowd’s trait-level value may show a high influence on the trait-level
value of IPB. So, the retailers should offer multiple promotional
schemes that drive huge store crowd into the stores (Chandon, 1995).
8. Limitations and future scope of research
Though the within-level model fit produced significant results, the
between-level model fit of the factors influencing the IPB was found
insignificant. This may be because of the measurement using the inad­
equate sample size and/or an insufficient number of time points in the
longitudinal design (Scherbaum and Ferreter, 2009). Future researchers
may increase the sample size and the number of time points of data
collection to obtain better results (McNeish and Stapleton, 2016). The
customers are usually segregated into multiple categories ranging from
innovators to laggards (Slater et al., 2007). This study did not categorize
the customers into different categories to measure the IPB. Future re­
searchers should analyze the IPB on different categories of customers to
produce specific results for each category. Likewise, male shoppers are
not considered as the sample respondents in the study. Future studies
should conduct the research on male respondents to examine the causal
effects of the factors influencing the IPB on it, over a period of time.
Similarly, in order to obtain the specific results, future researchers
should conduct the study on specific age groups and on specific de­
mographic categories (Iyer et al., 2020).
9. Conclusion
The research study contributes to the retailing and marketing liter­
ature by analyzing the factors influencing the shoppers’ IPB over a
period of time using the longitudinal design. The study results indicate a
significant change in the causality effect of the factors influencing the
shoppers’ IPB over a period of time. The findings suggest that store
ambience and salesperson interactions significantly influence the
shoppers’ IPB in their initial store visits but do not show any effect on
their subsequent store visits. Academicians and practitioners should give
due importance to the factors like store crowd, secondary customers
influence, and in-store promotions, which continue to show a significant
effect on the shoppers’ IPB in their initial and subsequent store visits.
Practitioners should design the strategies that attract and drive more
store crowd and secondary customers into the supermarket to trigger/
increase the IPB of the focal customers. In addition, the study has
responded to the research calls of the earlier studies by addressing the
prevalent issues in consumer research like common method bias,
random measurement error, causality effects, and statistical validity of
the research models, using the longitudinal analysis.
Appendices.
Scales used in the study.
Salesperson interactions:
1) Helpful employees in the store have an influence on my buying
decision
2) I tend to purchase more in the stores with friendly employees
3) The store employees influence my buying decision
Secondary customers influence:
1) I often consult secondary customers (friends, family members,
neighbors) to help choose the best alternative available in the
products.
2) I frequently gather information from secondary customers about a
product before I buy
9
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
3) When buying products, I generally purchase those products that I
think others will approve of.
Store ambience:
1) Attractive product displays stimulate me to buy
2) The exclusive displays used in shops for certain products provoke me
for buying spontaneously
3) I prefer to shop at a store where it is easy to locate products/
merchandise
In-store promotions:
1) Store-level promotions make me buy products spontaneously
2) Store-level promotions increase my desire to buy the products
3) Store-level promotions entice me to buy things on the spur of the
moment
Store crowd:
1) I tend to buy more when there is an adequate number of customers in
the store.
2) Crowd in the store stimulates me to purchase.
3) I tend to purchase more when the store is a little too busy.
4) I could move at my own pace in the store.
Impulse purchase behavior:
1) I make unplanned purchases.
2) I buy ones that I had not intended to purchase.
3) It is fun to buy products spontaneously.
References
Abratt, R., Goodey, S.D., 1990. Unplanned buying and in-store stimuli in supermarkets.
Manag. Decis. Econ. 11 (2), 111–121.
Ajay, V., Prabhakaran, D., Jeemon, P., Thankappan, K., Mohan, V., Ramakrishnan, L.,
Chaturvedi, V., 2008. Prevalence and determinants of diabetes mellitus in the Indian
industrial population. Diabet. Med. 25 (10), 1187–1194.
Ali, S.W., Sudan, S., 2018. Influence of cultural factors on impulse buying tendency: a
study of Indian consumers. Vision 22 (1), 68–77.
Alvino, L., Constantinides, E., Franco, M., 2018. Towards a better understanding of
consumer behavior: marginal utility as a parameter in neuromarketing research. Int.
J. Market. Stud. 10 (1), 90–106.
Amos, C., Holmes, G.R., Keneson, W.C., 2014. A meta-analysis of consumer impulse
buying. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (2), 86–97.
