PAPELES DEL PSICÓLOGO Vol. 40-2 Mayo - Agosto 2019

The proposed framework extends the literature in several areas. First, the current literature fails to provide a holistic picture of impulse buying (Ek Styvén et al., 2017; Xiao & Nicholson, 2013). This failure can be attributed to the fact that the literature has not conceptualized impulse buying as a process and outcome, which has resulted in some contradictory findings (Xiao & Nicholson, 2013). For instance, on the one hand, it has been frequently mentioned in the literature that store environment can lead to momentary loss of self-control (e.g., Kalla & Arora, 2011). On the other hand, there is evidence showing that self-control can moderate the effect of store layout on impulse buying (see Lee & Johnson, 2010). To this end, this paper outlines impulse buying as an outcome of the self-control process. For example, a researcher interested in how external stimuli influence self-control should be aware that his research does not only speak to how external stimuli diminish cognitive capacity but also to how environment effects impulses. Second, the proposed model can provide insight into the general model of self-control. Otherwise stated, although the behavior of interest in the proposed model is impulse buying, this model can be extended to a broader set of behaviors. In this regard, the proposed model keeps the logic of different models together to establish a general framework of self-control. Such a model can avoid misunderstanding resulting from communication between different models of self-control (see Hofmann & Kotabe, 2012). For instance, it has been suggested that the strength model provides only a partial explanation for self-control failure and hence it should be integrated with other models of self-control (Hagger et al., 2010). In this sense, contrary to the strength model, which has focused on the control aspect of human life (e.g., Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), our model takes into account both impulsive and controlled aspects of behavior. In addition, the proposed framework explicitly distinguishes between a reflective and an impulsive system, which is incongruent with those studies recognizing the existence of only one processing system (e.g., MacInnis & Patrick, 2006). Third, studying habit in a self-control framework per se is an important contribution to the concept of self-control process. Although the basic premise in the proposed framework is that self-control represents the effortful capacity to resist temptations, it should be noted that self-control activities need not always be conscious (e.g., MacInnis & Patrick, 2006). For instance, Hofmann et al. (2009) call for more research that relates the logic of the RIM (as a self-control model) to the literature on the nonconscious and automatized form of self-control. In this regard, the literature suggests adopting the habit concept (as a non-conscious process) in order to form a more inclusive model of self-control (e.g., Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2011). This can be attributed to the fact that “habitual behaviors proceed without effortful cognitive mediation and are performed even under conditions of ego-depletion, when self-control and motivational energy are directed elsewhere” (Orbell & Verplanken, 2015, p. 311). Therefore, since “habit associations are represented in learning and memory systems separately from intentions or decisions” (Wood, Tam, & Witt, 2005, p.918), it is crucial to investigate the underlying mechanism through which habit influences self-control outcome. The current paper fills these gaps by integrating habit, as a psychological construct, into the self-control process. While impulse buying tendency can be regarded as a “hot” urge and desire which can contain affective components, the habitual impulses generated by habit process can be considered as “cold” impulses which might not contain affective components (see Hofmann et al., 2011; Orbell & Verplanken, 2015). Interestingly, since activated habit impulses can be inhibited prior to action (Gardner, 2015), approaches such as environmental re-engineering and stimulus control techniques can be applied as intervention strategies (Neal, Wood, Lally, & Wu, 2009). In this respect, further research should be performed to study how self-control operates through establishing adaptive habits (see Adriaanse et al., 2014). NOTES 1. The terms “self-control”, “self-regulation” and “willpower” have been used interchangeably by scholars (e.g., Buameister, 2002; Hagger et al., 2010; Muraven et al., 2005). 2. The terms “self-regulatory resources”, “self-control strength” and “the capacity to change” have been used interchangeably by scholars (Baumeister, 2002; Muraven et al., 2005; Vohs & Faber, 2007). 3. The terms “self-regulatory resource depletion” and “ego depletion” have been used interchangeably by scholars (Baumeister, 2002; Vohs & Faber, 2007). 4. Conflict does not depend on desire strength which means these two factors are essentially orthogonal (Hofmann et al., 2012). CONFLICT OF INTERESTS There is not conflict of interests REFERENCES Adriaanse, M. A., Kroese, F. M., Gillebaart, M., & De Ridder, D. T. (2014). Effortless inhibition: Habit mediates the relation between self-control and unhealthy snack consumption. Frontiers in Psychology , 5. Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Keneson, W. C. (2014). A meta- analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 21 (2), 86-97. Baumeister, R. E., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 (5), 1252- 1265. Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research , 28 (4), 670-676. Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M., DeWall, C. N., & Oaten, M. (2006). Self regulation and personality: How interventions increase regulatory success, and how depletion moderates HOW DOES SELF-CONTROL OPERATE? 154 A r t i c l e s