{"title":"Mental simulation and compulsive buying: a multiple mediation model through impulse buying and self-control.","authors":"Xiaowei Duan","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1507031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explores the multiple mediation effects of impulse buying and a self-control failure on the relationship between two types of mental simulation-outcome and process simulation-and compulsive buying. We collected 202 responses using a web-based survey, which were used as a final example. The respondents for this study were recruited through the web-based survey platform Nown Survey. Using structural equation modeling and PROCESS for SPSS (Model 6), we estimated the internal consistency of measurements and tested the established hypotheses. The main findings confirm the distinct impacts of the two types of mental simulation on primary constructs and the multiple mediation effects of impulse buying and self-control failure on the associations between the two types of mental simulation and compulsive buying. Despite the multiple mediating effects of impulse buying and self-control failure between the two types of mental simulation and compulsive buying, process simulation is positively associated with both impulse buying and compulsive buying, while outcome simulation is significantly related only to impulse buying. Our results supplement existing literature by applying new insights into the relationships between mental simulation and compulsive buying. Further, our findings may help marketers to establish strategies based on the divergent roles of the two types of mental simulation to motivate consumers' purchase behaviors. Finally, the limitations and directions for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1507031"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11955697/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1507031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study explores the multiple mediation effects of impulse buying and a self-control failure on the relationship between two types of mental simulation-outcome and process simulation-and compulsive buying. We collected 202 responses using a web-based survey, which were used as a final example. The respondents for this study were recruited through the web-based survey platform Nown Survey. Using structural equation modeling and PROCESS for SPSS (Model 6), we estimated the internal consistency of measurements and tested the established hypotheses. The main findings confirm the distinct impacts of the two types of mental simulation on primary constructs and the multiple mediation effects of impulse buying and self-control failure on the associations between the two types of mental simulation and compulsive buying. Despite the multiple mediating effects of impulse buying and self-control failure between the two types of mental simulation and compulsive buying, process simulation is positively associated with both impulse buying and compulsive buying, while outcome simulation is significantly related only to impulse buying. Our results supplement existing literature by applying new insights into the relationships between mental simulation and compulsive buying. Further, our findings may help marketers to establish strategies based on the divergent roles of the two types of mental simulation to motivate consumers' purchase behaviors. Finally, the limitations and directions for future research are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.