Aragoncillo, L., Orus, C., 2018. Impulse buying behaviour: an online-offline comparative
and the impact of social media. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC 22 (1), 42–62.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SJME-03-2018-007.
Argo, J.J., Dahl, D.W., 2020. Social influence in the retail context: a contemporary
review of the literature. J. Retailing 96 (1), 25–39.
Atulkar, S., Kesari, B., 2018. Impulse buying: a consumer trait prospective in context of
central India. Global Bus. Rev. 19 (2), 477–493.
Babin, L.A., Babin, B.J., Boles, J.S., 1999. The effects of consumer perceptions of the
salesperson, product and dealer on purchase intentions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 6
(2), 91–97.
Badgaiyan, A.J., Verma, A., 2014. Intrinsic factors affecting impulsive buying
behaviour—evidence from India. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (4), 537–549.
Badgaiyan, A.J., Verma, A., 2015. Does urge to buy impulsively differ from impulsive
buying behaviour? Assessing the impact of situational factors. J. Retailing Consum.
Serv. 22, 145–157.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., Teel, J.E., 1989. Measurement of consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence. J. Consum. Res. 15 (4), 473–481.
Beatty, S.E., Ferrell, M.E., 1998. Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. J. Retailing 74
(2), 169–191.
Bell, D.R., Corsten, D., Knox, G., 2011. From point of purchase to path to purchase: how
preshopping factors drive unplanned buying. J. Market. 75 (1), 31–45.
Belonax Jr., J.J., Newell, S.J., Plank, R.E., 2007. The role of purchase importance on
buyer perceptions of the trust and expertise components of supplier and salesperson
credibility in business-to-business relationships. J. Personal Sell. Sales Manag. 27
(3), 247–258.
Bentler, P.M., 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 107 (2),
238.
B.S. Katakam et al.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 (3), 588.
Blut, M., Teller, C., Floh, A., 2018. Testing retail marketing-mix effects on patronage: a
meta-analysis. J. Retailing 94 (2), 113–135.
Bolander, W., Dugan, R., Jones, E., 2017. Time, change, and longitudinally emergent
conditions: understanding and applying longitudinal growth modeling in sales
research. J. Personal Sell. Sales Manag. 37 (2), 153–159.
Bustamante, J.C., Rubio, N., 2017. Measuring customer experience in physical retail
environments. J. Serv. Manag. 28 (5), 884–913. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-06-
2016-0142.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming (Multivariate Applications Series), vol. 396. Taylor
& Francis Group, New York, p. 7384.
Byun, S.-E., Mann, M., 2011. The influence of others: the impact of perceived human
crowding on perceived competition, emotions, and hedonic shopping value. Cloth.
Text. Res. J. 29 (4), 284–297.
Chandon, P., 1995. Consumer research on sales promotions: a state-of-the-art literature
review. J. Market. Manag. 11 (5), 419–441.
Chandukala, S.R., Dotson, J.P., Liu, Q., 2017. An assessment of when, where and under
what conditions in-store sampling is most effective. J. Retailing 93 (4), 493–506.
Chang, H.-J., Eckman, M., Yan, R.-N., 2011. Application of the Stimulus-Organism-
Response model to the retail environment: the role of hedonic motivation in impulse
buying behavior. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 233–249.
Chang, H.J., Yan, R.-N., Eckman, M., 2014. Moderating effects of situational
characteristics on impulse buying. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 42 (4), 298–314.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2013-0074.
Chintagunta, P., Labroo, A.A., 2020. It’s about time: a call for more longitudinal
consumer research insights. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 5 (3),
000-000.
Cochran, W.G., 1964. Approximate significance levels of the Behrens-Fisher test.
Biometrics 20 (1), 191–195.
Cowles, M., Davis, C., 1982. On the origins of the. 05 level of statistical significance. Am.
Psychol. 37 (5), 553.
Curran, P.J., Bauer, D.J., 2011. The disaggregation of within-person and between-person
effects in longitudinal models of change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 583–619.
Das, G., 2016. Influence of salespersons’ nonverbal communication cues on consumer
shopping behaviour. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 100 (31), 199–206.
Das, G., Kumar, R.V., 2009. Impact of Sales Promotion on buyer behaviour: an empirical
study of Indian retail customers. J. Manag. 3 (1), 11–24.
