1. Introduction

Consumers are constantly making choices between products, a fact that they are vaguely aware of (Nelson, 1970). The consumer profile is what determines the aspects of how the individual buys, what makes them do it, and what influences they react to. Therefore, it is pertinent to study how impulsive buying occurs and to what extent marketing is responsible for such action. Impulsive buying has been studied concerning what happens before purchases and what their consequences are (Costa & Larán, 2003), in studies such as the permanence in places of purchase and whether product dispositions can drive unplanned purchases (Angelo , Lara & Fávero, 2003), as well as if the distribution of prizes or samples has a positive impact on impulsive consumer buying (Santini & Espartel, 2010).

Consumer behavior has been widely studied in marketing literature. However, the literature is not established regarding how the buying profile influences impulsive buying. Impulsive buying behavior can usually be categorized as unplanned (Kacen, Hess & Walkeret, 2012). The definition of impulsive buying behavior is related to a sudden purchase whose rapidity precludes any thoughtful consideration, disregarding future alternatives or implications (Sharma, Sivakumaran & Marshall, 2010). A temptation associated with immediate gratification characterizes impulsive buying desire and it is usually related to a temporary state (Vohs & Baumeister, 2016). Thus, consumers who do not create an effective strategy to develop resistance to impulsive buying will tend to fall into temptation (Roberts & Manolis, 2012).

It is known that there is a need to create a strategy to resist this type of purchase (Roberts & Manolis, 2012), although, little is known considering which aspects within this resistance strategy are taken into consideration. Consequently, this study aims to test customs that can decrease this tendency for impulsive purchasing, seeking to test whether effects such as spending self-control, and concern for the future (long-term orientation) can impact into decreasing impulsive purchases and if these are aspects of a resistance strategy against these types of purchases.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify whether spending self-control and long- term orientation influence impulsive buying behavior, and to comprehend the variables that may alter the behavior of individuals by decreasing impulsivity. In light of this, our research question is: What factors influence impulsive buying behavior? The relevance of this paper is to identify if the impulsive buying process can be altered according to the individual's objectives and the consumer's profile. These aspects are concerning consumer’s profile (thinking about the present or the future) and consumer’s goals (if spending self-control exists, impulsive

Consumer purchase decision: factors that influence impulsive purchasing buying may decrease). Thus, the results may bring to companies the possibility of improving sales strategies or to consumers the possibility of decreasing the tendency for impulsive purchases.

Methodologically, this study was based on empirical data collected from primary sources through a questionnaire. This questionnaire was conducted with 286 respondents from the state of Santa Catarina, containing individuals from various levels of education. This questionnaire was based on scales translated from studies by Bearden, Money & Nevins (2006), Rook & Fisher (1995), and Haws, Bearden & Nenkov (2012), thus taking the following constructs, respectively: Long-term orientation; impulsive buying behavior, and spending self-control.

The results indicate that impulsive purchases are influenced by spending self-control, but not influenced by long-term orientation directly. Thus, spending self-control negatively influences the impulsive buying behavior. The influence of long-term orientation does not exist on the impulsive buying behavior. However, long-term orientation influences the spending self- control positively, and this negatively influences the impulsive buying behavior. Spending self- control can then impact impulsive buying, considering the impact of long-term orientation on spending self-control.

This article has the following structure: contextualization addressed in this introduction, followed by a theoretical framework that provides the conceptual basis of the theme addressed regarding the scales used, the details of the method used in the study, data analysis and discussion, and finally, a conclusion of the conducted study, incorporating the implications, limitations, and future research of the study.

2. Theoretical framework

The theoretical basis of this study is grounded on information associated to consumer behavior. The Brazilian law Nº. 8,078/90, of September 11, 1990 that defines a consumer as any individual or entity who purchases or uses a product or service as a final recipient. In the view of the marketing discipline, the person is not only seen as an acquirer. The person is seen as a consumer who needs to have his or her needs and wants met by the companies and brands that are in the market at that time (Solomon, Dahl, White, Zaichkowsky & Polegato, 2014). It is the consumers who causes the financial equilibrium within the economic structure between production and trade, and for that reason they are extremely difficult to satisfy and demanding (Gade, 1980). There are several groups of consumers, which bring us the most varied requirements. It is important to understand how these groups act, their ways of thinking, acting, and buying.

