AU

THO

R C

OP

Y

JOURNAL OF CUSTOMER BEHAVIOUR, 2012, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.221-240http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/147539212X13469450373038ISSN1475-3928 print /ISSN1477-6421 online © Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Can we identify compulsive buyers based on their personality? An application of the Personality Adjective Check List

Kalina Mikołajczak-Degrauwe, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium*Gina Rossi, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumBirgit Wauters, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumMalaika Brengman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

Abstract Compulsive buying (CB) - an uncontrolled urge to buy unneeded products - though not yet officially recognised as a mental disorder, causes significant impairments in financial, legal, social and occupational areas of functioning of an affected person. The goal of the current research was twofold: first, to investigate the link between CB and looking at more specific personality traits than the Big Five model, and second to determine whether compulsive buying tendency in a general consumer sample is indicative of potential personality problems. To this end the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL, Strack, 1991) was chosen to measure personality traits in consumers, an instrument with strong theoretical underpinnings based on Millon's evolutionary model of personality that differentiates and links healthy and abnormal character on a continuum (Millon, 1969). The results of hierarchical multiple regressions showed that dependence on self rather than others in maximising pleasure and minimising pain (independence) or uncertainty about how to derive the most pleasure (ambivalence) can make consumers more vulnerable to buy compulsively. Confi dent, Forceful and Sensitive personality styles were positively related to CB whereas Respectful related to CB negatively.

Keywords Compulsive buying, Uncontrolled buying, Maladaptive consumer behaviour, Personality, Personality adjective check list

*Correspondence details and biographies for the authors are located at the end of the article.

JOURNAL OF

CUSTOMERBEHAVIOUR

AU

THO

R C

OP

YINTRODUCTION

Compulsive buying (CB) is a maladaptive consumer behaviour characterised by “repetitive buying and a lack of impulse control over buying” (Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney & Monroe, 2008), causing significant impairments in financial, legal, social and occupational areas of functioning of an affected person (Bragg, 2009). It is believed that CB is a result of the contemporary Western culture that embraces materialism (Chaplin & John, 2007) and puts greater value on financial status (e.g., prestige) than past generations (Roberts & Jones, 2001). During the last two decades, children have increasingly taken on the role of independent consumers, with considerable purchasing power which results in the fact that more and more young people believe that their clothes and brands describe who they are and define their social status (Schor, 2004). Buying has become more than just purchasing. In its maladaptive, compulsive form, it is seen as a method of coping with life’s challenges (Scherhorn, 1990), low self-esteem (d’Astous, 1990; Hanley & Wilhelm, 1992; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989) and/or internal psychological tension (Valence, d’Astous & Fortier, 1988). It is also viewed as a process whereby consumers want to escape from negative feelings, stress and anxiety (Edwards, 1993; Ergin, 2010; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989).

Despite its negative consequences and a high comorbidity with mood, substance use and eating disorders (McElroy, Keck, Pope & Smith, 1994; Schlosser, Black, Repertinger, & Freet, 1994), CB is not officially recognised as a mental disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). There exist criteria for compulsive buying disorder (CBD), widely accepted by researchers in the domain: 1) frequent preoccupation with shopping or irresistible buying impulses; 2) buying more than is needed or/and can be afforded; 3) distress related to buying behaviour; 4) significant interference with work or social areas of functioning (all of these do not occur exclusively during episodes of mania or hypomania) (McElroy et al., 1994). However, there is a disagreement about the nosology of CB: some researchers consider it as an addictive disorder (Scherhorn, 1990), others as an impulse control disorder (ICD) (Black, 2007), others as an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder (OCSD) (Hollander & Allen, 2006). The rationale for classifying CB as an obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder is that compulsive buyers are preoccupied with buying (obsessions) and buy repetitively (compulsions) to reduce underlying anxiety (Ridgway et al., 2008). Similarly to ICD, compulsive buyers lack control over the urge to buy (Hollander & Dell’Osso, 2005). Recognising this overlap Ridgway et al. (2008, p. 623) argue that “CB should be classified as a disorder with elements of both OCSD and ICD”. The definition and measure of CB used in the current research is based on this theoretical foundation.

O’Guinn and Faber (1989) argued that there is no single factor but rather a combination of psychological, physiological, genetic, social and cultural factors that can explain the aetiology of CB. This is confirmed in a large number of studies revealing numerous factors differentiating compulsive from non-compulsive buyers, among them: dependence (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989; Valence et al., 1988), tendency to fantasise (O’Guinn & Faber, 1989), psychasthenia (Scherhorn, 1990), compulsiveness (Balabanis, 2001; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989), perfectionism (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; Kyrios, Frost & Steketee, 2004; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989), materialism (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; Johnson & Attmann, 2009; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989; Rose, 2007), money attitudes (Dongijn, Ying, Shenhui, Zhe & Wenji, 2009; Hanley & Wilhelm, 1992), impulsiveness (Christenson, Faber,

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB222

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 223

de Zwaan & Raymond, 1994; DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; Rose, 2007), denial (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996), excitement seeking (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996), obsessive thoughts (Kwak, Zinkjan & Lester-Roushanzamir, 2004), risk-taking tendencies (Kwak et al., 2004), narcissism (Rose, 2007), external locus of control (Watson, 2009), self-control (Sneath, Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2009), depression (Ergin, 2010; Sneath et al., 2009), concern for store return policies (Hassay & Smith, 1998), concern with immediate consequences (Joireman, Kees & Sprott, 2010) and credit card abuse (Faber & O’Guinn, 1988). CB has also been associated with specific early developmental experiences and the family environment (DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; Faber & O’Guinn, 1988; McElroy et al., 1994; Scherhorn, 1990; Valence et al., 1988).

