From Browsing to Buying: Determinants of Impulse Buying Behavior in Mobile Commerce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a well-structured narrative supported by a sound methodology. However, to enhance its scholarly rigor and impact, the following revisions are recommended:

1. Strengthening the Discussion and Conclusions Section

While the core findings are clearly presented, the interpretation of results that conflict with initial hypotheses requires deeper analysis. For instance, on Page 14, the authors state:

"This unexpected finding might suggest that in the mobile commerce context, impulse purchases can occur quickly regardless of perceived time availability, possibly due to the streamlined nature of mobile shopping apps."

Here, the authors could strengthen their argument by citing relevant literature to support this assumption, rather than relying on conjecture. Similarly, for other conclusions that diverge from the hypotheses, it would be beneficial to include evidence from existing studies to provide a more robust foundation for their interpretations.

2. Expanding Theoretical and Practical Implications

Although the findings are comprehensively presented, the discussion of theoretical implications largely reiterates existing research without offering additional insights. The authors should elaborate on how their model addresses unresolved contradictions in prior studies or extends existing knowledge. A clearer comparison with prior research would help situate the manuscript more effectively within the academic discourse and highlight its unique contributions.

 

3. Visualizing the Research Framework

Given the study's extensive use of variables, hypotheses, and abbreviations, it is recommended that the authors include a conceptual model figure to visually represent the research framework. This would help readers better understand the relationships being examined and the overall structure of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has contributed significantly to refining our work, and we have made concerted efforts to address each of your suggestions.

We are optimistic that this revised version of the paper now meets the anticipated standards for publication in this esteemed journal. Below is a comprehensive list of responses addressing your comments and suggestions.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a great pleasure to review this manuscript. The study focuses on the Chilean market, featuring a clear structure and robust data, contributing meaningfully to both theory and practice. However, methodological rigor, theoretical interpretation, and discussion of results require further refinement.

1.In the Introduction section, the gaps in existing literature regarding "impulse buying behavior in mobile commerce" should be specified more precisely, rather than just generally stating that it is "understudied." A comparison could be made between traditional e-commerce and mobile commerce to highlight their differences. Furthermore, while the introduction briefly mentions that the pandemic accelerated e-commerce development, it fails to explain why COVID-19 was included as an independent variable in the model. It is recommended to supplement how the pandemic affects consumer psychology toward non-essential purchases.

2.In the Theoretical Background section: The definition of "Portability" requires greater rigor, explicitly distinguishing between "device portability" (physical characteristics of mobile devices) and "application accessibility" (ease of accessing shopping applications). For "Family Influence", clarify whether its measurement encompasses online social interactions (e.g., sharing product links in family group chats). The operational definition must be unambiguously specified.

3.Regarding Hypothesis H13: While prior studies predominantly report a positive impact of the pandemic on impulse buying behavior, this study's contradictory negative finding warrants theoretical reconciliation. The authors should preemptively address this discrepancy by discussing potential moderating factors.

4.In Materials and Methods: The concentration of 71.8% samples from northern Chile necessitates discussion on how regional economic disparities may bias results. Detail whether English-to-Spanish scale translation underwent back-translation and pretesting. Supplement documentation of reliability and validity testing procedures. Address the omission of control variables (e.g., "shopping frequency", "application usage duration") that may confound relationships.

5.In the Results section: The non-significant findings for "task-relevant information (H5)" and "time availability (H8)" require explicit discussion of potential reasons. The negative effect of COVID-19 needs comparison with existing literature and substantiated explanations.

6.In the Discussion and Conclusions section: The theoretical contribution to extending the S-O-R model should be articulated more explicitly. Recommendations regarding "visual appeal" should be concretized (e.g., specific design implementations).

7.For Figure 1 (theoretical model): The dense variable relationships suggest restructuring the diagram into modular components for clarity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has contributed significantly to refining our work, and we have made concerted efforts to address each of your suggestions.