Thus, we propose to explain three constructs of consumer behavior and their relationships: impulsive buying behavior, long-term orientation, and spending self-control. The constructs long-term orientation and spending self-control, although understood as a strategic way to resist future purchases, have not been directly addressed by this literature. Thus, we propose that these constructs can be used as a way to assist the consumer in compulsive buying resistance strategies, and these resistance strategies (Roberts & Manolis, 2012) are composed by these constructs.

2.1 Impulsive buying behavior

Impulsive buying has a history associated with immaturity, primitivism, foolishness, “defects of the will,” low level of intelligence, deviation from social standards, and even criminality (Von Böhm-Bawerk, 1959; Freud, 1911; Mill, 1973). Although, this behavior has been more recently characterized as specious thinking (Ainslie, 1975). Specious thinking would be misleading thinking that seems fair and true, but only in appearance. According to Stigler & Becker (1977), this kind of thinking can lead to inconsistent and short-sighted behaviors.

In the consumer domain, impulsive buying behavior is always related to bad behavior, with negative consequences on personal finances, post-purchase satisfaction, social reactions, and self-esteem (Rook, 1987; Rook & Hoch, 1985). However, in some consumer situations, impulsive buying can be viewed in a neutral or even positive way. Examples of such situations would be the spontaneous purchase of a gift for a sick friend, or simply a motivation from an advantage, such as a two-for-one promotion. These impulsive buying activities may be tied to generosity, empathy, or practical everyday activities. When buying is driven by some virtue, it can provide more positive assessments of momentum (Rook & Fisher, 1995).

Rook & Fisher (1995) define impulsive buying as the tendency of a consumer to buy spontaneously, thoughtlessly, immediately, and kinetically. According to the authors, buyers who are highly purchase-driven are more likely to be encouraged to make spontaneous purchases, with their shopping lists being more “open” and receptive to unexpected purchases. From this logic, Rook & Fisher (1995) elaborated the scale that measures how much predisposed people are for impulsive buying.

The impulsive behavior of a purchase can usually be categorized as unplanned at first (Kacen et al., 2012). Impulsive buying behavior is defined as a sudden purchase, preventing the person from producing thoughtful consideration, resulting in a disregard for their alternatives and future implications (Sharma et al., 2010). This temptation to purchase is associated with immediate gratifications.

A temptation associated with immediate gratification characterizes impulsive buying desire and is usually related to a temporary state (Vohs & Baumeister, 2016). Thus, consumers who do not create an effective strategy to develop resistance to impulsive buying will tend to fall into temptation (Roberts & Manolis, 2012). It is then understood that there is acquaintance in the literature that there is a need to create a strategy to resist this type of purchase (Roberts & Manolis, 2012), however, little is known about the composition of a resistance strategy. As a result, we propose in this study that an individual's long-term orientation (thinking about the future) and spending self-control are important factors in decreasing the impulsiveness of purchases. We propose that spending self-control can be seen as a strategy of resistance, reducing the possibility of compulsive shopping, acting as a rational way of thinking about shopping, contrary to Ainslie's (1975) specious thinking. Similarly, the forward-thinking, long- term, goal-oriented individual can be more rational and avoid specious thoughts.

2.2 Long-term orientation

Lumpkin, Brigham & Mosset (2010) state that when long-term orientation is embodied in the company or even in society, the individuals who make up this community have a greater incentive to respect their culture, ethics, and about saving money, being cautious, and persistent. According to the authors, this orientation is also associated with the adaptability of individuals who do not belong to that location. Thus, we can perceive that cultural aspects of a nation can determine long-term orientations.