Nevertheless, many questions regarding this phenomenon still remain unanswered. Is compulsive buying for example not only a lack of impulse control, but related to personality styles? In other words, are some individuals and their personalities more vulnerable to buy compulsively? Taking into account the generally established significance of personality in determining consumer behaviour (Haugtvedt, Petty & Cacioppo, 1992; Kassarjian, 1971), researchers have indeed started to investigate the link between CB and personality based on the Big Five traits (e.g., Balabanis, 2001; Mikolajczak-Degrauwe, Brengman, Wauters & Rossi, 2012; Mowen & Spears, 1999). However, no consistent results have been obtained. The current study extends the research on the influence of personality on CB in a general consumer sample, beyond the Big Five traits, by using a theory related measure of personality, namely the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL, Strack, 1987, 1991). The current study can help identifying specific personality traits as predictive variables for compulsive buying and reveal whether a compulsive buying tendency in a general consumer sample is indicative of potential personality problems. This information might be useful for the ‘affected’ persons as well as for counsellors and policy makers interested in increasing the appeal and effectiveness of CB prevention campaigns and treatment of CBD.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Millon’s model of personality

According to Millon and Davis (2000, p. 2), personality is “a complex pattern of deeply embedded psychological characteristics that are expressed automatically in almost every area of psychological functioning”. For many years, efforts in research on personality have been focused on identifying the elemental personality traits (e.g., Fiske, 1949; Thurstone, 1934; Tupes & Christal, 1961). In his conceptualisation, Millon (1969) identified three bipolar dimensions namely: active-passive, pleasure-pain and self-other to describe different types of people. The first dimension refers to the type of adaptation to life events: the person takes an initiative in mastering the environment (active) or passively reacts to those events (passive). The second dimension refers to existence strategies: the person struggles to survive trying to stay away from negative events (pain) or strives to life enhancement by being motivated towards positively reinforcing events (pleasure). The last dimension refers to the difference between people who are motivated by themselves (self) or need others to motivate them (other).

AU

THO

R C

OP

YOn the basis of the self-other dimension, four types of persons were identified

namely dependent, independent, ambivalent and detached. The combination of these styles with the active-passive dimension led to the formulation of eight basic personality types asocial (passive-detached), avoidant (active-detached), submissive (passive-dependent), gregarious (active-dependent), narcissistic (passive-independent), aggressive (active-independent), conforming (passive-ambivalent) and negativistic (active-ambivalent). The theory of Millon (1969) was intended to apply to normal and abnormal personality types as he considers normal and abnormal personalities stemming from the same sources. On the basis of Millon’s theory, Strack (1987) developed a tool (the Personality Adjective Check List, PACL), for measuring Millon’s personality types in a normal form. The names of the scales were modified in order to reflect less negative connotations, and so asocial became introversive, avoidant - inhibited, submissive - cooperative, gregarious - sociable, narcissistic - confident, aggressive - forceful, conforming - respectful and negativistic - sensitive. Throughout this article we will refer to the personality types in a normal form after Strack (1987).

Compulsive buying and personality

Although early attempts to predict consumer behaviour through the use of personality measurements have yielded disappointing results (Kassarjian, 1971), there has recently been a growing interest in personality influences in the domain of consumer research (e.g., Egan & Taylor, 2010; Lin, 2010; Mowen, 2000). In the context of maladaptive consumer behaviour Mowen and Spears (1999) were the first researchers who investigated the relationship between CB and personality traits. They found that low conscientiousness, high agreeableness and high neuroticism predict compulsive buying directly. Soon after Mowen (2000) found in two different studies neuroticism and agreeableness to be significant predictors of compulsive buying. Also Balabanis (2001) used the Five Factor Personality Model to explain compulsive buying behaviour, however in the context of lottery tickets and scratch cards. The results indicated that extraversion and intellect, the two factors which did not appear to directly influence compulsive buying in previous studies, were found to be related to CB. Extraversion was positively and intellect negatively related to CB. Surprisingly, in contradiction to the findings by Mowen and Spears (1999), Balabanis found a negative correlation between agreeableness and CB. Later Wang and Yang (2008) found that only neuroticism is positively correlated with compulsiveness in buying. Most recently, Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al. (2012) found compulsive buyers to be more extravert, agreeable and neurotic, and scoring lower on intellect than their non-compulsive counterparts. We can conclude that, with the exception of neuroticism, no consistent results were found in previous research (see Table 1 for an overview)1.

There can be several reasons for these inconsistencies, for example small student samples (e.g., 165 students in Mowen, 2000; 304 students in Mowen & Spears, 1999), CB problem investigated in different retail contexts (e.g., lottery tickets and scratch cards buying in Balabanis, 2001; online shopping in Wang & Yang, 2008; general buying tendency in other studies) or different measures of CB used (e.g.,

1 It is important to note that also Schlosser et al. (1994) and Mueller et al. (2010) were interested in personality influences on CB. However their studies were conducted in exclusively clinical samples, and therefore their results can’t be compared with the ones conducted in general consumer samples.

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB224

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 225

Faber & O’Guinn’s CB measure in Mowen & Spears, 1999; selected items from Valence et al. (1988); Faber & O’Guinn’s CB measures in Balabanis, 2001; Ridgeway et al.'s (2008) measure in Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012). Moreover, since the Big Five dimensions represent personality at the broadest level of abstraction (John & Srivastava, 1999) it is possible that the differences between compulsive and non compulsive buyers are easier to detect on a more specific level. On the other hand, consistent positive associations with neuroticism, found in previous research on CB, can point to the fact that compulsive buyers might have personality problems (Saulsman & Page, 2004)2. Therefore the goal of the current research was twofold: first, to investigate the link between CB and personality in more detail looking at more specific personality traits, and second to determine whether compulsive buying tendency in a general consumer sample is indicative of potential personality problems. To this end we opted for the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL), an instrument with strong theoretical underpinnings based on the evolutionary model of personality that differentiates and links healthy and abnormal character on a continuum (Millon, 1969).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Theoretical underpinnings of the PACL scales (Millon, 1969) are used to formulate hypotheses on the expected relations between compulsive buying tendency and eight personality styles and to explore whether CB can be indicative of potential personality problems.

Introversive and CB

Introversive (asocial) people are considered shy and aloof. They can have difficulties in understanding other people’s feelings and can be seen as cold and insensitive. Introversive people are seldom concerned with social activities (Strack, 1991). Therefore shopping in its traditional form (an activity which often involves other persons e.g., other shoppers or sales personnel), might not be rewarding for them. Moreover introversion is negatively correlated with impulsiveness (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and low self-control (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) which are positively

2 In their meta-analytic review Saulsman and Page (2004, p. 1055) have found that “the most prominent and consistent personality dimensions underlying a large number of the personality disorders are positive associations with neuroticism and negative associations with agreeableness”.

