Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

 
Measures
Buying impulsiveness.
Buying impulsiveness was captured via a single-item measure adapted from Rook and 
Fisher’s 1995 study. After reading the scenario, respondents were instructed to select one of the five purchase 
decision alternatives the protagonist would make. These choice alternatives were intended to represent varying 
levels of buying impulsiveness. For example, in the cheesecake scenario, these alternatives were: (1) Get the 
healthy and low-calorie salad for lunch; not even think about the cheesecake; (2) Get the healthy and low-calorie 
salad for lunch; want the cheesecake but not get it; (3) Decide not to get the salad but get the cheesecake instead; (4) 
Get both the salad and the cheesecake; (5) Get both the salad and the cheesecake plus a chicken sandwich to 
complete the meal. 
Desire for self-indulgence
. Desire for self-indulgence was measured by a 2-item scale adapted from Dholakia et 
al.’s 2006 study. To provide an index of desire for temptations, respondents were asked to project themselves into 
the purchasing situation described in the scenario and report their agreement with two items on a seven-point Likert 
scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree): (1) “I would feel a strong urge to get the cheesecake (sweater) if I 
were Mary (Bob),” and (2) “If I were Mary (Bob), I would want to get the cheesecake (sweater)”. The Cronbach’s 
alpha for this index was 0.88.
Desire for self-control. Desire for self-control 
was measured by a 2-item scale adapted from Dholakia et al.’s 2006 
study. Self-control for temptations were measured with two items on a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly 
disagree, 7=strongly agree): (1) “I would like to control myself if I were Mary (Bob),” and (2) “I would try to resist 
my urge to get the cheesecake (sweater) if I were Mary (Bob)”.
 
Cognitive ambivalence.
To calculate cognitive ambivalence, we first examined whether the magnitude and intensity 
conditions suggested by Thompson, Zanna and Griffin (1995) were fulfilled. The average ratings for desire of self-
indulgence and desire for self-control were 4.49 and 5.09 respectively (on a 7-point scale), suggesting that the two 
conflicting components were similar in magnitude and were of moderate intensity. As such, cognitive ambivalence 
scores were calculated using the formula (P + N)/2 - |P-N|.
Affective reactions.
Felt pleasure was measured using an item “On reading the scenario, to what extent were your 
thoughts initially about the pleasure that would be derived from eating the cheesecake (wearing the sweater)” (1=not 
at all, 7=to a great extent). Similarly, felt guilt was assessed via an item “on reading the scenario, to what extent 
were your thoughts initially about the guilt you would feel if you got the cheesecake (sweater)” (1=not all, 7=to a 
great extent). 
Affective ambivalence.
Similar to the calculation of cognitive ambivalence, the magnitude and intensity conditions 
of the two opposing affects were first examined. The pleasure and guilt ratings were 4.14 and 4.10 respectively, 

---