Hofstede developed cultural dimensions after identifying that companies from other countries conducted their branches differently from local companies. It was at this time that the author understood that the way of managing and working may differ according to the culture and traditions of the place of origin (Santana, Mendes & Mariano, 2014). The theory has five dimensions. Among them, there is the long-term orientation. This dimension addresses the extent to which cultural issues, past or present events, future planning, persistence, and ethics all influence decision making and the lives of individuals, as well as how their behavior can affect those around them (Nevins, Bearden & Money, 2007).

Bearden et al. (2006) bring in their study that researchers began to use the fifth dimension to focus on the present, valuing all that was obtained in the past through learning and the culture, continuing with planning, traditions, and hard work to seek a better future. Long-term orientation proposed by Bearden et al. (2006) is defined as the cultural value of seeing time in a holistic way, giving value to the past and the future, rather than considering actions important only for the "here and now" or short-term effects.

The concept of long-term orientation was first defined as a prospective attribute versus the present and past attribute, being then, the future (long-term) versus the "now" (short-term), as defined by Hofstede, Jan Hofstede & Minkov (2005). LTO (long-term orientation) is defined as a cultural dimension that can influence various aspects of a nation, including entrepreneurial activities, also varying from national to regional level (Lortie, Barreto & Cox, 2019) in their impact.

We understand that different cultural factors systematically influence impulsive buying behavior (Kacen & Lee, 2002). Thus, long-term orientation depends on the cultural aspects of each country and how we weigh the importance of the past and the future compared to the present. Additionally, it is known that not only cultural aspects influence it, but also regional aspects (Kacen & Lee, 2002). Although this is not the focus of our study, there is clearly a dependence on this theme regarding data generalization, being the aspects that influence impulsive buying behavior only generalized to the region and culture from which the research was conducted, acting as a form of control.

2.3 Spending self-control

Spending self-control concerns the ability of an individual to keep available financial resources under control, manage spending, and make individual or joint financial decisions as he or she may be responsible for financial expenses of the family or others (Ribeiro, Vieira, Santos, Trindade & Mallmann, 2009). Reports show that consumers' difficulty in controlling their own spending is very high, due to low savings rates and the facility of obtaining credits and financings (Haws et al., 2012). The simplicity of obtaining credit and financing is, therefore, specifically related to each country. In 2017 about 39% of the Brazilian population was in debt. With these numbers, it is clear that indebtedness is a widespread problem, and overconsumption causes these numbers to expand increasingly throughout Brazil and other countries. Consumer self-control is required to decrease this number. Self-control turns out to be a struggle between willpower and desire arising from preferences that are inconsistent with time (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). Beyond the higher number of debts, this situation that the individual goes through cause behavioral problems that can affect both personal and professional life.

Spending self-control is intended to allow control and balance over financial issues, permitting the acquisition and accumulation of goods without the consumer going through stressful situations and pursuing to establish a consumption strategy to increase their assets. Consumption-related self-control failures occur when indulgent local consumption is chosen over global goals, often due to the embedded influences that attractive consumer opportunities exert on our behaviors (Loewenstein, 1996). Spending self-control can also be considered the ability of an individual to change the likelihood of a future event by analyzing the possible variables of their decisions now.

There are effective ways to exploit interventions that can increase the effectiveness of consumer self-control, even when just temporarily. For example, checking whether raising the credit card limit is necessary even when the amount of the bill may be equal to or greater than the monthly income of the cardholder. To such a degree, they can expose the damage that lack of control over spending can bring in the short or long-term. In addition to this exposure, they can denote strategies and suggestions to the best way to be able to impose and follow self- control in daily life. These measures encourage consideration of consequences before taking action. The famous “think before you speak”, now incorporated as “think before you spend” (Haws et al., 2012).

There is a notion that price promotions can reduce individuals' guilt over indulgent product purchases, although this guilt relief is transitory and the consumer will later on regret the purchasing act (Matherly, Ghosh & Joshi, 2019). Consequently, thinking before you spend may not be enough, and the blame process may start later than expected. This makes us believe that perhaps long-term orientation, which is considered the tendency to value past and future as important rather than just “here and now” (Haws et al., 2012) would be able to help spending self-control, giving a more tangible goal to the individual and making them think more rationally and therefore not feeling the relief of guilt at the time of impulsive shopping. Thus, we believe that spending self-control could help to reduce impulsive buying behavior, hence directly affecting this type of purchase by seeking a more rational thinking.

