Exploring how creative advertising and financial well-being shape online impulse buying: new insights from consumer psychology in emerging markets

Creativity in advertising is a fundamental pillar of modern marketing that is essential for capturing consumer attention, arousing curiosity and stimulating emotional reactions (Paredes et al., 2023; Silva and Augusto, 2024). Studies have indicated that innovative advertising enhances purchase motivation through unconventional messaging and the use of creative imagery and concepts, thereby increasing the likelihood of unplanned purchase decisions (Shukla et al., 2022; Das et al., 2023). This impact is particularly pronounced in emerging markets characterized by high competitiveness and rapid shifts toward digital advertising (Juánim et al., 2024).

Impulse buying behavior is defined as rapid, spontaneous purchase decisions often driven by momentary emotions or external temptations (Arruda Filho and Oliveira, 2023; Kathuria and Bakshi, 2025). Comprehensive analyses have shown that advertising and promotion are the primary stimuli driving this behavior, while emotions and self-control act as mediating factors (Kathuria and Bakshi, 2024; Sun et al., 2024). Evidence suggests that impulse buying can lead to negative consequences, such as debt accumulation and postpurchase regret, making it a vital topic in marketing and consumer behavior research (Sarwar et al., 2024; Anoop and Rahman, 2025).

However, the relationship between creative advertising (CA) and impulse buying is not strictly linear; rather, it is shaped by individual differences, particularly financial well-being (FWB). FWB reflects an individual’s perceived ability to manage financial obligations and meet their future needs (Netemeyer et al., 2018; Zainol et al., 2022). Recent landmark reviews, such as Dahiya et al. (2024), have systematically organized the fragmented consumer well-being (CWB) literature (Bhardwaj and Kalro, 2024), identifying FWB as one of seven foundational dimensions, alongside subjective, psychological and social well-being. Their framework, which analyzes these dimensions across micro, meso and macro levels, provides a crucial perspective for our study. While their work links FWB to concepts such as self-control, it also implicitly supports the idea that financial security shapes how consumers perceive and react to market stimuli.

Our study builds on this by focusing on micro-level interactions, specifically examining how FWB moderates the response to advertising. We argue that FWB is an enabling resource rather than a restraining one. Consumers with high FWB, who feel secure and free from financial anxiety, are in a more positive affective state and perceive less financial risk in making unplanned purchases. This security makes them more receptive and open to the emotional and creative appeal of advertisements. Conversely, consumers with low FWB may be too preoccupied with financial constraints or risk aversion to fully engage with the persuasive message, thus dampening their impulsive responses. Therefore, we propose that a higher sense of financial security amplifies the effect of CA on impulse buying (Silber et al., 2024; Tuominen et al., 2025; Jaffar et al., 2025).

Therefore, this study explores the moderating role of FWB in the relationship between advertising creativity and impulse buying behavior in emerging markets. This topic is a research priority because it integrates psychological-behavioral interactions (perceptions of FWB) with the marketing impact of CA. We aim to provide empirical evidence and contextual validation of these dynamics.

This study addresses three critical gaps in the literature. First, while online impulse buying (OIB) has attracted increasing scholarly attention, most research has focused on developed markets, overlooking the unique cultural and economic challenges in emerging markets. This limits the generalizability of the findings to contexts marked by economic instability and income inequality. Second, prior research has primarily examined how creative appeals and emotional triggers affect purchase decisions (Dodds et al., 2021), often ignoring the role of FWB, especially in resource-constrained environments. Third, the literature has not sufficiently explored how FWB, as a key pillar of CWB (McLean et al., 2025; Jain et al., 2025), moderates the link between CA and OIB. Understanding how financial security influences the persuasive power of advertising is essential in the dynamic context of emerging markets such as Egypt. Accordingly, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