Davidov, E., Dülmer, H., Schlüter, E., Schmidt, P., Meuleman, B., 2012. Using a
multilevel structural equation modeling approach to explain cross-cultural
measurement noninvariance. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 43 (4), 558–575.
DeShields Jr., O.W., Kara, A., Kaynak, E., 1996. Source effects in purchase decisions: the
impact of physical attractiveness and accent of salesperson. Int. J. Res. Market. 13
(1), 89–101.
Dhandra, T.K., 2020. Does self-esteem matter? A framework depicting role of self-esteem
between dispositional mindfulness and impulsive buying. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
55, 102135.
Foroughi, A., Buang, N.A., Senik, Z.C., Hajmisadeghi, R.S., 2013. Impulse buying
behavior and moderating role of gender among Iranian shoppers. Journal of Basic
and Applied Scientific Research 3 (4), 760–769.
Foster, J., McLelland, M.A., 2015. Retail atmospherics: the impact of a brand dictated
theme. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 22, 195–205.
Ghosh, P., Tripathi, V., Kumar, A., 2010. Customer expectations of store attributes: a
study of organized retail outlets in India. J. Retail Leisure Property 9 (1), 75–87.
Graa, A., Dani-Elkebir, M., Bensaid, M., 2014. The impact of environmental factors on
impulse buying behavior using the Mehrabian and Russell’s framework. Leonardo J.
Sci. 13 (24), 101–114.
Granbois, D.H., 1968. Improving the study of customer in-store behavior. J. Market. 32
(4_part_1), 28–33.
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., Lapidus, R.S., 1990. Environmental
dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. J. Bus. Res. 21 (3),
225–241.
Grosso, M., Castaldo, S., Grewal, A., 2018. How store attributes impact shoppers’ loyalty
in emerging countries: an investigation in the Indian retail sector. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 40, 117–124.
Gudonavičienė, R., Alijošienė, S., 2015. Visual merchandising impact on impulse buying
behaviour. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 213, 635–640.
Hartmann, N., Plouffe, C.R., Kohsuwan, P., Cote, J.A., 2020. Salesperson influence tactics
and the buying agent purchase decision: mediating role of buying agent trust of the
salesperson and moderating role of buying agent regulatory orientation focus. Ind.
Market. Manag. 87, 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.023.
Heide, M., Gronhaug, K., 1991. Respondents’ moods as a biasing factor in surveys: an
experimental study. ACR North American Advances 18 (1), 566–575.
Hsiao, Y.-Y., Kwok, O.-M., Lai, M.H., 2018. Evaluation of two methods for modeling
measurement errors when testing interaction effects with observed composite scores.
Educ. Psychol. Meas. 78 (2), 181–202.
Hsu, M.-H., Yen, C.-H., Chiu, C.-M., Chang, C.-M., 2006. A longitudinal investigation of
continued online shopping behavior: an extension of the theory of planned behavior.
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 64 (9), 889–904.
Hu, L.t., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1), 1–55.
Hultén, P., Vanyushyn, V., 2014. Promotion and shoppers’ impulse purchases: the
example of clothes. J. Consum. Market. 31 (2), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JCM-06-2013-0603.
10
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
Iyer, G.R., Blut, M., Xiao, S.H., Grewal, D., 2019. Impulse buying: a meta-analytic review.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 1–21.
Iyer, G.R., Blut, M., Xiao, S.H., Grewal, D., 2020. Impulse buying: a meta-analytic review.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 48 (3), 384–404.
Jacob, C., Guéguen, N., Martin, A., Boulbry, G., 2011. Retail salespeople’s mimicry of
customers: effects on consumer behavior. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 18 (5),
381–388.
Jacoby, J., 2002. Stimulus-organism-response reconsidered: an evolutionary step in
modeling (consumer) behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 12 (1), 51–57.
Jang, H., Kim, E.J., Reeve, J., 2012. Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s
motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. J. Educ.
Psychol. 104 (4), 1175.
Kacen, J.J., Lee, J.A., 2002. The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying
behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 12 (2), 163–176.
Kamakura, W.A., 2010. Common Methods Bias. Wiley International Encyclopedia of
Marketing.
Kaveh, A., Nazari, M., van der Rest, J.-P., Mira, S.A., 2020. Customer engagement in sales
promotion. Market. Intell. Plann. 39 (3), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-11-
2019-0582.
Khare, A., 2011. Mall shopping behaviour of Indian small town consumers. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 18 (1), 110–118.