3. Method

For this study we used primary data collected by the researchers involved in the study. The study aimed to analyze impulsivity at the time of purchase and what impacts on it. For this, we used a questionnaire as an instrument. The questionnaire was sent over the internet. All respondents went through the same questions that had as a purpose evaluate their behavior at the time of purchase.

Our study is characterized as exploratory. An exploratory study goes into the field with no pre-established assumptions to be confirmed. The exploratory environment is usually used when the research area has little knowledge accumulated. Therefore, it is used to deepen the knowledge on the subject and make its understanding clearer (Raupp & Beuren, 2006). As for the approach, this study is characterized as quantitative. We use statistical tests and descriptive analysis to establish results. It is very significant to ensure the accuracy of the results and to understand the relationship between the variables and the main cause of the phenomenon of the theme being studied (Raupp & Beuren, 2006). Thus, given the methodological positioning and the search for data based on scientific evidence involving the physical senses, we believe that our epistemological positioning is clearly based on positivism.

3.1 Instrument of analysis and variables

For this study, we built a questionnaire based on already validated scales in the international literature, adapting it to Portuguese. We used the scales long-term orientation, from Bearden et al. (2006); impulsive buying behavior, from Rook & Fisher (1995), and spending self-control, from Haws et al. (2012). We have translated these scales and analyzed them together with an expert in the field for translation validation. The long-term orientation scale was validated in the study of Ferraz, Rebouças, Costa Nogami & Quezado (2015), which underwent a reverse translation and pre-test procedure before application. The impulsive buying behavior scale was validated in the study from Santini, Lübeck & Sampaio (2014), through content analysis and pretesting. The spending self-control scale was validated in this study, in conjunction with the scales already validated, through reverse translation and content analysis by two experts in the field, before final construct validation and pre-test application in 35 people, using the same means to reach them.

The long-term orientation scale by Bearden et al. (2006) aims to capture how much the consumer tends to evaluate their decisions in the long run. It is composed of variables such as: “Family heritage is important to me”; "I don't mind giving up today's fun for success in the future", and "I value a strong link to my past.". Rook & Fisher's (1995) impulsive buying behavior scale aims to understand how consumers usually make their purchases. Some of its variables are: “I often buy things spontaneously”; "Sometimes I feel like buying things on the spur-of-the-moment", and "I carefully plan most of my purchases.".

The last scale is from Haws et al. (2012). Its purpose is to analyze how much the consumer has control over his current and future spending. The variables included are: “I am able to work effectively toward long-term financial goals”; “I carefully consider my needs before making purchases”, and “I often delay taking action until I have carefully considered the consequences of my purchase decisions.”.

From these scales it is possible to make a comparison and correlation between consumer profiles, thus making it possible to highlight and identify the profiles most likely to make impulsive purchases and what are the most common characteristics among these consumers. Hence, making it possible to reach the objective of this study. Figure 1 presents the dimensions that constitute this study, and its variables.

3.2 Sample

The sample of this study consisted of 286 respondents. Respondents were invited to participate in the survey through social networks such as WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook. Additionally, part of the sample were some people contacted via email. Data collection took place from October 2 to October 9, 2018. Data were collected by the researchers involved. The main characteristics of the respondents can be found in Figure 2.

The sample is mainly composed of women (51%) as respondents. Regarding the age, it has its variations, but the highest concentration was the public up to 20 years with 49.30% and 21 to 25 years with 36.40%. It is also possible to report that about 59.40% have incomplete under-graduation courses, followed by 17.10% with completed high school education. 43.40% of respondents have their salaries from R$ 1,001 to R$ 2,000.00. We can see that the results of this research can be generalized to a young middle-income male or female audience with high school education, although with incomplete higher education.