This study’s contribution is primarily focused on empirical extension and contextual validation, with three key aspects: Strengthening the explanatory model: We propose a more robust application of the stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) framework by better integrating FWB into the “Organism” component, drawing on insights from the CWB literature. This approach aims to provide a clearer psychological explanation of how marketing stimuli are processed rather than proposing a new theory. Second, Empirical extension: While prior research has examined the components of our model separately, this study provides specific empirical evidence of the interaction between CA and FWB. We demonstrate that FWB acts as a psychological amplifier, where the effect of CA on impulse buying is stronger for consumers with high FWB. This nuanced finding extends prior research by testing a specific context-dependent dynamic. Third, Contextual validation: Finally, we provide valuable contextual validation by testing our model in a non-Western emerging market. The findings offer specific evidence from a key consumer demographic (digitally active female cosmetic consumers) in Egypt, a context underrepresented in the literature, thereby assessing the applicability of these theoretical relationships in a new setting

This study uses the S–O–R theory (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) as its foundational framework. To address the critical theoretical gaps often present in its application, we propose a more nuanced conceptualization of the “Organism” (O) component, directly integrating insights from contemporary CWB literature. In this model, CA represents the stimulus (S), while OIB constitutes the response (R). The primary theoretical contribution lies in the reconceptualization of the organism (O) as a multidimensional internal psychological state. Specifically, we position FWB as a central and defining element within this state, rather than treating it as an external boundary condition, thereby addressing a key limitation in prior applications of the S–O–R framework (Iannello et al., 2021; Meneau and Moorthy, 2022; Kim et al., 2025).

However, this conceptualization raises an important theoretical question regarding the role of FWB within the model. To resolve this tension, we explicitly acknowledge that operationalizing an organismic construct as a statistical moderator is a pragmatic methodological choice, not a theoretical claim. While FWB is conceptually embedded within the organism as a core psychological state, it is empirically modeled as a moderator to capture its function as a stable dispositional boundary condition rather than a transient mediating mechanism. This distinction separates theoretical positioning from analytical testing, ensuring that FWB modulates – rather than transmits – the stimulus–response pathway by shaping consumers’ affective and cognitive processing of advertisements.

Building on this clarification, and to further ground our conceptualization within the CWB discourse, we draw on the landmark systematic literature review by Dahiya et al. (2024). This review positions FWB as a foundational dimension of the broader CWB construct and analyzes it across the micro (individual), meso (market) and macro (societal) levels. Accordingly, we theorize the organism as the consumer’s micro-level psychological state, which is profoundly shaped by perceived FWB. Specifically, FWB influences the organismic state in two primary ways (see Figure 1):

1. Affective interpretation: High FWB fosters a positive affective state characterized by lower financial anxiety and greater perceived security. This makes consumers (organisms) more open and emotionally receptive to the creative appeal of advertising (stimuli) (Dodds et al., 2021; An et al., 2022; Tsai et al., 2024).

2. Cognitive interpretation:FWB shapes the cognitive appraisal of risk. Consumers with high FWB perceive the financial risk of an impulse purchase as low, thus reducing the cognitive barriers that might otherwise block the persuasive message (Halandová, 2024; Salisbury et al., 2023; Bashir and Qureshi, 2023; Garg et al., 2024).

To enhance construct validity, we acknowledge the rich and multidimensional nature of advertising creativity. Seminal literature (e.g. Smith et al., 2007; Rosengren et al., 2020) has established that an advertisement’s creative impact stems from the interplay of several key dimensions, primarily novelty (originality), meaningfulness (relevance) and executional quality (Aslam et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2024).

Theoretically, it is the combination of these elements that captures attention and stimulates the organismic process (Amos et al., 2019; Kathuria and Bakshi, 2024). However, from the consumer’s perspective, these dimensions often converge into a single, holistic judgment: the overall perceived creativity of the advertisement (Sasser and Koslow, 2008). Consumers do not typically deconstruct an advertisement into its components in real time; rather, they form a global impression of its creativity.

Therefore, to model the consumer’s direct psychological response in our S–O–R framework, we chose to operationalize the “Stimulus” using a unidimensional measure of overall perceived creativity. This approach aligns with prior research that has successfully used global measures to capture consumers’ holistic perceptions (e.g. West et al., 2008). While this operational choice offers parsimony and reflects the consumer’s integrated judgment, we explicitly ground our study in the understanding that this overall perception is conceptually underpinned by the dimensions. Based on this, we hypothesize

The work of Dahiya et al. (2024) is pivotal. While their review documents link FWB and self-control (which might suggest a negative moderation), we argue that for impulse buying – a behavior driven by immediate affective response – the enabling effect of feeling financially secure outweighs the restraining effect of rational self-control. The logic is as follows:

• Consumers with high FWB experience less financial anxiety. This frees up cognitive and emotional resources, allowing them to fully engage with creative stimuli. The perceived risk of a “small” impulse purchase is negligible, making consumers more likely to act on the positive feelings generated by the ad. Thus, the effect of the stimulus is stronger.