TABLE 1 Relationship between compulsive buying and the big five personality traits

Study Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism IntellectMowen & Spears, 1999 ns. + - + ns.Mowen, 2000 ns. + ns. + ns.Balabanis, 2001 + - ns. ns. -Wang & Yang, 2008 ns. ns. ns. + ns.

Mikołajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012

+ + ns. + -

ns. = not significant

AU

THO

R C

OP

Yrelated to CB (Christenson et al., 1994; DeSarbo & Edwards, 1996; Rose, 2007; Sneath et al., 2009). Therefore we expect that:

H1 CB is negatively related to introversive personality.

Inhibited and CB

Inhibited (avoidant) people, although willing to be part of social events, mostly stay in the background as a result of fear of negative consequences. Contrary to introversive people, inhibited types are concerned about other people’s feelings and would like to be in close relationships with others, however fear of being rejected or criticised by others prevents them from doing so (Strack, 1991). An inhibited personality is positively related to anxiety and depression (Strack, 1991). Both of these variables are positively related to CB (Ergin, 2010; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989). However, since an inhibited personality mainly involves a tendency to social withdrawal (Strack, 1991), and shopping (at least in its traditional form) often requires many contacts with other people (e.g. other shoppers and sales personnel), we expect that inhibited people will not choose shopping as an escape from their inner problems. Therefore we do not predict any significant effects of the inhibited personality scale on CB.

Cooperative and CB

Cooperative (submissive) people are considered reliable, cooperative and thoughtful. They are characterised by a high need for social approval and therefore adjust themselves to others instead of expressing their own needs. They lack confidence when left on their own and work best under the supervision of others. Since the theory and previous research do not provide us with indications as to the relation between a cooperative personality type and CB, we do not hypothesise a relation in any specific direction.

Sociable and CB

Sociable (gregarious) people are friendly and fluent. They like to be the centre of attention and enjoy exciting situations or being the life of the party. Similar to Cooperative people, they may lack confidence when on their own, but do very well in a group environment (Strack, 1991). As having a sociable personality is negatively correlated with self-control (Strack, 1991), which is negatively related to CB (Sneath et al., 2009), we anticipate that:

H2 CB is positively related to a sociable personality.

Confi dent and CB

Confident (narcissistic) people are egocentric and want others to fulfill their needs. Although they lack empathy, others easily adjust to their requirements. Their narcissism is primarily characterised by egotistical self-perceptions and behaviour, but underneath they fear criticisms or being rejected (Strack, 1991). Since narcissism has been shown to be positively correlated to compulsive buying, with a mediating role of materialism and low impulse control (Rose, 2007), we expect that:

H3 CB is positively related to a confident personality.

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB226

AU

THO

R C

OP

YForceful and CB

Forceful (aggressive) people are self-confident, dominant and ambitious. They lack concern for others and always want to have things under control. They are very demanding and hold high standards for themselves and others. Neither theory nor earlier research provides us with reasons to expect any relationship with CB.

Respectful and CB

Respectful (conforming) people can be seen as perfectionistic, goal-directed, moralistic or inflexible. Fear of being wrong or rejected can prevent them from taking charge or making decisions. They are responsible, well-organised, reliable and respectful of authority (Strack, 1991). Since compulsive buying behaviour is an uncontrolled, irresponsible act which often results in financial debts or legal problems (Workman & Paper, 2010) we would not expect respectful people to engage in CB. Therefore we anticipate that:

H4 CB is negatively related to a respectful personality.

Sensitive and CB

Sensitive (negativistic) people are emotionally unstable. They seem to be unhappy all the time and have difficulties in decision making. As they are seldom satisfied with anything around them they might challenge rules (Strack, 1991). A sensitive personality style is positively related to anxiety and depression (Strack, 1991). Both, anxiety and depression relate positively to CB (Ergin, 2010; O’Guinn & Faber, 1989). Having a sensitive personality also involves low self-control (Strack, 1991), which is as well a characteristic of consumers buying compulsively (Sneath et al., 2009). Therefore we expect that:

H5 CB is positively related to a sensitive personality.

Problem indicator (PI) and CB

PI is an indicator of potential personality problems. High scores on this scale “may point towards symptoms such as low ego strength and affective instability” (Strack, 1991, p. 11). The research of Schlosser et al. (1994) conducted in a clinical sample showed that nearly 60% of compulsive buyers in the sample meet criteria for a DSM-III-R personality disorder, most commonly the obsessive-compulsive, borderline, and avoidant types. Therefore we expect that:

H6 CB is positively related to PI.

METHOD

Procedure

Data for the current study were collected over a three-month period in the beginning of 2010 in Flanders, the Dutch speaking part of Belgium. To obtain a representative sample of the Flemish consumer population we have used several ways to circulate our online questionnaire. First of all we used invitations on online forums such as Flair and Libelle (women magazines popular in Belgium), a forum for shopping

227Mikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers

AU

THO

R C

OP

Yaddicts (http://www.yes.nl/cafe/) and a forum for seniors (http://www.seniorennet.be/forum/). We advertised the survey in our university newsletter and asked colleagues and friends to forward the questionnaire. To encourage potential participants we promised an incentive of €100 for one randomly chosen respondent.

Participants

A total number of 2,298 respondents actually participated in the study. After a careful data cleaning procedure (only Flemish adults, aged 18 years or older, who answered all the questions within a reasonable time frame, were taken into account), 1,400 participants were retained from the dataset serving as the basis for further analyses. The sample was clearly dominated by female participants (72.6%). The age range was 18-70 years, with 21-24 year old participants being represented most (42%).