3.3 Analysis procedures

We used descriptive and inferential statistics for the analysis. For multivariate analyzes, statistical correlation techniques and structural equation modeling were used. Structural equation modeling is characterized by a statistical method that analyzes the relationships between simultaneously occurring constructs (Hair, Anderson, Babin & Black, 2010). A structural model describes the relationships between latent variables, also known as constructs (Hair, Hult, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2016). Thus, we use PLS 2.0 M3 software for data analysis, having the result of structural equations as the main data to answer the research objective.

4. Results

In this section we present the research data split into descriptive research results and the data in the second part with the structural equation modeling results of the proposed model in this study.

4.1 Descriptive data

Regarding the long-term orientation scale of Bearden et al. (2006), the questions are presented in Table 1, showing the percentage of each level of the scale selected by the respondents and demonstrating how individuals usually think about their purchases and their level of long-term orientation.

We can see from our sample that concerning the long-term orientation scale, many fully or partially agree that aspects such as family traditions, links with past events, long-term planning, working for a better future, giving up present entertainment to obtaining success in the future, and persisting in your activities are important factors for most of our sample in the present study.

Regarding Rook & Fisher's (1995) impulsive buying behavior scale, the questions were asked based on how individuals usually buy. The descriptive results of this scale are shown in table 2 and represent the percentages of agreement or disagreement concerning the variables of the construct.

The vast majority of the sample consider carefully planning their purchases but are tempted to buying things in the heat of the moment. In this scale, in general, we can see that the sample predominantly takes care of its expenses, thinking before buying, not being reckless about their purchase, not just buying when they feel the need, and not leaving to think after the purchase.

The descriptive data regarding the spending self-control scale from Haws et al. (2012) are shown in table 3 and corroborate with how individuals usually act with their expenses, measuring if they have self-control or not.

In line with our data on spending self-control in our sample, we can see that, in general, individuals feel responsible for their spending, usually keep track of spending, act on the need to buy, and are used to delaying their purchases to think about it. They also keep track of their spending in events, resist current purchases for future achievement, track their long-term financial goals, and have spending control goals.

4.2 Structural equation analysis

In this section, we demonstrate the results obtained in the structural equations, as well as the descriptive statistics of the data, their correlations, and the quality diagnosis. In the following table, we have the descriptive data of each of the constructs.

In Table 5, we provide the correlations, considering how much one construct implies in the other and how much they correlate with each other.

Impulsive buying behavior is negatively related to long-term orientation. While long term orientation is positively related to spending self-control. Impulsivity is also negatively related to spending self-control, which is somewhat expected given the characteristics of the variables. In the table below, we start the process of checking the quality criteria of the constructs, providing the cross loading of the research. We can perceive from the table below that all variables belong to the construct of origin.

In this part of the study, we analyzed the responses obtained according to their average variance extracted (AVE) (Ringle, Da Silva & Bido, 2014), being greater than 0.5 for spending self-control and impulsive buying behavior. However, lower than 0.5 for long-term orientation. We also analyze in the table below the composite reliability, R square, Cronbach's Alpha, Q² (predictive validity), and f² (effect size) of our construct.

In the case of the composite reliability and the Cronbach’s Alpha, which are used to assess whether the sample is free of bias or whether the answer as a whole is reliable (Junior, Merlo & Da Silva, 2016), they both had numbers above 0.7, except the Cronbach’s Alpha for long-term orientation. The values of R², Q², and f² presented values that meet the modeling setting requirements. Our R² has values of 0.184 and 0.206, representing effect values between small and medium in the social sciences areas, being small 0.02, medium 0.13, and large 0.26 (Cohen, 1988). Q² presented a positive value, which is the evaluation criterion for predictive validity (Hair et al., 2016). F² assesses how each construct is useful for model fit (Junior et al., 2016). It can be classified as small (0.02), medium (0.15) and large (0.35) (Hair et al., 2016). In our case, the value is considered large.