• Consumers with low FWB are in a state of financial concern. Their cognitive resources are occupied by managing budgets and avoiding financial threats. This heightened risk aversion acts as a filter, dampening their emotional response to the advertisement and making them less likely to convert the stimulus into a response. Thus, the effect of the stimulus is weaker.

This argument aligns with studies confirming that the effect of personalized ads is stronger when consumers perceive their financial position as favorable (Aslam et al., 2021; Legros et al., 2024; Silber et al., 2024). By failing to acknowledge this dynamic, the literature overlooks a key factor that enhances advertising effectiveness. This directly addresses the scholarly gap and strengthens our originality claim by moving beyond the relationships already mapped by Dahiya et al. (2024) to test a specific, theoretically grounded interaction.

Impulsive purchasing is a rapid, emotionally driven process that often bypasses systematic evaluation (Xiao and Nicholson, 2013; Aragoncillo and Orus, 2018; Chaudhary et al., 2025). In the digital era, the growing prevalence of this behavior highlights the importance of understanding consumer responses beyond fully planned and rational decisions (Feng et al., 2023; Shamim et al., 2024). Drawing on Stern’s theory of impulse buying, external stimuli such as CA can encourage consumers to make more unplanned purchases than originally intended, positioning impulse buying as a key response variable in the S–O–R framework (Chen et al., 2023). By situating this relationship within the CWB perspective, the present study acknowledges that impulsive purchasing has implications that extend beyond immediate marketing outcomes to affect CWB itself (Wan et al., 2024). Examining how FWB shapes individuals’ susceptibility to such stimuli offers insights into how marketplace interactions relate to consumers’ perceived financial and psychological well-being (Xiao and Porto, 2017). Rather than assuming that impulse buyers are uniformly financially vulnerable, this perspective provides a more nuanced view. It considers the possibility that individuals with higher financial security – who may experience lower financial anxiety and a greater sense of control – might also engage in impulsive purchasing under certain conditions (Brüggen et al., 2017). Accordingly, understanding the moderating role of FWB contributes to a more balanced and psychologically grounded view of impulsive buying behavior. This has direct relevance for ongoing discussions of responsible marketing practices and the promotion of CWB in increasingly pervasive digital environments.

A cross-sectional questionnaire-based research design was used. An online self-administered questionnaire was distributed to female cosmetics consumers in Egypt using convenience sampling via social media (Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp). The inclusion criteria were as follows:

1. self-identifying as female;

2. aged 18–55 years;

3. regular consumer of cosmetic products; and

4. provided informed consent.

The sample size for this study was rigorously determined to ensure statistical power and model robustness for the planned structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. We followed the widely endorsed guidelines recommending a minimum of 10–20 observations for each estimated parameter to achieve stable and reliable estimates (Kline, 2012). The proposed moderation model consists of 34 free parameters. Therefore, our final sample of 384 participants provided a ratio of approximately 11.3 participants per parameter. This ratio is well within the recommended range, providing a solid foundation for reliable parameter estimation, enhancing the validity of the findings and effectively mitigating the risks of Type I and Type II errors associated with our complex multi-construct moderation model. It is important to acknowledge the methodological boundaries of this study. The use of a nonprobabilistic convenience sampling strategy, targeting a specific demographic via social media, necessarily limits the statistical generalizability of our findings to the wider population. However, this approach was deemed appropriate for the study’s primary objective.

Following the distinction made in the methodological literature (e.g. Calder et al., 1982), this research is explicitly framed as a theory-testing study rather than an effects-application study. The principal aim is not to generalize descriptive statistics to all emerging markets but to test the validity and underlying mechanisms of our theoretical framework within a narrowly defined, yet highly relevant, population of digitally active female cosmetic consumers in Egypt. By focusing on a relatively homogeneous sample, we can more effectively isolate the proposed theoretical relationships and reduce the confounding influence of extraneous demographic variables, which is a priority in theory-testing endeavors. Therefore, while the findings may not be statistically generalizable, they provide strong theoretical insights into the tested model, forming a basis for future research on broader and more diverse populations.