Measures

Compulsive buying measure

Although the majority of the researchers in the domain use the clinical screener of Faber and O’Guinn (1992) to measure compulsive buying tendency, Ridgway et al. (2008) identified two major shortcomings of this scale. First of all, it does not measure the obsessive-compulsive dimension of buying, since all the items focus on the impulse control aspect. Secondly, items concerning income and financial consequences prevent consumers with higher incomes from being recognised as compulsive buyers, as they can afford their unusual spending habits. Ridgway et al. (2008, p. 625) conclude that “unless consumers have already been identified with a buying disorder, the clinical screener may misclassify some of them as non-compulsive buyers, because of its dependence on income-related items and the weights assigned to those items in the scoring algorithm”. Moreover, according to Ridgway et al. (2008), compulsive buying measurements should not focus on identifying consequences of maladaptive consumer behaviour, but on the underlying behavioural tendencies.

Therefore we opted to measure compulsive buying tendency with the 6-item scale developed by Ridgway et al. (2008). This scale does not include items concerning income and financial consequences, it incorporates both characteristics of obsessive-compulsive behaviour as well as the impulse-control dimensions of buying and is the first to appropriately assess the extent of compulsive buying tendency in the general population of consumers. Four items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ (‘My closet has unopened shopping bags in it’, ‘Others might consider me a shopaholic’, ‘Much of my life centres around buying things’ and ‘I consider myself an impulse purchaser’) and two items are measured on 7-point scales from ‘never’ to ‘very often’ (‘I buy things I don’t need’ and ‘I buy

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11JCB228

TABLE 2 Item-total correlations in the CB measure

My closet has unopened shopping bags in it .42Others might consider me a shopaholic .66

Much of my life centres around buying things .61I buy things I don’t need .58

I buy things I did not plan to buy .56

I consider myself an impulse purchaser .55

AU

THO

R C

OP

Ythings I did not plan to buy’). In the current study reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for this scale was .79 and item-total correlations were all above .40 (see Table 2). The average value of the CB index was 14.83 and the range was 6-38. According to Curran, West and Finch’s (1996) rules of thumb for normal distribution (skewness ≤ 2.0 and kurtosis ≤ 7.0), the CB measure appeared to be nearly normally distributed (skewness = 1.21 and kurtosis = 1.74).

Personality Adjective Check List measure

The Dutch version of the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL-D), back-translated following international guidelines on test translation3 (Rossi, Sloore & Strack, 2006) and approved by the author of the PACL, was used to measure eight basic personality styles as outlined by Millon (1969). It consists of 153 items - adjectives, each belonging to one of nine scales4: Introversive, Inhibited, Cooperative, Sociable, Confident, Forceful, Respectful, Sensitive and PI (Problem Indicator). The last scale measures aspects of Millon’s three severe personality styles (schizotypal, borderline and paranoid) and can be used as an indicator of potential personality problems. In this measure each respondent is asked to check the items he/she thinks are describing him/her. Since there is a tendency for some people to check more items than others, the variance in the results between respondents might occur due to this tendency, independently of real differences in personality traits. It is therefore important to control for the number of items checked to make sure that the significant result is an effect of existing differences in personality traits and not a biased interpretation of a specific responding style (Strack, 1991). Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the PACL scales and confirms that the distribution of scores for all traits were sufficient for parametric analyses (Curran et al., 1996).

To assure the structural validity of the PACL-D scale, partial item-scale correlations were calculated using raw scale scores and correcting for the total number of items checked. Analogous to the PACL manual, only those items correlating .25 or above with their primary scale were kept for further analyses. Items which did not meet the above mentioned inclusion criteria were removed from the checklist (see Table 4). This method assures that all items included in a specific scale discriminate between personality styles (Strack, 1991).

3 International Test Commission: http://www.intestcom.org/guidelines/index.php

4 Names of the scales are different from those given by Millon (1969) in Modern Psychology to distinguish the PACL as a measure of normal personality.

Mikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 229

TABLE 3 Descriptive statistics for the PACL scales

Scales # items Mean SD Skewness KurtosisIntroversive 19 2.11 1.97 1.73 5.28Inhibited 27 4.22 3.28 1.18 1.50Cooperative 26 7.51 4.24 0.56 -0.29Sociable 21 6.04 3.85 0.46 -0.33Confident 22 2.52 2.36 1.85 5.23Forceful 26 3.17 2.71 1.56 3.10Respectful 21 6.22 3.79 0.76 0.16Sensitive 26 3.28 3.11 1.44 2.26PI 11 1.77 1.61 1.31 2.15

SD = Standard Deviation

AU

THO

R C

OP

YJournal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB230

TAB

LE 4

Item

-tot

al c

orre

lati

ons

in th

e PA

CL

scal

esIn

trov

ersi

veIn

hibi

ted

Coo

pera

tive

Soci

able

Con

fide

ntFo

rcef

ulR

espe

ctfu

lP

IR

eser

ved

.26

Igno

red

.07

Con

sent

ing

.31

Pla

yful

.39

Self

-sat

isfie

d.3

4In

timid

atin

g.3

0St

rict

.30

Erra

tic.3

3R

emot

e.4

1In

secu

re.4

4O

vers

ensi

tive

.17

Extr

avag

ant

.29

Boa

stfu

l.3

8C

oura

geou

s.3

1C

aref

ul.2

5C

haot

ic

.26

Yiel

ding

.00

Ove

rsen

sitiv

e.3

5In

noce

nt.3

0B

ubbl

y.5

0Ex

trav

agan

t.3

3C

ompe

titiv

e.2

6In

dust

riou

s.4

0Fr

agm

ente

d .2

1Sl

uggi

sh.1

7A

ppre

hens

ive

.42

Yiel

ding

.27

Gre

gari

ous

.42

Intim

idat

ing

.28

Arr

ogan

t.3

2Vi

rtuo

us.3

2W

orri

ed.1

2A

path

etic

.29

Tim

id.2

9A

gree

able

.32

Viva

ciou

s.4

0A

rrog

ant

.31

Coo

l-.