In table 8 below, we present the fornell-lacker criterion data (discriminant validity), showing that we have a model with a satisfactory result. AVE is the mean of factorials squared in latent correlations. The Fornell-Lacker criterion is used to compare the square roots of AVE values for each construction with the correlations (Pearson) between the constructs, known as the latent variables (Junior et al., 2016). The data shown in bold diagonal in Table 7 represent the calculation of AVE multiplied by the correlations of the constructs. The values in parentheses represent the calculation of the average inter-item correlation, obtained by the ratio between the correlation and the square root of the product of the respective values of Cronbach’s Alphas of each construct (Popadiuk & Nunes, 2018). For the discriminant validity of the construct, the square roots of AVE should be greater than the correlation between the constructs. Thus, in this study it was possible to prove and validate all results.

To correlate the data obtained, we used the PLS model. This software seeks to identify the relationship or influence that each construct has on another (Ringle et al., 2014). The model obtained by the software is presented below in Figure 3 using the data obtained by the researchers.

We were able to identify a relationship between how much long-term orientation influences spending self-control. In this case the influence acts positively (0.429) between the two constructs. Thus, the greater the long-term orientation, the greater the spending self-control of the individual. When looking at whether long-term orientation has any influence on impulsive buying behavior, the result that we obtained is so low that it showed no effect on each other, thus having no implicit relation to each other.

However, we had a second relationship with effect. It occurs between spending self- control and impulsive buying behavior. The relationship that happens between these two constructs is negative (-0.450), meaning that the higher the spending self-control, the lower the impulsive buying behavior of the individual. This model has detected that there is no effect of long-term orientation on impulsive buying behavior. Although, what happens is that long-term orientation increases spending self-control, and it is the spending self-control that decreases impulsive buying behavior regarding purchases.

In this second stage, we performed a proof test with the results presented between the constructs, in order to verify the statistical validity of the performed test. For the answers to be validated as true, the results would have to be 1.9 or higher. If this minimum number is not reached, the ratio is not recommended for future research. We present the data in Figure 4 below.

The relationship between long-term orientation and spending self-control showed a result of 4,726, thus confirming the veracity between the positive relationship of these two scales. Impulsive buying behavior and long-term orientation did not achieve the expected average, which means that there is no relationship between them. It is not recommended that you use this relationship between these scales to be based on future research, as the link between the two scales has no significance at all. Finally, the safest relationship in our model was between spending self-control and impulsive buying behavior, reaching the result of 4,785, thus ensuring the high ratio between these two scales, being fully recommended for future use in further research on the subject.

5. Discussion and concluding remarks

The aim of this study was to identify whether spending self-control and long-term orientation influence impulsive buying behavior, and to understand the variables that may alter individuals' behavior by causing impulsive buying to decrease. We found through research data the aspects that can influence the impulsive buying behavior of individuals, showing how impulsive purchases are negatively influenced by spending self-control. We realized that the consumer in this sample often has greater spending self-control over their financial life, goals, and objectives. This decreases the frequency of impulsive purchases. This finding is in line with the findings of Rook & Fisher (1995), who found that impulsive buying behavior is moderated by normative consumer evaluations, that can easily be represented by spending self-control from Haws et al. (2012), which means rethinking and re-evaluating based on their pre-purchase goals, demonstrating that the modern consumer is more likely to do this reflection and is not as prone to impulsive buying behavior, considering the characteristics of the samples presented previously.

This study contributes directly to the impulsive buying literature, more precisely to the creation of resistance strategies (Roberts & Manolis, 2012), inserting constructs that aim to better understand how a consumer can develop these resistance strategies. We can then see that Ainslie's (1975) specious thoughts did not appear in the sample, where the vast majority were more conscious regarding the impulsive buying behavior. The spending self-control by Haws et al. (2012) has been shown to greatly influence this more conscious behavior, demonstrating that our sample predominantly struggles between willpower and desire arising between their preferences, which are inconsistent regarding time preferences (past, present, or future) (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991). This means that our sample showed that willpower may have been greater than momentary desire for shopping, taking time into account (what is important to me now, what is important to me in the future and what is more important).

