The fashion market has experienced significant growth in recent decades. Women currently own approximately four times more clothing than they did in the 1980s (Sapper, 2018), while the fashion industry has nearly doubled its production capacity due to annual demand growth rate of around 2% (Niinimäki et al., 2020). This increase in production has generated negative economic, social and environmental impacts (Buzzo & Abreu, 2019; Reichart & Drew, 2019; Roozen & Raedts, 2020; Yoon et al., 2020; Bailey et al., 2022; Centobelli et al., 2022; Long & Nasiry, 2022), directly involving manufacturers, marketers, and consumers.

Consumers have increased their purchases of clothing, accessories, and textiles in response to marketing stimuli and social influences. This behavior is driven by marketing strategies (Chen, 2021; Kaczorowska-Spychalska, 2018; Zhang & Fong, 2020), including pricing tactics, rapid collection turnover, and advertising, as well as by cultural influences (Sari & Hanifah, 2018), social environments (Pop et al., 2023; Shao & Lassleben, 2021), and family contexts (Zhang et al., 2021). Additional factors such as fashion trends, lifestyles, self-concept, and aspirational goals also contribute to social and affiliative pressures that encourage consumption.

The growth of apparel production and the increasing tendency to purchase more garments have drawn attention to the fast-fashion industry and, specifically, to impulse buying. Impulse buying is a complex form of purchasing behavior (Wu et al., 2020) driven by stimuli that leads to spontaneous decisions, which are commonly observed in clothing purchases (Xiao et al, 2023). Fast fashion has been strongly associated with impulsive purchasing behavior (Gawior et al., 2022), particularly in online shopping environments and is also related to consumers’ attitudes toward fast-fashion retailers (Cook & Yurchisin, 2017).

Nevertheless, consumers should not be viewed simply as agents who respond automatically to stimuli and increase their spending on clothing products. Purchasing behavior also involves awareness (Rahman et al., 2021), motivations (Kumar & Sadarangani, 2018), and self-control mechanisms (Efendi et al., 2019; Kaur & Singh, 2018), which enable individuals to assess their needs and regulate their purchasing decisions.

Awareness of the environmental and labour-related impacts of the fast-fashion industry can reduce positive consumer attitudes toward this sector (Roozen & Raedts, 2020). Concerns regarding the consequences of fashion consumption have encouraged the emergence of new approaches aimed at producing and consuming fashion with lower environmental and social impacts (Buzzo & Abreu, 2019). Consequently, companies have increasingly promote sustainable fashion while simultaneously encouraging consumption, thereby creating an ambiguous discourse that fosters awareness of ethical consumption (Binet et al., 2019). However, such awareness does not always translate into actual purchasing behavior beyond a preference for natural and durable products (Zhang et al., 2021), since consumers are often driven by desire and personal satisfaction (Sapper, 2018).

Impulsive buying behavior and self-control are therefore fundamental variables for understanding the complexity of consumer behavior. Both are influenced by lifestyles (Dhewi & Azzahra, 2023), psychological factors, motivations, available resources, and marketing stimuli (Iyer et al., 2020). Consumers do not make purchasing decisions entirely without control; rather, they evaluate their decisions regarding apparel consumption. In this context, self-control refers to the ability to reduce or postpone purchasing desires (Horváth et al., 2015). It reflects the capacity to suppress undesirable desires or behaviors (Siswanti & Halida, 2020) and acts as a mediating factor between impulsivity and impulsive buying behavior (Dhewi & Azzahra, 2023; Iyer et al., 2020). Consequently, impulse buying tends to occur when self-control is weakened or insufficient (Victoria et al., 2021).

Previous research on consumer behavior has primarily focused on the food industry and financial decision-making (Francke & Carrete, 2023), with comparatively less attention given to the clothing sector (Iyer et al., 2020), and even less to the fast-fashion industry specifically. This gap has prompted further inquiries into the role of self-control in relation to variables such as price, advertising, personal selling, public relations (Francke & Carrete, 2023), and social media influence (Redine et al., 2023).

Considering demographic differences in consumer behavior, the importance of studying self-control in developing economies has been highlighted (Redine et al., 2023). Moreover, expanding research to include general consumers has been recommended, as many studies rely primarily on student samples (Francke & Carrete, 2023). Previous research has shown that self-control moderates fast-fashion purchasing behavior and influences the relationship between impulsivity and purchasing decisions (Xiao et al., 2023). However, the functioning of the dual-system model—which describes the coexistence of self-control and impulsive processes that regulate purchasing decisions in fast-fashion context—remains insufficiently understood.

