Are all facets of impulsivity related to self-reported compulsive buying behavior?
Introduction
Buying is a routine part of everyday life. However, in specific situations, a purchase may be unplanned and sudden, initiated on the spot and associated with a strong urge and feelings of pleasure and excitement. This kind of purchasing is generally known as “impulsive buying” (e.g., Rook, 1987). Although most impulsive purchases are unproblematic, and almost everyone has made such purchases, repeated experiences of uncontrolled buying could become problematic. Such dysfunctional behaviors, frequently labeled as “compulsive buying”, involve repeated and excessive purchases of consumer goods that may lead to psychological distress and have serious effects on a person’s life, such as major debts, negative feedback from family and friends and guilt feelings (e.g., Christenson et al., 1994). More specifically, individuals suffering from compulsive buying tendencies have been reported to experience repetitive, irresistible, and overpowering urges to purchase goods (frequently useless and/or unused items) as well as uncontrollable needs and growing tensions that can only be relieved by buying (Christenson et al., 1994, Lejoyeux et al., 1996). A recent epidemiological study (Koran, Faber, Aboujaoude, Large, & Serpe, 2006), conducted by interviewing 2513 adults in a random telephone survey, estimated the prevalence of compulsive buying in the USA at 5.8%. In addition, it has recently been shown that compulsive buying behaviors have increased markedly in developed economies (Neuner, Raab, & Reisch, 2005), which can probably be attributed to the fact that marketing developments (credit cards, Internet shopping, massive advertising via media) facilitate and promote the impulsive purchasing of items.
Several studies have investigated the demographical predictors (gender, age, socioeconomic status) of compulsive buying. It has been shown that women are more prone than men to experience compulsive buying behaviors (e.g., Dittmar, 2005), although several studies found this not to be the case (e.g., Koran et al., 2006). In addition, there are some indications that younger persons may be more susceptible than older ones to compulsive buying tendencies (e.g., Dittmar, 2005), although several studies found no effect of age on problematic buying (e.g., Black, Repertinger, Gaffney, & Gabel, 1998).
Interestingly, several studies have shown that impulsive buying may be promoted by intense emotional contexts, both positive (e.g., Beatty & Ferrell, 1998) and negative (e.g., Miltenberger et al., 2003). However, although marketing-oriented research shows that factors promoting positive mood states (e.g., nice scents, pretty colors or pleasant music) may elicit impulse purchase behaviors (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998), compulsive buying more frequently occurs in contexts of negative affect. Indeed, several authors (Christenson et al., 1994, McElroy et al., 1994, Miltenberger et al., 2003) argue that for certain persons, buying things may function as a self-regulatory mechanism aimed at reducing negative feelings (e.g., frustration, loneliness, sadness).
However, very few studies have attempted to investigate the psychological predictors (e.g., personality traits, cognitive and motivational mechanisms) of compulsive buying. Consequently, and despite its prevalence in the general population, the determinants of compulsive buying remain unclear and/or misunderstood. Indeed, the majority of clinical studies on compulsive buying have tried to establish diagnostic criteria (e.g., McElroy et al., 1994) and/or to determine which category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association, 1994) this disorder should be included in, rather than investigating the psychological factors that could explain the change from normal buying to problem buying. In this context, compulsive buying is generally considered as an impulse control disorder (Christenson et al., 1994, Lejoyeux et al., 1996, McElroy et al., 1994), although very few studies have empirically explored its relationships with impulsivity and/or inhibition-related functions. Thus, to the best of our knowledge, only two studies (DeSarbo and Edwards, 1996, Lejoyeux et al., 1997) have investigated the relationships between compulsive buying and impulsivity scales. In the first, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) showed that impulsivity, as assessed by the NEO Personality Inventory Impulsiveness Scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992), predicted higher scores on a questionnaire assessing compulsive buying (e.g., frequency of shopping, unplanned purchasing, post-purchase guilt). In the second study, Lejoyeux et al. (1997) found that depressed patients with compulsive buying problems have higher scores on all subscales of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) than depressed patients without compulsive buying problems. Thus, it appears that impulsivity-related traits may prove to be important when one focuses on the etiological factors leading to compulsive buying.