We can also see that the long-term orientation by Bearden et al. (2006) had no direct influence on impulsive buying, contrary to the assumptions of Lumpkin, Brigham & Mosset (2010), who stated that long-term orientation has some effect on being economical and cautious. The long-term orientation did not show this effect in this case. After all, the aspects of being economical and cautious would negatively influence impulsive purchases. We believe this effect may be related to the culture of the sample, and long-term orientation is dependent on the cultural aspects of each country (Kacen & Lee, 2002). Long-term orientation is one of Hofstede's dimensions, and it portrays cultural aspects such as future planning, persistence, and others (Nevins et al. 2007). However, long-term orientation had an unexpected effect on spending self-control. We can perceive that in some ways, the long-term orientation impacts spending self-control, and that it will negatively impact impulsive buying behavior.

By analyzing the descriptive data of the research, it was evident that a large percentage of the sample had better insight into their self-control issues. Consequently, these individuals tend to be less impulsive. Thus, especially at the time of purchase, these individuals in the sample are able to go to stores being more aware of how much they can spend, placing their future above momentary satisfaction, mediated by Rook & Fisher's (1995) normative evaluation. This effect may also be because our sample has a considerable level of education and is not associated with low levels of intelligence and primitivism, as impulsive buying has been associated with previous research (e.g. Von Böhm-Bawerk, 1959; Mill, 1973). Thus, it was also possible to understand what makes one person more impulsive than others, and what characteristics influences the behavior.

Finally, the contributions that our study has brought to the academic community is to understand that impulsive buying behavior usually occurs when the individuals who make the purchase do not have a high degree of spending self-control over their actions and their finances. It also allowed a new analysis of this type of behavior, which was not taken into account in previous studies, constructs like: spending self-control and long-term orientation, as it was executed in this study. The methodological contributions concern the validation of the construct and its possible application in different contexts.

Practical implications for marketing management are regarding understanding which aspects of spending self-control can be addressed in order to lessen their impact on impulsive purchasing, using strategies that focus on reducing the negative impact of this construct on consumer impulsive buying behavior. Conversely, consumers seeking to reduce impulsive buying may rely on aspects concerning spending self-control that they do not perceive as important at this time. Consumers may rely on these aspects to improve their relationship with impulsive purchases when they are already unbridled, but they seek to decrease it.

Our research has two main limitations. First, this research was performed only in one city, in a specific context. Therefore, the generalization of the findings would be unfounded. After all, there are variations in people's behavior depending on where they live. The second limitation perceived during the research is the non-use of other instruments to apply the research. As it was done only quantitatively, the respondents' view of their acts of consumption was little explored. For future studies on the subject it would be interesting to apply the same research, but by using interviews as an instrument, either in group or individual, just to capture other factors that are limited by quantitative research approaches. For example, at what times individuals tend to be most impulsive and what make this behavior emerge. In this way, we could better capture impulsive behaviors that are considered positive, as defined by Rook & Fisher (1995). It would also be interesting to slightly alter the characteristics of the sample so that other cited effects may appear, such as long-term orientation directly impacting impulsive purchases or even if lower level of education would make spending self-control to not have the same effect on impulsive buying behavior.

References

Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: a behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological bulletin, 82(4), 463.

Angelo, C. F. D., João Paulo de Lara, S., & Fávero, L. P. L. (2003). As compras não planejadas em supermercados: a importância do tempo e da organização da loja na determinação dos gastos. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 7(3), 149-162.

Bearden, W. O., Money, R. B., & Nevins, J. L. (2006). A measure of long-term orientation: Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 456-467.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (No. 300.72 C6).

Costa, F. C. X. D., & Larán, J. A. (2003). A compra por impulso em ambientes on-line. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 43(4), 36-47.

Ferraz, S. B., Rebouças, S. M. D. P., da Costa Nogami, V. K., & Quezado, I. (2015). Menos é mais? Um estudo sobre materialismo e anticonsumo. Revista Pretexto, 15(4), 83-99.

Freud, S. (1958). Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XII (1911-1913): The Case of Schreber, Papers on Technique and Other Works (pp. 213-226).

Gade, C. (1980). Psicologia do Consumidor e da Publicidade. São Paulo: EPU.

Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7).