Accordingly, the research question guiding this study is: How does consumer self-control mediate between stimuli and motivations in impulse clothing purchases? This research aims to address a gap in the existing literature on purchasing behavior in the fast-fashion industry, particularly regarding the role of self-control in impulse buying. Therefore, the objective of this research is to describe how consumer self-regulation operates simultaneously with impulsive behavior in fast-fashion purchasing decisions.

Investigating the regulatory effect of consumer self-control in this purchasing process will contribute to the theoretical understanding of this phenomenon and provide practical insights for key stakeholders in the fashion industry, while also encouraging more conscious and sustainable consumption practices that benefit consumers.

The fast-fashion strategy is characterized by the frequent renawal of clothing collections offered at relatively affordable prices (Centobelli et al., 2022). This accelerated production-and-sales process has evolved into the ultra-fast-fashion model, in which production cycles can be completed within only a few days (Camargo et al., 2020). These shortened cycles are driven by constant changes in trends, consumer tastes, and personal needs related to self-presentation within social environments. Such dynamics are further influenced by marketing stimuli motivated by a search for self-expression, confidence, and concern for personal image (Nunes & Silveria, 2016).

Fast-fashion purchasing behavior is commonly associated with impulsive buying, where emotions, sensations, hedonic value, consumer involvement, and promotional strategies play a significant role (Nguyen & Ha, 2021). However, some consumers have shifted from purchasing low-quality trend-based fashion toward seeking products with greater quality and durability (Gupta & Gentry, 2018). In addition, demographic factors such as age, monthly household income, and family size significantly influence expenditure on fast-fashion clothing consumption (Bishnoi & Guru, 2023).

The store environment also affects consumer perceptions (Taşkın & Bozbay, 2023), stimuli can trigger impulse buying (Gupta & Gentry, 2018; Hashmi et al., 2020) like its design and layout are linked to loyalty (Anggara et al., 2023). Similarly, perceptions of store clutter and human crowding lead to a perception of scarcity and competition (Ballantine et al., 2015; Coskun et al., 2020). Likewise, impulsive buying behavior and fast-fashion purchasing have been observed in online environments (Al Mutanafisa, 2021; Boardman et al., 2023; Fares et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2018).

At first glance, it may appear contradictory that consumers simultaneously exhibit self-control practices within fast-fashion purchasing contexts. Consumers may intentionally delay their purchases, waiting for promotional periods or more favorable purchase conditions (Jin et al., 2012). This behavior supports the notion that impulsive buying tends to occur when cognitive reflection is diminished, since failures in the self-control system can lead to impulsive actions (Müller et al., 2015).

However, the dual system theory suggests that self-control functions as a moderating variable between reactive and reflective processes (Moayery et al., 2019b). This perspective indicates that impulsive buying behavior and self-control coexist across a broad range of consumer behaviors (Sun et al., 2024), such as cell phones (Ding et al, 2022), internet addiction (Li et al, 2021a), financial management (Goyal, et al, 2022), as well as online impulsive purchases of fashionable clothing items (Xiao et al., 2023). Despite these advances, research examining the role of self-control in fast-fashion consumption remains limited. Existing evidence is largely restricted to identifying a weak correlation between self-control and fast-fashion purchasing behavior (Syahidah & Suryawati, 2023).

This study adopts a descriptive, cross-sectional, and quantitative approach to examine how intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and marketing actions influence self-control and impulse buying. The target population consisted of men and women between 18 and 35 years of age residing in Bogotá. According to the National Department of Statistics (DANE), the population of Bogotá exceeds seven million inhabitants. However, for sampling purposes, the study considered a representative population framework.

The sample size was calculated using a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and a population proportion of 50% (p = 0.5), resulting in a minimum required sample of 384 participants. A non-probability convenience sampling method was employed, and a total of 388 respondents in the study.

Data were collected through a questionnaire distributed digitally via online channels, with voluntary participation. The instrument consisted of six sections. The socio-demographic section included nominal variables, whereas the sections related to impulse buying, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, marketing stimuli, and self-control contained variables measured using five-point Likert scales ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree,” as presented in Table 1.

For the development of the questionnaire, the researchers adapted established scales: Anand and Kaur (2018) for motivation, Malone et al. (2010) for self-control, Nakalinda (2018) for fast-fashion purchasing behavior, and Song et al. (2016) for marketing stimuli.

The data analysis process employed the statistical package SPSS Statistics version 27 for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and descriptive analyses, as well as AMOS version 24 for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling using the bootstrapping technique.

Data processing was based on Cronbach’s alpha, CFA, and structural equation modelling SEM analyses. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the items within each factor. CFA enabled the evaluation of the fit between the observed data and the proposed theoretical structure and establishing convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, SEM was employed to analyze the complexity of direct and indirect relationships among the study factors.

