Impulsive consumption behavior is marked by emotional conflict and a disregard for outcomes, resulting in thoughtless, short-term reward seeking; contextually inconsistent decisions; and a desire for immediate gratification (Han & Wang, 2012). Although impulsive consumption has been extensively studied, with existing research primarily focusing on its precipitating factors and mechanisms (Feng & Lu, 2020; X. Zhang et al., 2024), there is a noticeable void in research on understanding factors that inhibit such behavior. Self-determination theory suggests that human behavior is motivated by intrinsic needs and goals (Gagné & Deci, 2014). As a form of irrational decision making in consumption (Han & Wang, 2012), impulsive spending can fulfill material or psychological goals. However, in reality, individuals often pursue multiple, interdependent goals. The existing research has mainly examined consumers achieving a single goal (Fishbach et al., 2009), but goal conflict is common in daily consumption, especially when pursuing one goal hinders the pursuit of other goals (Mayer & Freund, 2022). Investigating the inhibitory effects of goal conflict as a negative factor in impulsive consumption behavior is, therefore, of both theoretical and practical significance.

 

To conduct a thorough investigation of the mechanisms linking goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior, it is essential to incorporate relevant variables. Among these variables, need for cognitive closure (NFCC) reflects the desire to find clear answers to ambiguous issues, prioritizing certainty over confusion, regardless of accuracy (Sachdeva, 2022). High NFCC individuals make quick decisions with minimal effort, whereas those with low NFCC avoid hasty decisions until they gather sufficient information (Rosen et al., 2015). In alignment with this, Trope et al. (2007) introduced construal level theory, which examines how psychological distance affects information interpretation (Williams et al., 2014). High-level construal emphasizes core features and desirability, whereas low-level construal focuses on peripheral features and feasibility (Trope et al., 2007). These differing construal levels significantly impact decisions and judgments (Trope & Liberman, 2010).

 

Uncertainty avoidance, first proposed by Hofstede (1984), refers to the extent to which a society or culture can tolerate uncertainty, ambiguity, and unknown risks, as well as the inclination of people to mitigate such uncertainties through rules, institutions, or beliefs. People in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance are sensitive to uncertainty and risks. They tend to avoid the unknown by adhering to strict rules, structured procedures, traditions, or religious beliefs. In contrast, people in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are more receptive to ambiguity and risks and can adapt to changes with flexibility. Therefore, uncertainty avoidance serves as a significant indicator of individual cultural differences (Chua et al., 2021).

 

Impulsive consumption is characterized by high automation and emotional intensity, which lower cognitive levels in decision making, resulting in outcomes ranging from satisfaction and pleasure to dissatisfaction, regret, or high financial risk (Y. Zhang & Shrum, 2009). Thus, the factors of NFCC, construal level, and uncertainty avoidance may collectively shape the complex relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior. Therefore, in this study we explored the mechanisms linking goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior, with the aim of enriching consumer behavior theory and providing insights to mitigate irrational consumption.

How consumers evaluate pros and cons is crucial in determining impulsive consumption. Impulsivity is spontaneous but purchasing can be inhibited (Dholakia, 2000). Goal conflict creates a perception of resource scarcity, leading customers to struggle with resource-related goals (Etkin et al., 2015). Scarcity creates cognitive constraints that influence subsequent task performance, prompting consumers to seek detailed information and reduce errors (Kleiman & Enisman, 2018). Goal conflict drives consumers to justify their choices, often favoring those with a stronger rationale (Urminsky & Kivetz, 2011). It is more challenging to justify impulsive consumption than planned consumption, as impulsive benefits are often intangible and difficult to assess. Hedonism and indulgent purchases further complicate this justification. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative correlation between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior.

Individuals with high NFCC are inclined to spend little time weighing new information, sometimes disregarding it to achieve closure (Yan et al., 2016). They make decisions quickly, tending to streamline information processing (Hernandez et al., 2015), which means that the need for closure is manifested as a desire to swiftly resolve ambiguous issues and avoid uncertainty. In contrast, those with low NFCC meticulously process new information, demonstrating a more rational and systematic approach. However, in the condition of goal conflict, consumers are encouraged to gather more information and carefully weigh their options, leading to more cautious decision making (Etkin & Memmi, 2021), thereby suppressing their NFCC, especially in situations of high goal conflict. However, high NFCC results in rapid decisions based on limited information, fostering impulsive buying. Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Need for cognitive closure will mediate the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior.