Haws, K. L., Bearden, W. O., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2012). Consumer spending self-control effectiveness and outcome elaboration prompts. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 695-710.

Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of consumer research, 17(4), 492-507.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). New York: Mcgraw-hill.

Junior, S. S. B., Merlo, E. M., & Da Silva, D. (2016). “I Do Not Believe In Green Consumption". The Reflection Of Ceticism In Consumer Purchasing Behavior. Revista De Gestão Social E Ambiental, 10(3),2.

Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior. Journal of consumer psychology, 12(2), 163-176.

Kacen, J. J., Hess, J. D., & Walker, D. (2012). Spontaneous selection: The influence of product and retailing factors on consumer impulse purchases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(6), 578-588.

Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 65(3), 272-292.

Lortie, J., Barreto, T., & Cox, K. (2019). The implications of national and regional long-term orientation on entrepreneurial activity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.

Lumpkin, G. T., Brigham, K. H., & Moss, T. W. (2010). Long-term orientation: Implications for the entrepreneurial orientation and performance of family businesses. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(3-4), 241-264.

Matherly, T., Ghosh, A. P., & Joshi, Y. V. (2019). The Freedom of Constraint: How Perceptions of Time Limitations Alleviate Guilt from Two-Phase Indulgent Consumption. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 4(2), 147-159.

Mill, J. S. (1973). Principles of political economy. Рипол Классик.

Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of political economy, 78(2), 311-329.

Nevins, J. L., Bearden, W. O., & Money, B. (2007). Ethical values and long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(3), 261-274.

Popadiuk, S., & Nunes, S. G. D. C. (2018). Absorptive capacity, exploration, and exploitation: an analysis of the companies in Palmas, Tocantins. Gestão & Produção, 25(4), 737-750.

Raupp, F. M., & Beuren, I. M. (2006). Metodologia da Pesquisa Aplicável às Ciências. Como elaborar trabalhos monográficos em contabilidade: teoria e prática. São Paulo: Atlas.

Ribeiro, C. D. A., Vieira, K. M., Santos, J. D. A., Trindade, L. D. L., & Mallmann, E. I. (2009). Finanças pessoais: análise dos gastos e da propensão ao endividamento em estudantes de administração. Seminários em Administração, 12.

Ringle, C. M., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. D. S. (2014). Modelagem de equações estruturais com utilização do SmartPLS. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 13(2), 56-73.

Roberts, J. A., & Manolis, C. (2012). Cooking up a recipe for self-control: The three ingredients of self-control and its impact on impulse buying. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 173-188.

Rook, D. W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of consumer research, 14(2), 189-199.

Rook, D. W., & Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influences on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of consumer research, 22(3), 305-313.

Rook, D. W., & Hoch, S. J. (1985). Consuming impulses. ACR North American Advances.

Santana, D. L., Mendes, G. A., & Mariano, A. (2014). Estudo das dimensões culturais de Hofstede: análise comparativa entre Brasil, Estados Unidos e México. C@ LEA–Revista Cadernos de Aulas do LEA, Ilhéus, (3), 1-13.

Santini, F. O., & Espartel, L. B. (2010). O impacto da promoção de distribuição de prêmios na incidência de compras por impulso e nas intenções de recompra do consumidor: um estudo experimental. Revista de Negócios, 15(2), 91-108.

Santini, F. O., Lübeck, R. M., & Sampaio, C. H. (2014). Promoção de desconto: Seus efeitos na compra por impulso e nas intenções de recompra. Gestão & Planejamento-G&P, 15(3).

Sharma, P., Sivakumaran, B., & Marshall, R. (2010). Impulse buying and variety seeking: A trait- correlates perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 276-283.

Solomon, M. R., Dahl, D. W., White, K., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Polegato, R. (2014). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (Vol. 10). Toronto, Canada: Pearson.

Stigler, G. J., & Becker, G. S. (1977). De gustibus non est disputandum. The american economic review, 67(2), 76-90.

Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications.

Von Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1959). Capital and Interest: Further essays on capital and interest (Vol. 3). Libertarian Press.