08U

prig

ht.2

0A

ggra

vate

d.2

9U

nem

otio

nal

.31

Une

asy

.14

Nai

ve.2

1D

arin

g.3

9Se

lfis

h.2

9D

arin

g.3

2St

raig

ht-l

aced

.14

Dep

ress

ed.4

0R

igid

.27

Afr

aid

.46

Shy

.25

Pep

py.4

5C

ool

-.04

Ove

rcon

fiden

t.2

6P

reci

se.4

0Se

cret

ive

.23

Uni

nspi

red

.18

Yiel

ding

.10

Trad

ition

al.1

9Li

vely

.49

Viva

ciou

s.2

7Fe

arle

ss.2

4D

isci

plin

ed.4

5N

ervo

us

.23

Solit

ary

.23

Wor

ried

.21

Dec

ent

.30

Out

goin

g.3

3D

arin

g.2

9M

ilita

nt.3

4N

eat

.37

Des

pond

ent

.31

Subd

ued

.26

Dep

ress

ed.3

5C

onfo

rmin

g.2

2Fi

ckle

.19

Self

-cen

tred

.42

Blu

nt.0

7Tr

aditi

onal

.26

Susp

icio

us.2

4Ex

pres

sion

less

.46

Fear

ful

.42

Hes

itant

.31

Ani

mat

ed.4

1O

verc

onfid

ent

.29

Adv

entu

rous

.21

Con

form

ing

.14

Con

fusi

ng.3

4In

diff

eren

t.4

1Sh

y.4

0P

rope

r.2

8Ta

lkat

ive

.27

Car

e-fr

ee.1

9C

omm

andi

ng.3

7P

rope

r.4

2D

etac

hed

.17

Excl

uded

.32

Doc

ile.1

4C

oy.1

4Se

duct

ive

.28

Com

bativ

e.4

0O

rder

ly.4

1U

ncom

fort

able

.21

Solit

ary

.18

Obe

dien

t.3

5D

ram

atic

.24

Self

-adm

irin

g.4

6B

ossy

.36

Obe

dien

t.2

7Se

riou

s.2

1To

uchy

.27

Apo

loge

tic.2

8A

dven

turo

us.3

3Se

lf-c

onte

nted

.27

Mea

n.2

0Fo

rmal

.31

Dis

inte

rest

ed.1

9M

oody

.18

Gen

tle.3

7C

are-

free

.11

Egoi

stic

.35

Dis

agre

eabl

e.1

5Ef

ficie

nt.3

9Im

pers

onal

.44

Hes

itant

.42

Swee

t.3

7So

ciab

le.4

2C

once

ited

.27

Pow

erfu

l.2

3M

oral

istic

.18

Inex

pres

sive

.45

Ner

vous

.33

Self

-con

scio

us.1

8Se

duct

ive

.39

Pow

erfu

l.2

5Se

lf-i

mpo

rtan

t .1

6O

rgan

ised

.45

Dis

tant

.3

0U

nnot

iced

.26

Hel

pful

.34

Thea

tric

al.2

4Se

lf-i

mpo

rtan

t.1

8D

omin

eeri

ng.3

7Se

riou

s.3

7Lo

nely

.35

Dep

ende

nt.1

9Fl

irta

tious

.39

Rig

hteo

us.1

6R

even

gefu

l.3

3R

espe

ctfu

l.3

4A

nxio

us.3

1C

oope

rativ

e.2

9M

erry

.42

Imm

odes

t.2

7U

nafr

aid

.28

Har

d-w

orki

ng.3

9A

polo

getic

.30

Trus

tful

.33

Vain

.31

Forc

eful

.35

Unc

omfo

rtab

le.3

8R

espe

ctfu

l.3

6To

ugh

.36

Ove

rloo

ked

.27

Swee

t-te

mpe

red

.44

Har

d-he

aded

.28

Self

-con

scio

us.0

0W

arm

-hea

rted

.40

Agg

ress

ive

.35

Ill-a

t-ea

se.3

0U

nder

stan

ding

.39

Hos

tile

.34

Rej

ecte

d.3

3

Not

e: C

ross

ed a

re th

e ite

ms

dele

ted

from

the

prim

ary

scal

e as

a r

esul

t of t

he p

artia

l cor

rela

tion

anal

ysis

.

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 231

Next, in order to examine the internal consistency of the PACL-D, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated, using z-scores, correcting for the number of items checked per scale. Table 5 presents the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the (shortened) PACL-D. Values ranged from .57 to .80 which is more or less in line with the normative data reported in the PACL manual, where values ranged from .65 to .89 (Strack, 1991). The internal consistency of the shortened version of PACL-D was in general adequate, with the exception of Problem Indicator (PI) ( = .569), which did not reach the minimum criterion of = .70 (Nunnally, 1978). This can be due to the fact that there were not many respondents with personality problems in our sample. We decided to proceed with our analyses using the shortened version of the PACL-D, taking into account the low internal consistency of the PI scale.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

The CB scale of Ridgway et al. (2008) allows classifying respondents who obtained a score of 25 or more as compulsive buyers but also to measure compulsive buying as a tendency (on a continuum basis). In the present study the cut-off point was used only to estimate the prevalence of compulsive buyers in our sample and to compare demographical characteristics of compulsive versus non-compulsive buyers. To analyse the relationship between personality traits and compulsive buying, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with individual scores on each of the personality traits5 as independent variables and the compulsive buying index (on a continuum basis) as the dependent variable.

Socio-demographical comparison between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers

According to the Ridgway et al. (2008) conceptualisation, 86 out of 1,400 respondents (6.1%) could be classified as compulsive buyers (see Table 6). This is in line with previous research on the topic (e.g., Black, 2007; Koran, Faber, Aboujaoude, Large

5 The regression analysis can be computed using the original linearly dependent scale scores (PACL scales are overlapping: some items are used in more than one scale) or using linearly independent scale scores (taking into consideration only primary scale items, loading only on one specific scale). However linearly independent scale scores might lack content validity (see e.g., Modestin, 1987; Nurnberg et al., 1991). Therefore we decided to proceed with the original PACL scales and use separate regressions for each personality trait to investigate their unique contribution in explaining the variance of CB.