In a situation of high goal conflict, consumers experience urgency because of resource scarcity (Etkin, 2019) and carefully allocate resources, leading to deeper psychological processing than in a situation of little goal conflict. In their processing they emphasize long-term goal accessibility and value. Scarcity triggers future anxiety, promoting a global view of long-term benefits and abstract mental representations. In construal level theory Trope et al. (2007) posit that individuals perceive objects, events, or people as psychologically near or distant across time, space, hypothetical, and social dimensions. High construal levels correspond to abstract and holistic thinking, focusing on the why of an action; in contrast, low construal levels involve specific and detailed thinking, focusing on the how. In other words, individuals with high construal levels are more concerned with the meaning and outcomes of their goals; thus, in the context of consumption behavior, people prioritize whether a product aligns with their values or ideal state. For example, an individual might purchase an electric vehicle because of environmental concerns, even though charging the vehicle may be less convenient than refueling. Conversely, individuals with a low construal level are more concerned with feasibility, such as whether the price of a product is appropriate, how convenient it is to use, and the cost of maintenance.

 

High goal conflict increases psychological distance, affecting decision making by shifting the focus to a more rational perspective. With increased psychological distance, impulsive behavior is reduced, as long-term benefits are weighed against short-term temptations, encouraging rational thinking (Liberman et al., 2007). In scenarios of high goal conflict, consumers with a distant perspective engage in thorough deliberation, avoiding inconsistent or aggressive actions, thereby reducing reckless consumption (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Research findings suggest that individuals with a high-construal-level mindset prefer highly desirable products or services, whereas those with a low-construal-level mindset prefer highly feasible ones (Zhao et al., 2007). Thus, heightened goal conflict will lead to a high construal level, allowing consumers to assess short-term versus long-term benefits, overcome impulsive urges, and recognize long-term strategic advantages. This led us to form the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Construal level will mediate the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior.

Impulsive consumption behavior contradicts the principles of rational economic action, so that the impulsive consumer is aiming to maximize utility, relying on simple evaluation criteria that introduce significant uncertainty risks (X. Zhang et al., 2024). The degree of uncertainty avoidance among consumers reflects their attitude toward risk, change, and ambiguity, influencing their search for and processing of product information (Yi et al., 2013). Compared to those with low uncertainty avoidance, consumers with high uncertainty avoidance are more rational and less prone to taking risks (Litvin, 2019). Given the negative correlation between goal conflict and impulsive buying, consumers high in uncertainty avoidance tend to be more cautious, prioritize information search, delay decisions, and seek to make a purchase after going through a rational decision-making process (Davis & Agrawal, 2018). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Uncertainty avoidance will moderate the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior.

Methods adhered to relevant ethical guidelines and regulations, and the study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the School of Business Administration, Henan University of Animal Husbandry and Economy (EA2024023). The participants were residents of cities in China, comprising Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chengdu, Wuhan, Xi’an, Zhengzhou, Changsha, and Lanzhou. Data collection was conducted offline through a survey distributed primarily by friends and acquaintances of the researchers. Out of 500 distributed survey forms, 408 were returned. After excluding invalid responses, 372 valid surveys were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 24.2 years (SD = 4.5, range = 16–37), comprising 126 (33.87%) men and 246 (66.13%) women. As regards occupation, there were 26 (6.99%) civil servants, 31 (8.33%) medical professionals, 38 (10.22%) educators, 46 (12.37%) freelancers, 86 (23.12%) students, 107 (28.76%) white-collar workers, and 38 (10.22%) in other occupations. In terms of education, 128 (34.41%) participants had an associate degree or below, 184 (49.46%) held a bachelor’s degree, 44 (11.83%) had a master’s degree, and 16 (4.30%) had a doctorate.

All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

 

We measured goal conflict using an adapted scale from Berrios et al. (2018), which is based on the matrix technique of assessing goal conflict (Emmons & King, 1988). Participants were asked to select five scenarios of goal conflicts they had experienced in recent days. In each scenario of two or more conflicting goals, they answered the three following questions: “To what extent do these two goals compete for your attention?” “To what extent do you believe that pursuing certain goals hinders the pursuit of others?” and “To what extent do you feel that pursuing one goal means missing out on opportunities to pursue another goal?”

 

We derived 42 items to assess NFCC from the Need for Closure Scale (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), which measures cognitive closure across five aspects: preference for order (e.g., “I believe that having clear rules and order at work is a necessary condition for success”), preference for predictability (e.g., “I dislike uncertain situations”), individual decisiveness (e.g., “I consider myself to be an indecisive person”), aversion to ambiguity (e.g., “I feel uncomfortable when I do not understand the reasons behind something happening in my life”), and psychological closure (e.g., “When thinking about issues, I try to consider all possible perspectives”).