All constructs in this study were measured using multi-item scales adapted from the established literature. Participants responded to all items on a five-point Likert scale, anchored by (1) “Strongly Disagree” and (5) “Strongly Agree.” The psychometric properties of each scale were rigorously assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), as detailed in the results section.

CA: To measure perceptions of CA, we adapted a three-item scale from Sarılgan et al. (2021) (e.g. “Cosmetic advertisements are really extraordinary”). Although concise, this scale was deemed appropriate because it effectively captures the core theoretical dimensions of the construct, namely, novelty and appropriateness. While we explicitly acknowledge the multidimensional nature of advertising creativity (novelty, meaningfulness and executional quality) in contemporary literature, we use this unidimensional measure, focused on overall consumer perception, to capture its holistic impact. We acknowledge that the use of a three-item scale, while reliable for measuring general consumer perceptions, may limit the breadth of the construct. However, this choice ensures parsimony while focusing on creativity as a singular perceived stimulus. The scale demonstrated strong psychometric performance in our analysis, exhibiting high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.78) and robust standardized factor loadings, all of which exceeded the recommended 0.70 threshold.

FWB: We assessed participants’ subjective FWB using the seven-item in charge financial distress/FWB scale developed by Prawitz et al. (2006) (e.g. “I feel that I am in control of my financial situation.”). A subjective measure was deliberately chosen over objective indicators (e.g. income levels). This choice is theoretically grounded in the study’s focus on consumer psychology and perceptual states; an individual’s perceived financial security is theorized to be a more direct and potent driver of impulsive behaviors than their actual objective financial status.

OIB: The dependent variable, OIB, was measured using a five-item scale that integrated items from Jeon’s (1990) foundational work and Badgaiyan and Verma’s (2015) contemporary scale (e.g. “I bought the thing rashly”). This integration was performed to create a more comprehensive measure that captures both the cognitive (“unplanned”) and affective (“irresistible urge”) dimensions of the OIB construct. The convergent validity of this integrated scale was confirmed, with all items demonstrating strong factor loadings above the 0.70 benchmark. To ensure full transparency regarding the scale’s composition, a detailed table listing each item and its source is provided in  Appendix.

A comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy was employed to mitigate and assess the potential for common method bias (CMB), a known concern in studies using single-source, cross-sectional data. This strategy involved both proactive procedural remedies implemented ex ante (before data collection) and robust statistical diagnostics conducted ex post (after data collection). First, procedural remedies were integrated into the survey design to minimize the likelihood of CMB from the beginning. These measures included guaranteeing respondent anonymity and confidentiality to reduce evaluation apprehension and social desirability bias and randomizing the order of the measurement items to control for priming or carryover effects. Second, a two-step statistical examination was performed following data collection. As a preliminary diagnostic, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test. The results showed that the first unrotated factor accounted for only 42.52% of the total variance, falling below the 50% threshold and providing an initial indication that a single factor did not dominate the data set. Acknowledging the known limitations of this test (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we performed a more robust full collinearity test, as recommended for variance-based SEM (Kock, 2015). This procedure assesses bias at the construct level by evaluating the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each construct in the model. The analysis revealed that all VIF values were well below the conservative threshold of 3.3.

The combination of these proactive procedural safeguards and rigorous post hoc statistical diagnostics provides strong convergent evidence that CMB does not pose a significant threat to the validity of the findings presented in this study.

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD and frequencies) were used to describe the sample. Moderation analysis was performed using the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 1) by Hayes (2018). The pick-a-point method tested the significance of the moderating effect at high (M + 1SD) and low (M − 1SD) levels of FWB. Variables were centered prior to analysis, and statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

Descriptive statistics revealed high perceived advertising creativity (M = 3.82, SD = 0.74), relatively stable yet heterogeneous FWB (M = 3.45, SD = 0.89) and a strong tendency toward OIB (M = 3.68, SD = 0.82). Data normality was confirmed (skewness and kurtosis between −0.51 and 0.22, respectively). Pearson’s correlation showed a strong positive relationship between CA and OIB (R = 0.54, p  < 0.01) and a moderate correlation between FWB and OIB (R = 0.38, p < 0.01). The VIF values were < 3.3, indicating no multicollinearity.