TABLE 5 Cronbach’s alpha values for the shortened PACL-D scales

Trait CA # itemsIntroversive .71 11Inhibited .79 20Cooperative .76 19Sociable .80 16Confident .74 18Forceful .76 19Respectful .78 17Sensitive .77 18PI .57 6

AU

THO

R C

OP

Y

& Serpe, 2006). There were significantly more women in the compulsive buying group than in the non-compulsive buying group (95.3% vs. 71.2%; Chi² = 23.77; p < .001). There were also significant differences in Age between both groups (Chi² = 16.71; p = .005) (see Table 6). Compulsive buyers seem to be younger than non-compulsive consumers (Mage = 22 years and 26 years respectively; the difference significant at p < .000). For this reason we decided to include Gender and Age as covariates in the further regression analysis. With regard to Education (Chi² = 3.38; p = .336) and Income (Chi² = 1.72; p = .887) no significant differences between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers were found.

Hypotheses testing

Hierarchical multiple regressions were performed separately for each PACL-D scale to test our hypotheses. Each time the first block included the control variables Gender and Age, as they appeared to significantly influence CB (see section Socio-Demographical Comparison between Compulsive and Non-Compulsive Buyers for explanation). Also the total number of items checked (TOT) was included as a covariate to control for the differences in the responding style (see section Personality Adjective Check List for explanation). In the second block one of the nine PACL

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB232

TABLE 6 Compulsive and non-compulsive buyers: Socio-demographical comparison

All Respondents Non compulsive Compulsive 2 - testn % n % n %

Total 1,400 100 1,314 100 86 100Gender p < .001Male 383 27.4 379 28.8 4 4.7Female 1,017 72.6 935 71.2 82 95.3Age p = .00518-20 years 377 26.9 342 26.0 35 40.721-24 years 591 42.2 553 42.1 38 44.225-29 years 177 12.6 168 12.8 9 10.530-39 years 108 7.7 105 8.0 3 3.540-49 years 79 5.6 78 5.9 1 1.250 years or older 68 4.9 68 5.2 0 .0Education p = .336High school degree 625 44.3 582 50.0 43 44.6Bachelor degree 294 20.8 274 23.2 20 21.0Master degree 426 30.6 402 25.6 22 30.3post-Master degree 57 4.3 56 1.2 1 4.1Income p = .887Less than 1,500€ 243 17.4 230 17.5 13 15.11,501-2,500€ 196 14.0 187 14.2 9 10.52,501-3,500€ 139 9.9 129 9.8 10 11.63,500€ or over 205 14.6 191 14.5 14 16.3No idea 483 34.5 451 34.4 32 37.2I’d rather not say 134 9.6 126 9.6 8 9.3

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 233

TABLE 7 Hierarchical multiple regressions (see footnote 6)

B t R² Adjusted R² FModel 1 11.878 - 15.514 0.094 0.092 48.282**Gender 2.897 0.234** 9.17Age -0.106 -0.18** -7.064TOT 0.023 0.053* 2.083Model 2 11.877 - 15.527 0.096 0.094 37.215**Gender 2.797 0.226** 8.746Age -0.108 -0.184** -7.186TOT 0.023 0.071* 2.625Introversive -579 -0.053 -1.932Model 2 11.947 - 15.062 0.094 0.091 36.216**Gender 2.89 0.233** 9.129Age -0.106 -0.189** -7.045TOT 0.021 0.048 1.623Inhibited 0.121 0.010 0.333Model 2 11.355 - 13.42 0.094 0.091 36.216**Gender 2.92 0.236** 9.235Age -0.105 -0.179** -7.023TOT 0.039 0.091* 2.494Cooperative -0.671 -0.053 -1.451Model 2 12.29 - 15.379 0.096 0.093 37.063**Gender 2.848 0.230** 8.987Age -0.105 -0.179** -7.034TOT 0.011 0.026 0.861Sociable 0.585 0.053 1.783Model 2 12.077 - 15.673 0.097 0.094 37.402**Gender 2.986 0.241** 9.379Age -0.104 -0.177** -6.924TOT 0.009 0.02 0.683Confident 805 0.063* 2.099Model 2 12.231 - 15.661 0.097 0.095 37.539**Gender 2.997 0.242** 9.404Age -0.106 -0.18** -7.071TOT 0.005 0.011 0.331Forceful 0.9 0.071* 2.215Model 2 10.901 - 13.33 0.101 0.099 39.225**Gender 2.897 0.234** 9.202Age -0.1 -171** -6.684TOT 0.052 0.121** 3.709Respectful -1.281 -0.109** -3.319Model 2 12.483 - 15.683 0.099 0.096 38.204**Gender 2.825 0.228** 8.932Age -0.103 -0.176** -6.897TOT 0.004 0.009 0.297Sensitive 1 0.082* 2.705Model 2 12.076 - 15.517 0.095 0.093 36.729**Gender 2.89 0.233** 9.151Age -0.105 -0.179** -6.996TOT 0.016 0.036 1.278PI 0.388 0.04 1.403

Note: *significant at p .05; **significant at p .001.

AU

THO

R C

OP

Ypersonality traits was introduced. The overall model fits were good (see Table 76). The results showed that when controlling for Gender, Age and TOT, four personality traits namely Confident, Forceful, Respectful and Sensitive appeared to be significant predictors of CB (p < .05). More specifically Confident, Forceful and Sensitive had a significant (p < .05) positive effect on CB, with = .063; = .071; = .082 respectively, and Respectful had a significant (p = .001) negative effect on CB, with = -.109. Introversive ( = -.053), Inhibited ( = .010), Cooperative ( = .053), Sociable ( = .053), and PI ( = .040) appeared not to be significant predictors of CB behaviour (p > .05).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The PACL is a theory driven measure of personality. In this study we explored which of Millon’s (1969) personality traits affect CB. The study provides strong empirical support that CB can be indicative of different personality styles.

D’Astous (1990) reported that women score higher on compulsive buying than men and that compulsive buying is negatively correlated with age. Even though our research sample consisted of mostly young consumers with a majority of them being women, both of these findings were confirmed in our study, implying that young women have the most chance to buy compulsively. This tendency can be due to the fact, that emotional and identity-related dimensions of shopping are more important for women than for men (Babin, Darden & Griffin, 1994; Dittmar, Long & Meek, 2004) and can reflect the developmental needs of young people to explore consumer activities or to establish an adult identity by material goods (Dittmar, 2005).