 

We assessed construal level with the Behavioral Identification Form (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989). This measure comprises 25 items, such as “Making a list (getting organized vs. writing things down).”

 

We assessed uncertainty avoidance with three items from Hofstede (1984): “It is crucial to have clear and detailed plans or guidelines so that I always know what I am supposed to do,” “Safety is paramount in my life,” and “Clear plans are very helpful in my daily life.”

 

We gauged impulsive consumption behavior using a scale adapted from Jones et al. (2003) by rephrasing items to better align with the cultural traditions and linguistic preferences of the respondents, and also incorporating research by Xiang et al. (2016). This measure comprised three items: “I often buy items impulsively, deviating from my initial plans,” “When I make unplanned purchases, I rarely spend much time thinking about the decision before buying,” and “When I see items that I hadn’t planned to purchase, I don’t hesitate to buy them.”

Composite reliability ranged from .82 to .91, with all average variance extracted (AVE) values surpassing .50, indicating robust reliability and convergent validity (see Table 1). Additionally, the square roots of AVE exceeded the Pearson correlation coefficients between variables, confirming strong discriminant validity.

A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the five variables involved in this study, and the results are shown in Table 2. All fit indices of the five-factor model achieved a good standard and the fit of this model to the data was better than that of all other models, indicating that the five-factor model was suitable for adoption.

There was a significant negative correlation between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior, supporting Hypothesis 1 (see Table 3). Both NFCC (indirect path 1) and construal level (indirect path 2) mediated the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior. There was a significant positive correlation between NFCC and impulsive consumption, and a significant negative correlation between construal level and impulsive consumption. Results from a bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 resamples supported Hypotheses 2 and 3.

The results of testing for moderating effects are presented in Table 4. The interaction coefficient between goal conflict and uncertainty avoidance shows that uncertainty avoidance moderated the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption behavior, supporting Hypothesis 4. Figure 1 illustrates this moderating effect, showing that the slope for a high value of uncertainty avoidance was steeper than that for a low value, indicating a stronger moderating effect when uncertainty avoidance was high, compared to low.

Extending existing research in which the focus was primarily on factors and mechanisms fostering impulsive consumption (Feng & Lu, 2020; X. Zhang et al., 2024), in this study we have filled a notable gap in the literature by examining inhibitory factors for impulse purchasing. We introduced NFCC, construal level, and uncertainty avoidance to explore mechanisms linking goal conflict and impulsive consumption. Our research revealed that there was a negative correlation of goal conflict with impulsive consumption. We further found that NFCC and construal level acted as mediators of this relationship and that uncertainty avoidance acted as a moderator These findings enhance theoretical understanding by offering a fresh perspective addressing underexplored inhibitory factors, particularly goal conflict as a negative factor mitigating impulsive consumption, and by constructing a model detailing the mechanism of the relationship of goal conflict with impulsive consumption, thereby enriching consumer behavior theory.

From a business perspective, stimulating impulsive consumption behavior aids in gaining market share in a fiercely competitive environment. In our study we identified a significant positive correlation between NFCC and impulsive consumption, and a significant negative correlation between construal level and impulsive consumption. Additionally, uncertainty avoidance moderated the relationship between goal conflict and impulsive consumption. Consequently, managers can boost business performance by elevating consumers’ NFCC and lowering their construal level to encourage impulsive consumption. Strategies to achieve this include leveraging emotional marketing to create emotional connections and evoke spontaneous purchases through emotional appeals rather than rational analysis; employing limited-time discounts and offers, low-stock alerts, and promotions to create urgency, prompt quick decision making, and minimize deliberation; and using attractive product displays and premium packaging to stimulate sensory appeal, thereby reducing cognitive scrutiny and facilitating temptation-driven impulsive buying. Managers can also build consumers’ trust and reduce uncertainty about product quality, return policies, and after-sales service by ensuring transparency in product and service information, providing detailed descriptions, user reviews, return policies, quality guarantees, and after-sales service commitments. Thus, consumer trust will be enhanced and willingness to purchase will increase.

 

From the consumer perspective, mitigating the negative impacts of impulsive consumption is crucial. We found a negative correlation between goal conflict and impulsive consumption. Consumers can curb impulse buying by setting a long-term goal, like an annual savings target or spending plan, to enhance motivation toward goal achievement; establishing a brief waiting period before making an impulsive purchase to reflect on the necessity of the item; or sharing consumption goals with family, friends, or colleagues for support and supervision, fostering an environment that discourages impulsive spending.