The surveyed population was predominantly female (n=184, 47.42%), followed by male participants (n=161, 41.49%) and participants identifying with other gender categories (n=43, 11.08%). Participants’ educational levels ranged from secondary education (n=69, 17.8%) to university education (n=183, 47.2%), university graduated (n=122, 31.4%), and postgraduate education (n=14, 3.6%).

Regarding income levels, the distribution was as follows: less than one Minimum Monthly Legal Wage (MLMW) (n=60, 15.5%), between one and two MLMW (n=145, 37.4%), between two and three MLMW (n=140, 36.1%), between three and four MLMW (n=29, 7.5%), and more than four MLMW (n=14, 3.6%).

In terms of occupation, the majority indicated they are employed only (n=218, 56.2%), studying and working (n=115, 29.4%), and studying (n=55, 14.2%).

The researchers conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using the principal component extraction method with varimax rotation, yielding acceptable values (KMO=0.846, Bartlett's test of sphericity p < 0.001, X^2=373.6, df=175, p < 0.001). The findings indicated that the 21 items were clustered into five factors with factor loadings above 0.6, explaining 67.18% of the variance.

Based on these results, the researchers performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), yielding X^2=373.6, df=175, p < 0.001, considering all factor loadings above 0.6. While some authors suggest a minimum criterion of 0.7 for factor loadings (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Yana et al., 2015), it is deemed acceptable in this type of study to have factor loadings starting from 0.6. The CFA results are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Factor Loadings and Cronbach's Alpha

Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. All constructs achieved values above the recommended threshold of 0.70, except for the self-control (SC) construct, which obtained an alpha of 0.645. This value can nevertheless be considered acceptable given the limited number of items comprising the construction.

Furthermore, alpha values ranging between 0.50 and 0.70 are considered moderate but acceptable in exploratory research, particularly when inter-item correlations exceed 0.30 (Hinton et al., 2004; Said, 2018; Wim et al., 2008). In this study, the SC construct demonstrated an average inter-item correlation of 0.48, supporting its internal consistency. Therefore, the reliability of the construct falls within an acceptable range (Hajjar, 2018; Nawi et al., 2020).

Regarding the composite reliability index (CR), values greater than 0.7 were obtained, excluding the SC construct, which showed a value of 0.657, considered acceptable according to the criteria proposed by Fornell & Larcker (1981) and Bagozzi & Yi (1988).

Similarly, the average variance extracted (AVE) showed values greater than 0.5. However, the intrinsic motivation IM and impulse buying IB constructs presented slightly lower values. Despite this, the criteria established by Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Henseler (2015) were satisfied. To assess discriminant validity, the square root of the AVE was used as a reference, which turned out to be greater than the correlations between each construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the values of the AFC results can be observed in Table 2.

Table 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity of CFA

This research contributes to the understanding the operation of the dual-system model, where impulsive behaviors and self-control coexist. Although previous studies have examined this relationship (Iyer et al., 2020; Redine et al., 2023), there is still limited empirical evidence within specific sectors such as fast-fashion using representative population samples (Francke & Carrete, 2023), except for Syahidah and Suryawati (2023), who report a low relationship between these elements.

The findings confirm that marketing exerts a strong direct effect on impulsive purchasing (H1). The high statistical significance indicates that promotions, social media advertising, and seasonal campaigns stimulate fast-fashion consumption with similar findings are consistent with Iyer et al. (2020), Gong & Jiang (2023), and Melati et al. (2024).

Despite the direct influence of marketing stimuli on purchasing behavior, it can also activate self-control mechanisms (H2). This relationship explains that marketing stimuli interacts with the consumer's reflective system (Zheng & Alba, 2021), which requires self-regulation resources to inhibit automatic responses (Goschke & Job, 2023). Consequently, practices such as limiting purchases to a predetermined budget or restricting purchases to explicit needs may reduce the impact of promotional activities on purchasing behavior.

Although previous studies have demonstrated that promotions and advertising messages can directly trigger impulsive purchases or weaken self-control (Moser, 2020), the present findings indicate that self-control moderates this relationship by activating reflective processes that counteract the initial impulse (Xu et al., 2020). This finding highlight that the dual-system model operates through parallel processes (De Neys, 2021; Li et al., 2021b).

Intrinsic motivations demonstrated a significant effect related to impulsive purchasing (H4), as Erdem et al. (2021), Lee (2018), and Sritanakorn & Nuangjamnong (2021), who concluded that identity construction and the pursuit of authenticity influence purchasing decisions. Therefore, individuals with higher levels of intrinsic motivation may be more likely to engage in impulsive buying, particularly when products are acquired to enhance self-esteem, image, and status (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982), or to remain aligned with current trends (Rana & Malik, 2023). Similar behavior has also been associated with hedonic and materialistic motivations (Lavuri, 2023).