While previous research on the link between compulsive buying and personality investigated differences between compulsive and non compulsive buyers with regard to the Big Five personality traits, the current research attempted to dig deeper and reveal more specific personality traits of compulsive buyers. Using a theory related measure of personality, our study disclosed which of the eight PACL or ‘Millon’ traits are indicative of compulsive buying. In general, three of our six hypotheses were confirmed by the study in that Confident (H3), Respectful (H4), and Sensitive (H5) appeared to be significant predictors of CB. Additionally, one unhypothesised relation was found between the trait Forceful and CB.

More specifically, Confident and Forceful styles were both positively related to CB. This might point out that egocentric, self-reliant and competitive people (Strack, 1991) are more prone to buy compulsively. Respectful had a negative effect on CB, meaning that the more responsible, well-organised, reliable and respectful of authority the person is (Strack, 1991), the less chance he or she has to become a compulsive buyer. On the other hand, Sensitive was positively related to CB, meaning that moody, indecisive, unconventional people who often seem to be unhappy and dissatisfied (Strack, 1991) are more vulnerable to buy compulsively. Introversive (H1) and Sociable (H2) appeared not to affect CB. We also did not find any significant relation between CB and Problem Indicator (H6). We could argue that CB is not specifically related to possible personality pathology, however since the study on a

6 The table contains the results of nine separate hierarchical regressions. To make it easier to read and compare all the results are presented in one table, instead of nine separate tables. The first model is the same for each regression. The second model contains control variables plus one of the nine personality traits.

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB234

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 235

clinical sample by Schlosser et al. (1994) shows different results, we should note that there were not many consumers with specific personality problems in our sample.

Remarkable is also the fact that compulsive buying appeared to be significantly related only to independent and ambivalent and not to dependent and detached patterns on the self-other reinforcement continuum described in the theory of Millon (1969). “Dependent personalities have learned that feelings associated with pleasure or the avoidance of pain are best provided by others”, whereas “independent personality patterns are characterised by a reliance on the self” (Millon, 1981, p. 59). Ambivalent persons “remain unsure as to which way to turn, that is, they are in conflict as whether to depend on themselves for reinforcement or on others” (Millon, 1981, p. 59). The last, the detached pattern is characterised by “deficits in the capacity to experience reinforcement or primarily orientation to negative reinforcers” (Millon, 1969, p. 194). With regard to the results of our study dependence on self rather than others in maximising pleasure and minimising pain (independent) and uncertainty about how to derive the most pleasure (ambivalent) are most important factors in differentiating compulsive and non-compulsive buying behaviour.

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The current research provides evidence that some specific inner characteristics of a consumer (i.e., traits) can make a person more prone to CB. How such an individual seeks reinforcement is valuable information for the individual and his/her family, and can be taken into account by clinicians working with consumers seeking help. It is important to realise that the consumer’s personality will also influence help-seeking behaviour and responses to treatment for compulsive buying. From a clinical point of view it is therefore interesting to identify the ‘affected’ person’s personality before starting a treatment process and to address weaknesses or strengths related to personality during the therapy. For example low scores on the personality trait Respectful would require a consumer to first learn how to become more organised and high scores on the personality trait Sensitive would require becoming less vulnerable to negative moods, or learning how to cope with such vulnerabilities. After addressing specific personality traits correlating with CB it might become easier to treat the disorder itself.

Although no relation has been found between CB and potential personality problems (Problem Indicator), this finding has to be interpreted with caution as the sample under investigation consisted of self-selected consumers. It is therefore possible that the majority of the respondents were consumers without severe personality problems. The good news is however that CB, though related to specific personality traits, does not have to imply personality disorder.

Some limitations of the current study have to be kept in mind when interpreting the results. First of all in any given internet community, there are some individuals who are more likely than others to complete an online survey. This tendency can lead to a systematic bias known as self-selection bias (Thompson, Surface, Martin & Sanders, 2003). The results of this study can reflect the differences between compulsive and non-compulsive buyers in how they perceive themselves and not necessarily in who they actually are or how they behave. Secondly, the self-report data could influence the results. Although the original American PACL measure includes three validity scales which help to detect faked protocols (favourable, unfavourable and random answering), these scales have not yet been validated on a Belgian sample. Therefore

AU

THO

R C

OP

Yonly the criterion of more than 10 and less than 120 items checked (Strack, 1991) was applied in this research to decide whether or not the respondent’s answers were reliable. Furthermore, our study did not focus on a particular retail context. It would be interesting to investigate whether the prevalence of CB and its relation to personality traits differs depending on the shopping context. Additionally, with online shopping gaining in popularity, additional studies on compulsive online buying behaviour should be undertaken. Based on the current study results, future research should focus on developing communication strategies encouraging consumers to take greater responsibility for their shopping habits. An important first step to enhance personal responsibility would be to increase awareness of consumers about the CB phenomenon and its relation to personality. In this way consumers can become more conscious about their vulnerabilities and more willing to seek professional help.

From a theoretical point of view the findings of the study should encourage the use of personality measurements in consumer research. Investigating pathological consumer behaviour (e.g., pathological gambling) and its relation to personality traits might further explain the consumer’s vulnerability to specific maladaptive behaviours.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Text Revision. Retrieved from http://www.psychiatryonline.com/resourceTOC.aspx?resourceID=1 20th May, 2011.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.

Balabanis, G. (2001). The relationship between lottery ticket and scratch-card buying behaviour, personality and other compulsive behaviours. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(1), 7-22.

Black, D.W. (2007). A review of compulsive buying disorder. World Psychiatry, 6(1), 14-18.Bragg, J. (2009). Digging out from $80,000 in debt. Retrieved from CNN.com 29th October

2009.Chaplin, L.N., & John, D.R. (2007) Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in

Materialism in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 480-493.Christenson, G.A., Faber, R.J., de Zwaan, M., & Raymond, N.C. (1994). Compulsive buying:

Descriptive characteristics and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 5(1), 5-11.

Curran, P.J., West, S.G., & Finch, J.F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.

d’Astous, A. (1990). An inquiry into the compulsive side of normal consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13(1), 15-31.