This study has some limitations. First, we relied mainly on cross-sectional data, which restricts causal analysis; in future studies researchers could collect longitudinal data. Second, our research offers only a preliminary look at the factors of NFCC, construal level, and uncertainty avoidance, with other factors remaining unexamined. Future studies could be conducted to address these gaps. Last, the sample comprised people in China and cultural differences may affect consumption behaviors; cross-cultural research is needed to enhance the applicability of our research.

Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2018). When feeling mixed can be meaningful: The relation between mixed emotions and eudaimonic well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19(3), 841–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9849-y

 

Chua, B.-L., Al-Ansi, A., Lee, M. J., & Han, H. (2021). Impact of health risk perception on avoidance of international travel in the wake of a pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(7), 985–1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1829570

 

Davis, J. M., & Agrawal, D. (2018). Understanding the role of interpersonal identification in online review evaluation: An information processing perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.001

 

Dholakia, U. M. (2000). Temptation and resistance: An integrated model of consumption impulse formation and enactment. Psychology and Marketing, 17(11), 955–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6793(200011)17:11<955::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-J

 

Emmons, R. A., & King, L. A. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1040

 

Etkin, J. (2019). Time in relation to goals. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26(2), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.013

 

Etkin, J., Evangelidis, I., & Aaker, J. (2015). Pressed for time? Goal conflict shapes how time is perceived, spent, and valued. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(3), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0130

 

Etkin, J., & Memmi, S. A. (2021). Goal conflict encourages work and discourages leisure. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(5), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa019

 

Feng, J., & Lu, M. (2020). An empirical study on impulse purchase intention of live marketing in the mobile internet era [In Chinese]. Soft Science, 34(12), 128–144. https://doi.org/10.13956/j.ss.1001-8409.2020.12.20

 

Fishbach, A., Zhang, Y., & Koo, M. (2009). The dynamics of self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 315–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280903275375

 

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2014). The history of self-determination theory in psychology and management. Oxford University Press.

 

Han, D., & Wang, Y. (2012). Mental simulation: An effective way to prevent consumers’ impulse buying [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 1, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2012.01.016

 

Hernandez, J. M. C., Wright, S. A., & Ferminiano Rodrigues, F. R. (2015). Attributes versus benefits: The role of construal levels and appeal type on the persuasiveness of marketing messages. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.967425

 

Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682

 

Jones, M. A., Reynolds, K. E., Weun, S., & Beatty, S. E. (2003). The product-specific nature of impulse buying tendency. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00250-8

 

Kleiman, T., & Enisman, M. (2018). The conflict mindset: How internal conflicts affect self-regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(5), Article e12387. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12387

 

Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Mccrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009

 

Litvin, S. W. (2019). Hofstede, cultural differences, and TripAdvisor hotel reviews. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(5), 712–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2298

 

Mayer, Z., & Freund, A. M. (2022). Better off without? Benefits and costs of resolving goal conflict through goal shelving and goal disengagement. Motivation and Emotion, 46(6), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09966-x

 

Rosen, N. O., Ivanova, E., & Knäuper, B. (2015). Differentiation intolerance of uncertainty from three related but distinct constructs. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 27(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2013.815743

 

Sachdeva, R. (2022). Pandemic, perceived risk, and cognitive dissonance as antecedents to need for cognitive closure. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.298676

 

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

 

Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X

 

Urminsky, O., & Kivetz, R. (2011). Scope insensitivity and the “mere token” effect. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.2.282

 

Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 660–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660

 

Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1049

 

Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1086/674212

 

Xiang, L., Zheng, X., Lee, M. K. O., & Zhao, D. (2016). Exploring consumers’ impulse buying behavior on social commerce platform: The role of parasocial interaction. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.002

 

Yan, D., SenGupta, J., & Hong, J. (2016). Why does psychological distance influence construal level? The role of processing mode. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 598–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw045

 

Yi, Y., Jeon, H., & Choi, B. (2013). Segregation vs aggregation in the loyalty program: The role of perceived uncertainty. European Journal of Marketing, 47(8), 1238–1255. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311324309

 

Zhang, X., Fan, J., & Zhang, R. (2024). The impact of social exclusion on impulsive buying behaviour of consumers on online platforms: Samples from China. Heliyon, 10(1), Article e23319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23319

 

Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 838–850. https://doi.org/10.1086/593687

 

Zhao, M., Hoeffler, S., & Zauberman, G. (2007). Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process- versus outcome-focused thoughts. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.3.379