Khare, A., Achtani, D., Khattar, M., 2014. Influence of price perception and shopping
motives on Indian consumers’ attitude towards retailer promotions in malls. Asia
Pac. J. Market. Logist. 26 (2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2013-
0097.
Knoeferle, K.M., Paus, V.C., Vossen, A., 2017. An upbeat crowd: fast in-store music
alleviates negative effects of high social density on customers’ spending. J. Retailing
93 (4), 541–549.
Kollat, D.T., Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., 1970. Current problems in consumer behavior
research. J. Market. Res. 7 (3), 327–332.
Kollat, D.T., Willett, R.P., 1967. Customer impulse purchasing behavior. J. Market. Res. 4
(1), 21–31.
Kurt, D., Inman, J.J., Argo, J.J., 2011. How shopping with friends promotes consumer
spending. J. Market. Res. 48 (4), 741–754.
Lau, G.T., Bin, S., 1999. The influence of task characteristics and job-related
characteristics on retail salesperson selling orientation. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 6
(3), 147–156.
Lee, S.Y., Kim, J.-O., Li, J.-G., 2011. Impacts of store crowding on shopping behavior and
store image. J. Asian Architect. Build Eng. 10 (1), 133–140.
Li, J.-G.T., Kim, J.-O., Lee, S.Y., 2009. An empirical examination of perceived retail
crowding, emotions, and retail outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 29 (5), 635–652.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2004. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee
service performance and customer outcomes. Acad. Manag. J. 47 (1), 41–58.
Lo, L.Y.-S., Lin, S.-W., Hsu, L.-Y., 2016. Motivation for online impulse buying: a two-
factor theory perspective. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (5), 759–772.
Luo, X., 2005. How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing?
J. Consum. Psychol. 15 (4), 288–294.
Machleit, K.A., Kellaris, J.J., Eroglu, S.A., 1994. Human versus spatial dimensions of
crowding perceptions in retail environments: a note on their measurement and effect
on shopper satisfaction. Market. Lett. 5 (2), 183–194.
Machleit, K.A., Meyer, T., Eroglu, S.A., 2005. Evaluating the nature of hassles and uplifts
in the retail shopping context. J. Bus. Res. 58 (5), 655–663.
Mangleburg, T.F., Doney, P.M., Bristol, T., 2004. Shopping with friends and teens’
susceptibility to peer influence. J. Retailing 80 (2), 101–116.
Marjanen, H., 1995. Longitudinal study on consumer spatial shopping behaviour with
special reference to out-of-town shopping: experiences from Turku, Finland.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 2 (3), 163–174.
Massara, F., Melara, R.D., Liu, S.S., 2014. Impulse versus opportunistic purchasing
during a grocery shopping experience. Market. Lett. 25 (4), 361–372.
Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2008. The role of store environmental stimulation and social
factors on impulse purchasing. J. Serv. Market. 22 (7), 562–567. https://doi.org/
10.1108/08876040810909686.
McColl, R., Macgilchrist, R., Rafiq, S., 2020. Estimating cannibalizing effects of sales
promotions: the impact of price cuts and store type. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 53,
101982.
McGee, L.W., Spiro, R.L., 1991. Salesperson and product country-of-origin effects on
attitudes and intentions to purchase. J. Bus. Res. 22 (1), 21–32.
McNeish, D.M., Stapleton, L.M., 2016. The effect of small sample size on two-level model
estimates: a review and illustration. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 28 (2), 295–314.
Meents, S., Verhagen, T., Merikivi, J., Weltevreden, J., 2020. Persuasive location-based
messaging to increase store visits: an exploratory study of fashion shoppers.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 57, 102174.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. the MIT
Press.
Mehta, R., 2013. Understanding perceived retail crowding: a critical review and research
agenda. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 20 (6), 642–649.
Mehta, R., Sharma, N.K., Swami, S., 2013. The impact of perceived crowding on
consumers’ store patronage intentions: role of optimal stimulation level and
shopping motivation. J. Market. Manag. 29 (7–8), 812–835.
Memon, R.H., Kazi, A.G., Zubedi, M.Y., Ansari, A., 2019. Factors affecting impulse
purchase behavior in Hyderabad Marketing perspective. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Research 2 (1), 20–24.
Mohan, G., Sivakumaran, B., Sharma, P., 2013. Impact of store environment on impulse
buying behavior. Eur. J. Market. 47 (10), 1711–1732. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EJM-03-2011-0110.