To evaluate structural distinctiveness, we compared the hypothesized three-factor model against a single-factor model, as shown in Table 1. The three-factor model demonstrated a significantly superior fit: χ²/df = 2.213, RMSEA = 0.070, CFI = 0.920 and IFI = 0.920. This confirms discriminant validity and ensures that the constructs represent distinct psychological phenomena.

Discriminant validity was confirmed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), as shown in Table 2. The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was consistently higher than its correlations with other variables, establishing high statistical distinctiveness.

The analysis provides strong empirical support for H1, which posits a positive relationship between CA and OIB. As shown in Table 3, CA was a significant and powerful predictor of OIB (β = 1.476, t = 18.777, p < 0.001). From a substantive importance perspective, the magnitude of the beta coefficient (β = 1.476) is notably large, indicating that a one-unit increase in perceived advertising creativity is associated with a substantial 1.476-unit increase in the propensity for online impulse purchases. This highlights the practical and powerful role of creativity as a marketing stimulus, not merely a statistically significant one.

Regarding the control variables, only educational level exerted a statistically significant influence, showing a negative relationship with OIB (β = −0.086, t = −3.665, p < 0.001). This suggests that higher educational attainment may act as a modest cognitive buffer against impulsive behavior. In contrast, other demographic factors, such as age and income, were not significant predictors in the model.

H2 proposes that FWB moderates the relationship between CA and OIB. The results presented in Table 3 strongly support this assumption. The interaction term (CA × FWB) was positive and statistically significant (β = 0.301, t = 4.702, p < 0.001).

To assess the substantive importance of this interaction, we examined the change in the R-squared value. The inclusion of the interaction term resulted in a significant increase in the model’s explanatory power (ΔR² = 0.015, p < 0.001). This indicates that the interplay between CA and FWB accounts for an additional 1.5% of the variance in OIB. While modest, this effect size is considered meaningful and typical for interaction effects in social science research (e.g. Aguinis et al., 2005), confirming that the moderation is not only statistically significant but also has a tangible impact on the model’s explanatory power. Overall, the full model demonstrated substantial explanatory power, accounting for 32.7% of the variance in OIB (R² = 0.327, p < 0.001).

To further probe the nature of the significant interaction, we conducted a simple slopes analysis examining the effect of CA on OIB at three distinct levels of FWB: low (one standard deviation below the mean), moderate (the mean) and high (one standard deviation above the mean). The results, as detailed in Table 4, provide a clear visualization of this conditional effect.

The analysis revealed that while the positive effect of CA on OIB was significant at all levels, its magnitude was progressively amplified as FWB increased (Low FWB: β = 1.298; Moderate FWB: β = 1.476; High FWB: β = 1.787; all p < 0.001). Crucially, this analysis reveals the practical magnitude of moderation. The effect of CA on impulse buying was approximately 38% stronger for consumers with high FWB than for those with low FWB [(1.787–1.298)/1.298]. This highlights the substantial practical importance of FWB as a psychological amplifier, as it dramatically alters the potential return on a creative campaign, depending on the target segment’s financial context.

This clear graded pattern confirms that FWB acts as a significant catalyst. The pronounced divergence in the slopes indicates that financially secure individuals are considerably more responsive to the stimulus of CA than financially insecure individuals. From an S–O–R perspective, these findings suggest that a higher level of FWB alters the consumer’s internal “Organism” state, reducing financial constraints and psychological friction, thereby making them more receptive to the creative “Stimulus” and amplifying the subsequent behavioral “Response” of impulse buying.

To further probe the nature of this interaction, a simple slopes analysis was conducted and the results are visualized through the three-dimensional surface plot in Figure 2. The graph provides a clear representation of the conditional effect by illustrating the relationship between CA and OIB across three distinct levels of FWB. In this visualization, the x-axis (CA) represents the intensity of the stimulus, the y-axis (FWB) represents the consumer’s organismic state ranging from low (−1.00) to high (1.00) and the z-axis (OIB) captures the magnitude of the behavioral response of consumers.