Impulsivity is a core construct in the field of clinical psychology and plays a prominent role in the understanding and diagnosis of various psychopathological states. It is now generally agreed that impulsivity is a multifaceted construct that consists of a number of related dimensions (e.g., Evenden, 1999), and numerous studies have recently been conducted to investigate the various facets of impulsivity. Among these studies, Whiteside and Lynam’s (2001) study is the only one that has attempted to clarify the assortment of existing impulsivity measures. The central argument of these authors is that, although certain personality traits result in similar overt behavior (i.e., the appearance of acting without forethought), they may have different etiologies. To investigate this hypothesis, Whiteside and Lynam (2001) administered several widely used measures of impulsivity to 437 undergraduate students. A factorial analysis conducted on these impulsivity scales resulted in a four-factor solution, which forms the basis for the creation of a scale called the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. The four dimensions of impulsivity measured by the UPPS are: (1) urgency, defined as the tendency to experience strong reactions, frequently under conditions of negative affect; (2) premeditation, defined as the tendency to think and reflect on the consequences of an act before engaging in that act; (3) perseverance, defined as the ability to remain focused on a task that may be boring and/or difficult; and (4) sensation seeking, considered as a tendency to enjoy and pursue activities that are exciting, and openness to trying new experiences.
Our view is that the various components of impulsivity measured by the UPPS reflect two distinct psychological mechanisms. The first is the sensation seeking dimension, which reflects the motivation to approach rewarding environmental stimuli. The other three dimensions (urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance) relate to self-control and executive processes, and are close to the impulsivity construct assessed by the Barratt Impulsivity Scale.
A growing number of studies based on Whiteside and Lynam’s conception of impulsivity have established relationships between certain facets of impulsivity and specific psychopathological states (e.g., pathological gambling, Whiteside, Lynam, Miller, & Reynolds, 2005) or problematic behaviors (e.g., dependence on mobile phones, Billieux, Van der Linden, d’Acremont, Ceschi, & Zermatten, 2007). Consequently, the goal of the present study was to investigate the relationships between compulsive buying and the various components of the UPPS impulsivity model (Whiteside & Lynam, 2001). In this regard, several a priori predictions were formulated concerning the components of impulsivity that contribute to compulsive buying behaviors, namely (1) urgency, because of the frequent association between negative affect and compulsive buying; (2) lack of premeditation, which could be related to a reduced ability to consider the potential negative outcome (e.g., financial) of purchases; and (3) sensation seeking, as certain acts of impulsive buying may promote pleasure and/or excitement.
Section snippets
Participants and procedure
A total of 150 volunteer participants (76 females and 74 males), aged from 20 to 35 years (M = 26.81, SD = 3.71), took part in the study. Participants were recruited via advertisements in the University of Geneva (most of them were undergraduate students). Exclusion criteria comprised a reported history of brain injury or a current psychiatric diagnosis. This information was collected along with other demographical data in a short questionnaire completed by the participant. The inclusion criterion
Results
Of the 150 participants of the study, only one had a missing value. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) of each questionnaire were calculated separately according to gender (see Table 2). The UPPS, the STAI-T, and the SDHS have good internal validity (α > .80), whereas the QABB has acceptable internal validity (α > .70). Means, standard deviations and gender comparisons on the various scales used are reported in Table 2. The amount of compulsive buying behaviors reported in the present
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify which components of impulsivity are related to compulsive buying tendencies. The main results of the study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, correlation analyses highlighted the fact that compulsive buying is positively correlated with three facets of impulsivity (urgency, lack of perseverance and lack of premeditation), as well as with both anxiety and depression. Secondly, a multiple linear regression analysis revealed that urgency is the only
References (30)
- et al.
Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors
Journal of Retailing
(1998) - et al.
Which dimensions of impulsivity are associated with cigarette craving?
Addictive Behaviors
(2007) - et al.
Typologies of compulsive buying behavior: A constrained clusterwise regression approach
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(1996) - et al.
Direct and retrospective assessment of factors contributing to compulsive buying
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
(2003) - et al.
Compulsive buying in maturing consumer societies: An empirical re-inquiry
Journal of Economic Psychology
(2005) - et al.
The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity
Personality and Individual Differences
(2001) Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and application
(1999)- American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington,...
- et al.
Decision-making and impulse control after frontal lobe injuries
Current Opinion in Neurology
(2005) - et al.
Does impulsivity relate to perceived dependence and actual use of the mobile phone?
Applied Cognitive Psychology
(2007)
Family history and psychiatric comorbidity in person with compulsive buying
American Journal of Psychiatry
Compulsive buying: Descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
Revised NEO Personality Inventory manual
Integration of impulsivity and positive mood to predict risky behavior: Development and validation of a measure of positive urgency
Psychological Assessment
Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain
Cited by (158)
Discovering the dark side of brand attachment: Impulsive buying, obsessive-compulsive buying and trash talking
2022, Journal of Business ResearchPredictors of online compulsive buying: The role of personality and mindfulness
2022, Personality and Individual DifferencesConverging vulnerability factors for compulsive food and drug use
2021, NeuropharmacologySneaking the dark side of brand engagement into Instagram: The dual theory of passion
2021, Journal of Business ResearchImpulsive purchasing in grocery shopping: Do the shopping companions matter?
2021, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services