We are optimistic that this revised version of the paper now meets the anticipated standards for publication in this esteemed journal. Below is a comprehensive list of responses addressing your comments and suggestions.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an engaging and valuable contribution to understanding impulse buying in mobile commerce channels, particularly in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strengths:

• The topic under investigation is highly relevant and merits deeper exploration, as the authors demonstrate that impulse purchases constitute a significant proportion of contemporary consumer behaviour.
• The research instruments are appropriately constructed, as evidenced by high validity and reliability indicators.
• The sample size is sufficiently large and meets the minimum statistical requirements for generalisability.
• The study encompasses various factors, including respondent characteristics, situational variables, and purchase-related elements.
• The research method is well chosen, and the hypotheses are firmly grounded in the existing literature.
• The authors provide a reasonably thorough discussion of the study’s limitations. They acknowledge that including numerous variables resulted in an overly lengthy questionnaire, likely reducing its appeal to respondents. They also correctly identify the limitations related to the geographical scope of the study and the challenges of generalising the findings beyond the Chilean context, particularly in light of potential cultural differences.

Weaknesses:

• The data are somewhat outdated, reflecting consumer behaviour from five years ago. Given that the study was conducted under the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings may not readily apply to the current post-pandemic environment, where consumer behaviour may have shifted significantly.
• The study could have benefited from treating pandemic-related variables as moderators of other relationships, which might have yielded more nuanced insights.
• The discussion section offers a superficial explanation of discrepancies between the study’s findings and those reported in previous literature.
• Despite referencing Figure 1, the article does not include a graphical representation of the proposed research model.
• The description of the sample lacks consistency. The authors state that the sample was purposively selected to include individuals over the age of 20 (line 316), yet the data include respondents aged 18–24.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We extend our sincere gratitude for your insightful comments, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Your thoughtful feedback has contributed significantly to refining our work, and we have made concerted efforts to address each of your suggestions.

We are optimistic that this revised version of the paper now meets the anticipated standards for publication in this esteemed journal. Below is a comprehensive list of responses addressing your comments and suggestions.

Thank you once again for your time and expertise.

Best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript has been revised quite well, but there are still some minor issues.The theoretical contribution of the manuscript requires further clarification. Although the study repeatedly emphasizes the applicability of the S-O-R framework, it does not provide a sufficiently clear contrast with existing research gaps. For instance, while the manuscript briefly mentions differences between mobile commerce, traditional e-commerce, and offline retailing, it does not systematically articulate how the inclusion of mobile-specific variables extends or refines existing theories of impulse buying. To strengthen the theoretical positioning, the authors should explicitly highlight which constructs or relationships are unique to the mobile commerce context and explain their incremental contribution beyond prior studies.

In addition, the literature review section is relatively lengthy, yet some cited works—particularly earlier studies—are not well aligned with the hypotheses later proposed. It is recommended that the authors streamline this section, reducing less relevant citations and instead emphasizing more recent, directly relevant studies that substantiate the research model. This will improve the coherence of the narrative and enhance the paper’s contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Thank you for this valuable feedback. You are absolutely right about the need to make our theoretical contribution more explicit. We have addressed this concern by adding a dedicated section (2.3.1 Mobile-Specific Extensions to S-O-R Framework) that clearly explains what makes our approach unique.

In this new section, we identify four specific ways mobile commerce creates different stimulus conditions than traditional channels: contextual purchasing triggers from device portability, psychological effects from touch interfaces, location-based personalization, and frictionless payment systems. We also introduce what we call "mobile-mediated impulse facilitation" essentially showing how mobile limitations actually make impulse buying easier, not harder.

We've also strengthened Section 2.1 to better contrast mobile versus desktop shopping behaviors, including specific data showing that mobile platforms have different engagement patterns (lower conversion rates but higher add-to-cart rates) that suggest fundamentally different psychological processes at work.

In addition, the literature review section is relatively lengthy, yet some cited works particularly earlier studies are not well aligned with the hypotheses later proposed. It is recommended that the authors streamline this section, reducing less relevant citations and instead emphasizing more recent, directly relevant studies that substantiate the research model. This will improve the coherence of the narrative and enhance the paper's contribution to the literature.

You're right - our literature review had grown quite long and included some older studies that weren't directly supporting our mobile commerce focus. We've gone through and significantly streamlined both the introduction and theoretical background sections.

We removed studies from earlier decades that focused on traditional retail or general e-commerce without mobile-specific insights. Instead, we've emphasized recent research (mostly 2018-2025) that directly examines mobile commerce behaviors and supports our hypotheses. We also cleaned up some duplicate references that had crept in.

The result is a much tighter narrative that moves logically from general impulse buying concepts to mobile-specific applications, with each citation directly contributing to our theoretical framework. We believe this creates much better coherence between our literature review and the research model we're proposing.

We appreciate your guidance in helping us present our contribution more clearly and look forward to your continued feedback.