The upward curvature and varying gradient of the surface illustrate a powerful synergistic effect. As depicted, while the positive effect of CA remains significant across all levels, the slopes become progressively steeper as the FWB increases. Specifically, the slope for consumers with low FWB (β = 1.298, p  < 0.001) was the least steep, followed by moderate FWB (β = 1.476, p < 0.001) and finally the steepest slope for consumers with high FWB (β = 1.787, p < 0.001). This “twisting” of the plane, further highlighted by the color transition from purple (low response) to yellow (high response), confirms that the impact of advertising is not constant but is significantly amplified for individuals with higher financial security.

This clear and graded divergence underscores the practical importance of FWB as a catalyst. From an S–O–R perspective, this supports the argument that a positive “organism” state (high FWB) enhances receptiveness to a “stimulus” (CA), thereby intensifying the behavioral “response” (impulse buying). Essentially, higher FWB functions as a force multiplier, reducing the cognitive friction associated with spending and allowing the affective appeal of creative advertisements to translate more effectively into impulsive outcomes. Consequently, these results suggest that while CA is a universally effective tool, its maximum utility is unlocked only when it is aligned with the consumer’s internal financial capacity, highlighting a critical boundary condition that redefines the strategic deployment of creative marketing efforts.

This study sought to understand the interplay between CA, consumer psychology and OIB. By re-theorizing the S–O–R framework through the lens of the CWB literature, our findings offer a more nuanced, interactionist perspective. We move beyond treating FWB as a simple external variable, instead positioning it as a core element of the consumer’s internal “Organism” state, which dictates how external stimuli are processed.

Our first finding (H1) confirms that overall perceived CA is not only a statistically significant driver of OIB but also one of substantive importance. This aligns with existing work (Li et al., 2023; Chatterjee et al., 2025) but gains new significance within our results. The large magnitude of the direct effect (β = 1.476) suggests that creativity is a powerful practical lever in digital environments, capable of producing a substantial increase in impulsive tendencies. This indicates that in cluttered digital markets, an advertisement perceived as creative does more than just capture attention; it acts as a potent, integrated message that can fundamentally alter short-term purchasing behavior by triggering heuristic, emotion-driven processing (Drossos et al., 2014).

The most critical finding of this study, however, is the validation of H2 and the powerful mechanism it reveals. The significant moderating role of FWB clarifies how the “Organism” state shapes the S–O–R sequence. Our results show that FWB acts as an enabling resource or a psychological amplifier. From a substantive viewpoint, the interaction term accounted for a meaningful 1.5% of additional variance in impulse buying (ΔR² = 0.015), an effect size consistent with impactful moderation effects in behavioral research (Aguinis et al., 2005), confirming that this is not a trivial phenomenon.

More strikingly, the practical implication of this moderation is substantial: our analysis revealed that the effect of CA on impulse buying was approximately 38% stronger for consumers with high FWB compared to their low-FWB counterparts. This dramatic amplification provides a crucial counterpoint to some CWB literature. While Dahiya et al. (2024) document the link between FWB and self-control (which might suggest a dampening effect), our finding indicates that in the context of an affective trigger like CA, the positive psychological state associated with high FWB is the dominant factor.

Specifically, for consumers with high FWB, a sense of financial security seems to grant a “mental license” to indulge (cf. Haws and Bearden, 2006). This state of perceived resource abundance lowers the perceived risk of a spontaneous purchase, allowing the emotional appeal of the creative ad to be readily translated into behavior. The “Organism” (consumer) is in a state of low anxiety and high receptivity, thus amplifying the “Stimulus’s” effect on the “Response” (impulse buy). The sheer magnitude of this amplification provides a strong behavioral explanation for why marketing cues are often more effective when consumers feel financially secure (Lučić et al., 2023).

Conversely, for consumers with low FWB, the organismic state is characterized by financial anxiety and a deliberative, preservation-focused mindset. This state acts as a powerful cognitive and emotional brake. Even when an ad is perceived as highly creative, the internal state of financial precarity overrides the affective pull of the stimulus. This aligns with research suggesting that financial distress depletes cognitive resources, forcing a focus on necessity overindulgence (Netemeyer et al., 2018). In this case, the “Organism” effectively gatekeeps the stimulus, weakening its path to the response. By considering this powerful interaction, the study provides additional psychological insight that helps to refine the interpretation of the S–O–R framework beyond simple S–R relationships (Hussain et al., 2023).