B.S. Katakam et al.
Mulky, A.G., 2013. Distribution challenges and workable solutions. IIMB Management
Review 25 (3), 179–195.
Muthén, L., Muthén, B., 2018. Mplus Users Guide and Mplus Version 8.2. Retrieved
January 10, 2019.
Nagadeepa, C., Selvi, J.T., Pushpa, A., 2015. Impact of sale promotıon technıques on
consumers’ impulse buyıng behavıour towards apparels at Bangalore. Asian J.
Manag. Sci. Educ. 4 (1), 116–124.
Parry, S., 2017. Fit Statistics Commonly Reported for CFA and SEM. Cornell Statistical
Consulting Unit: Cornell University.
Parsad, C., Prashar, S., Sahay, V., 2017a. Impact of impulsive personality traits and store
environment on impulse buying behavior. J. Bus. Manag. 23.
Parsad, C., Prashar, S., Tata, V.S., 2017b. Understanding nature of store ambiance and
individual impulse buying tendency on impulsive purchasing behaviour: an
emerging market perspective. Decision 44 (4), 297–311.
Parsad, C., Prashar, S., Vijay, T.S., Kumar, M., 2018. In-store stimuli and impulsive
buying behaviour: modeling through regression equation. Int. J. Strat. Decis. Sci. 9
(3), 95–112.
Patil, P., 2017. Rural and urban consumer of India. In: Paper Presented at the
International Conference on Managing Business in Digital Age. Sinhgad Institute of
Management, Pune, Maharashtra.
Peck, J., Childers, T.L., 2006. If I touch it I have to have it: individual and environmental
influences on impulse purchasing. J. Bus. Res. 59 (6), 765–769.
Peng, C., Kim, Y.G., 2014. Application of the stimuli-organism-response (SOR)
framework to online shopping behavior. J. Internet Commer. 13 (3–4), 159–176.
Plaut, P.O., 2011. The characteristics and tradeoffs of households choosing to live in
gated communities. Environ. Plann. Plann. Des. 38 (5), 757–775.
Ployhart, R.E., Vandenberg, R.J., 2010. Longitudinal research: the theory, design, and
analysis of change. J. Manag. 36 (1), 94–120.
Pradhan, V., 2016. Study on impulsive buying behavior among consumers in
supermarket in kathmandu valley. Journal of Business and Social Sciences Research
1 (2), 215–233.
Prashar, S., Parsad, C., Tata, S.V., Sahay, V., 2015a. Impulsive buying structure in
retailing: an interpretive Structural modeling approach. Journal of Marketing
Analytics 3 (4), 215–233.
Prashar, S., Parsad, C., Vijay, T.S., 2015b. Factors prompting impulse buying behaviour-
study among shoppers in India. Int. J. Indian Cult. Bus. Manag. 11 (2), 219–244.
Punwatkar, S., Verghese, M., 2014. The impact of salesperson’s behavior on consumer’s
purchase decision: an empirical study. IUP J. Mark. Manag. 13 (2), 72.
Purnamasari, I., Hudayah, S., Achmad, G.N., 2020. Peran postive emotion dalam
MEMEDIASI IN-store promotion TERHADAP impulse buying pada KONSUMEN giant
ekstra alaya samarinda. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Ekonomi Manajemen 5 (2),
382–395.
Rapoport, A., 1975. Toward a redefinition of density. Environ. Behav. 7 (2), 133–158.
Reinartz, W., Wiegand, N., Imschloss, M., 2019. The impact of digital transformation on
the retailing value chain. Int. J. Res. Market. 36 (3), 350–366.
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A.J., Ganesan, S., Moorman, C., 2008. Cross-sectional versus
longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines. J. Market. Res. 45
(3), 261–279.
Rintamäki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., Spence, M.T., 2006. Decomposing the value of
department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions. Int. J.
Retail Distrib. Manag. 34 (1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550610642792.
Roggeveen, A.L., Grewal, D., Schweiger, E.B., 2020. The DAST framework for retail
atmospherics: the impact of in-and out-of-store retail journey touchpoints on the
customer experience. J. Retailing 96 (1), 128–137.
Román, S., Martín, P.J., 2008. Changes in sales call frequency: a longitudinal
examination of the consequences in the supplier–customer relationship. Ind. Market.