In contrast, the absence of a relationship between intrinsic motivations and self-control (H3) demonstrates that self-expression and pleasure may hinder the activation of control mechanisms. This finding contradicts the results reported by Wang et al. (2024) who identified self-control as a mechanism linking materialism with the reduction of risk behaviors. Likewise, Roberts and Manolis (2012) suggested that consumers experiencing conflicting desires may become more susceptible to impulsive purchasing behavior.

Extrinsic motivation was found influence self-control (H5), indicating that social factors trigger regulatory behaviors. External factors such as social pressures or cultural norms may influence a person's ability to regulate and resist impulsive buying temptations and likely influence individuals' ability to control their buying impulses (Fares et al., 2023; Nguyen & Ha, 2021).

As a result, self-control demonstrated a moderating effect on impulsive purchasing (H7), however, its impact was limited and appeared to depend on both social stimuli and personal motivations. Although self-control reduces impulsive behavior, its effect does not completely suppress such conduct, and consumers may rationalize their decisions. Similar research in other contexts, identifies self-control as a negative moderating variable in impulsive purchasing (Luo et al., 2018; Melati et al., 2024; Mittal et al., 2015; Pradipto et al., 2016; Ramadan et al., 2021; Roberts and Manolis, 2012). Nevertheless, although it acts negatively, fast-fashion purchasing behavior increases impulsive levels, which is difficult to resist.

Iyer et al. (2020) examined the mediating effects of self-control between impulsive buying, marketing stimuli, and both internal and external motivations through a meta-analysis. The authors found consistent results regarding the positive influence of stimuli on impulsive regardless self-control mediation. However, they also identified an indirect effect between self-control and impulsive buying.

Finally, no direct evidence was found to support the hypothesis that extrinsic motivations influence impulsive behavior (H6), indicating that social and cultural pressure do not always promote the impulsive purchase of clothing. These results may be contradictory because Amaral and Djuang (2023), who identified a relationship between social aspects and purchase intention but isolated the relationship between extrinsic motivations and impulsive buying, while Chowdhury (2020) established this relationship but did not consider the mediating effect of self-control in garment purchase.

This research contributes to a deeper understanding of how self-control mediates the relationship between marketing stimuli, motivations, and impulsive purchasing behavior in the fast-fashion industry. The findings indicate that self-control is not a fixed or immutable trait, but rather a mechanism influenced and modulated by external factors. The study emphasizes the complexity of consumer behavior in fast-fashion, demonstrating the ongoing interplay between impulsive and reflective processes in purchasing decisions.

The results provides further insight into the operation of the dual system model in fast-fashion purchasing, specifically regarding the interaction between control mechanisms and impulsive behavior. The self-control system partially moderates purchasing behavior when consumers are influenced by advertising strategies or social motivations, demonstrating a reflective process. However, this moderating effect appears to weaken when clothing purchases are driven primarily by personal interests, demonstrating an impulsive process. This dynamic highlight the coexistence of both intuitive and analytical systems within consumer behavior.

Intrinsic motivations were found to directly influence impulsive behavior, suggesting that consumers with higher levels of intrinsic motivation may be less likely to exercise self-control in certain purchasing situations. Personal desires related to authenticity and pleasure, correspond with impulsiveness in purchases that are not based on explicit needs. This impulsiveness is reflected in emotionally driven behaviors and openness to change, such as the need to buy something, purchasing due to seasonal changes or brand novelties, and pursuit of immediate gratification or the desire to seize momentary opportunities.

Extrinsic motivation, such as social pressure and cultural norms, may also influence individuals' ability to control their buying impulses. However, these motivations did not have a direct relationship with impulsive buying, suggesting that social and cultural motives do not always drive impulsive clothing purchases. Nevertheless, the indirect effect between extrinsic motivation and impulsive buying, mediated by the self-control system, facilitates impulsive behavior. This highlights the need for further research on whether self-control reinforces social motivations as a pretext for acting impulsively.

Finally, the findings confirm that consumer behavior in this scenario is strongly driven by promotions, social media advertising, and seasonal campaigns, but it is moderated when the consumer activates reflective processes in their purchase decisions, which regulate impulsive decisions. The presence of self-control affects marketing efforts and their impact on impulsive buying by diminishing such behavior, as it weakens the relationship. In the absence of such mediation, impulsive purchasing behavior tends to increase significantly.