This study makes several important contributions to theory.

First, we provide an empirical extension and contextual validation of the S–O–R model within the emerging market of Egypt. By defining FWB as a core component of the “Organism” state, we address a common ambiguity in the framework’s application. While FWB is conceptualized as an internal organismic state that influences affective and cognitive interpretation, it is operationalized in this study as a moderator. This dual positioning is theoretically justified as FWB acts as a dispositional organismic factor that conditions the consumer’s reaction to marketing stimuli, effectively functioning as a boundary condition for the S–O–R process. This provides a clearer, more theoretically sound model for future research examining how internal psychological states interact with external marketing stimuli.

Second, we bridge the advertising effectiveness and CWB literatures. By integrating the work of Dahiya et al. (2024), we move FWB from the periphery of advertising research to its core. We demonstrate that FWB is not just an outcome variable but a critical psychological input that shapes consumer responsiveness, thereby situating our research within this broader discourse and strengthening the theoretical grounding of our study. Third, our findings enhance the contextual richness of the model. By showing that high FWB amplifies impulse buying in response to creative ads, we offer a context-specific interaction effect that extends the work of Dahiya et al. (2024). While their review maps the terrain, our study illuminates a specific, perhaps counter-intuitive, hill on that map, demonstrating that the relationship between FWB and impulsivity is context-dependent. This reframes our contribution as a meaningful empirical extension and contextual validation rather than a claim of conceptual novelty, aligning with the specific characteristics of female cosmetic consumers in an emerging market.

The findings offer actionable insights for marketing practitioners. The primary takeaway is that the ROI of CA is not uniform; it is higher among consumers with strong perceived FWB. Marketers can use this insight to improve segmentation and targeting. For instance, campaigns for novel or premium products that rely on creative appeal may be more effective when directed toward segments with high FWB. Conversely, for segments perceived as having lower FWB, advertising strategies emphasizing value, discounts or functional benefits may yield better results.

From a societal and ethical perspective, our findings invite a more nuanced discussion. Rather than confirming the simple narrative that impulse-inducing advertising primarily harms the financially vulnerable, our results add to a growing understanding that susceptibility can be context-dependent. Specifically, our findings indicate that financially secure consumers are not immune to this persuasive tactic and may, under certain conditions, be quite responsive. This observation does not diminish the importance of protecting vulnerable consumers but rather broadens the scope of ethical consideration. As our study is situated within the CWB discourse (Dahiya et al., 2024), it underscores the need for a continued focus on responsible marketing and financial literacy for all consumer segments.

This study has limitations that offer avenues for future research. First, the cross-sectional design restricts causal inferences; longitudinal studies could better track the dynamic interplay between FWB and advertising response. Second, reliance on self-reported measures may introduce social desirability bias; future work should integrate objective metrics like transaction data. Specifically, the subjective measure of FWB used in this study should be acknowledged as a limitation. Third, findings from a single emerging economy (Egypt) may not be universally applicable; replication across diverse markets is needed. Fourth, while we explicitly acknowledge the multidimensional nature of advertising creativity (novelty, meaningfulness and executional quality), this study used a three-item unidimensional scale to measure overall consumer perception. We acknowledge that this choice may limit the construct’s breadth, and future research should employ more comprehensive, multidimensional scales to further explore these nuances. In addition, future research could explore the multifaceted nature of creativity (novelty vs relevance) and additional moderators, such as personality traits or cultural values. Fifth, a moderated-mediation design could illuminate whether FWB modulates emotional responses that subsequently influence OIB. Furthermore, the integration of impulse buying measures in this study represents another measurement constraint that warrants recognition. Finally, building on our integration of the CWB framework (Dahiya et al., 2024), future research could explore how other dimensions of CWB, such as psychological or social well-being, interact with FWB to shape consumer responses to marketing. For instance, does high social well-being (a strong social network) amplify or buffer the effects of advertising on impulse buying for someone with low FWB?