Manag. 37 (5), 554–564.
Scherbaum, C.A., Ferreter, J.M., 2009. Estimating statistical power and required sample
sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organ. Res. Methods 12
(2), 347–367.
Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., 1996. Measurement error in psychological research: lessons
from 26 research scenarios. Psychol. Methods 1 (2), 199.
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102586
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M., 2014. The direct and interactive effects of store-level
promotions on impulse purchase: moderating impact of category familiarity and
normative influences. J. Consum. Behav. 13 (4), 242–250.
Silva-Risso, J.M., Bucklin, R.E., Morrison, D.G., 1999. A decision support system for
planning manufacturers’ sales promotion calendars. Market. Sci. 18 (3), 274–300.
Silvera, D.H., Lavack, A.M., Kropp, F., 2008. Impulse buying: the role of affect, social
influence, and subjective wellbeing. J. Consum. Market. 25 (1), 23–33. https://doi.
org/10.1108/07363760810845381.
Simintiras, A.C., Ifie, K., Watkins, A., Georgakas, K., 2013. Antecedents of adaptive
selling among retail salespeople: a multilevel analysis. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 20
(4), 419–428.
Singh, R., Venugopal, P., 2015. The impact of salesperson customer orientation on sales
performance via mediating mechanism. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 30 (5), 594–607.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2012-0141.
Slater, S.F., Hult, G.T.M., Olson, E.M., 2007. On the importance of matching strategic
behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets.
J. Acad. Market. Sci. 35 (1), 5–17.
Sommer, R., Wynes, M., Brinkley, G., 1992. Social facilitation effects in shopping
behavior. Environ. Behav. 24 (3), 285–297.
Stern, H., 1962. The significance of impulse buying today. J. Market. 26 (2), 59–62.
Summers, J.O., 2001. Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing:
from conceptualization through the review process. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 29 (4),
405–415.
Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A., 2014. Cause and Effect: Optimizing the Designs of
Longitudinal Studies in Occupational Health Psychology. Taylor & Francis.
Tendai, M., Crispen, C., 2009. In-store shopping environment and impulsive buying. Afr.
J. Market. Manag. 1 (4), 102–108.
Thang, D.C.L., Tan, B.L.B., 2003. Linking consumer perception to preference of retail
stores: an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 10 (4), 193–200.
Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review
of the experimental evidence. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 193–211.
Vieira, V.A., 2013. Stimuli–organism-response framework: a meta-analytic review in the
store environment. J. Bus. Res. 66 (9), 1420–1426.
Walley, K., Custance, P., Orton, G., Parsons, S., Lindgreen, A., Hingley, M., 2009.
Longitudinal attitude surveys in consumer research: a case study from the agrifood
sector. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 12 (3), 260–278.
Wang, J., Wang, X., 2019. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus. John
Wiley & Sons.
Wang, M., Beal, D.J., Chan, D., Newman, D.A., Vancouver, J.B., Vandenberg, R.J., 2017.
Longitudinal research: a panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and
statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement 3 (1), 1–24.
Wardell, J.D., Ramchandani, V.A., Hendershot, C.S., 2015. A multilevel structural
equation model of within-and between-person associations among subjective
responses to alcohol, craving, and laboratory alcohol self-administration. J. Abnorm.
Psychol. 124 (4), 1050.
Wieseke, J., Lee, N., Broderick, A.J., Dawson, J.F., Van Dick, R., 2008. Multilevel analysis
in marketing research: differentiating analytical outcomes. J. Market. Theor. Pract.
16 (4), 321–340.
Woodside, A.G., Sims, J.T., 1976. Retail sales transactions and customer purchase pal
effects on buying behavior. J. Retailing 52 (3), 57–64.
Youn, S., Faber, R.J., 2000. Impulse buying: its relation to personality traits and cues.
ACR North American Advances 27 (1), 179–185.
Zhang, X., Li, S., Burke, R.R., Leykin, A., 2014. An examination of social influence on
shopper behavior using video tracking data. J. Market. 78 (5), 24–41.
Zhang, Z., Lee, J.C.-K., Wong, P.H., 2016. Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling
Analysis of the Servant Leadership Construct and its Relation to Job Satisfaction.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal.
Zhou, L., Wong, A., 2004. Consumer impulse buying and in-store stimuli in Chinese
supermarkets. J. Int. Consum. Market. 16 (2), 37–53.