DeSarbo, W.S., & Edwards, E.A. (1996). Typologies of compulsive buying behaviour: a constrained clusterwise regression approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(3), 231-262.

Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buying - a growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology, 96(4), 467-491.

Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the internet: Gender differences in online and conventional buying motivations. Sex Roles, 50(5-6), 423-444.

Dongijn, L., Ying, J., Shenhui, A., Zhe, S., & Wenji, J. (2009). The influence of money attitudes on young Chinese consumers’ compulsive buying. Young Consumers, 10(2), 98-109.

Edwards, E.A. (1993). Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying behaviour. Financial Counseling and Planning, 4(1), 67-84.

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11 JCB236

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 237

Egan, V., & Taylor, D. (2010). Shoplifting, unethical consumer behaviour, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(8), 878-884.

Ergin, E.A. (2010). Compulsive buying behaviour tendencies: The case of Turkish consumers. African Journal of Business Management, 4(3), 333-338.

Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Faber, R.J., & O’Guinn, T.C. (1988). Compulsive consumption and credit abuse. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11(1), 97-109.

Faber, R.J., & O’Guinn, T.C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 459-469.

Fiske, D.W. (1949). Consistency of the Factorial Structures of Personality Ratings from Different Sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329-344.

Hanley, A., & Wilhelm, M.S. (1992). Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-esteem and money attitudes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(1), 5-18.

Hassay, D.N., & Smith, M.C. (1998). Compulsive buying: An examination of the consumption motive. Psychology and Marketing, 13(8), 741-752.

Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(3), 239-260.

Hollander, E. & Allen, A. (2006). Is Compulsive Buying a Real Disorder, and Is It Really Compulsive? American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(10), 1670-1672.

Hollander, E., & Dell’Osso, B. (2005). New Developments in an Evolving Field. Psychiatric Times, 22(8), 17.

JJohn, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.

Johnson, T., & Attmann, J. (2009). Compulsive buying in a product specific context: clothing. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 13(3), 394-405.

Joireman, J., Kees, J., & Sprott, D. (2010). Concern with immediate consequences magnifies the impact of compulsive buying tendencies on college students’ credit card debt. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 155-178.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1971). Personality and consumer behaviour: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(11), 409-418.

Koran, L.M., Faber, R.J., Aboujaoude, E., Large, M.D., & Serpe, R.T. (2006). Estimated prevalence of compulsive buying behaviour in the United States. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(10), 1806-1812.

Kwak, H., Zinkjan, G.M., & Lester-Roushanzamir, E.P. (2004). Compulsive comorbidity and its psychological antecedents: a cross-cultural comparison between the US and South Korea. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 418-434.

Kyrios, M., Frost, R.O., & Steketee, G.S. (2004). Cognitions in compulsive buying and acquisition. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28(2), 241-258.

Lin, L.-Y. (2010). The relationship of consumer personality trait, brand personality and brand loyalty: an empirical study of toys and video games buyers. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(1), 4-18.

McElroy, S.L., Keck, P.E., Pope, H.G., & Smith, J.M.R. (1994). Compulsive buying: a report of 20 cases. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 55(6), 242-248.

Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology. Philadelphia: Saunders.Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM-III, Axis II. New York: Wiley.Millon, T., & Davis, R. (2000). Personality disorders in modern life. New York: Wiley.Mikolajczak-Degrauwe, K., Brengman, M., Wauters, B., & Rossi, G. (2012). Can we identify

compulsive buyers based on their personality? An application of the Big Five Personality. In G. Rossi (Ed.), Psychology (pp. 131-144). Rijeka, Croatia: Intech.

Mowen, J. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behaviour. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMowen, J.C., & Spears, N. (1999). Understanding compulsive buying among college students:

A hierarchical approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(4), 407-430.Mueller, A., Mitchell, J.E., Crosby, R.D., Gefeller, O., Faber, R.J., Martin, A., Bleich, S.,

Glaesmer, H., Exner, C., & de Zwaan, M. (2010). Estimated prevalence of compulsive buying in Germany and its association with sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 180, 137-142.

Modestin, J. (1987). Quality of interpersonal relationships: the most characteristic DSM-III BPD criterion. Comprehensive psychiatry, 28, 397-342.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Nurnberg, H.G., Raskin, M., Levine, P.E., Pollack, S., Siegel, O., & Prince, R. (1991). Hierarchy

of DSM-III-R criteria efficiency for the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Journal of personality disorders, 5, 211-224.

O’Guinn, T.C., & Faber, R.J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 147-157.

Ridgway, N.M., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Monroe, K.B. (2008). An expanded conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 622-639.

Roberts, J.A., & Jones, E. (2001). Money Attitudes, Credit Card Use, and Compulsive Buying among American College Students. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(2), 213-240.

Rose, P. (2007). Mediators of the association between narcissism and compulsive buying: The roles of materialism and impulse control. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 21(4), 576-581.

Rossi, G., Sloore, H., & Strack, S. (2006). Personality Adjective Checklist. PACL Nederlandstalige versie. Adapted and reproduced by special permission of the publisher, 21st Century Assessment.

Saulsman, L.M. & Page, A.C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 23, 1055-1085.

Scherhorn, G. (1990). The addictive trait in buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13(1), 33-51.

Schlosser, S., Black, D.W., Repertinger, S., & Freet, D. (1994). Compulsive buying: Demography, phenomenology, and comorbidity in 46 subjects. General Hospital Psychiatry, 16(3), 205-212.

Schor, J.B. (2004). Born to buy. New York: Scribner.Sneath, J.Z., Lacey, R., & Kennett-Hensel, P.A. (2009). Coping with a natural disaster: Losses,

emotions, and impulsive and compulsive buying. Marketing Letters, 20(1), 45-60.Strack, S. (1987). Development and validation of an adjective check list to assess the Millon

personality types in a normal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 572-587.Strack, S. (1991). Manual for the Personality Adjective Check List (PACL) (rev. ed.). Southern

Pasadena, CA: 21st Century Assessment.Thompson, L.F., Surface, E.A., Martin, D.L., & Sanders, M.G. (2003). From paper to pixels:

Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 197-227.Thurstone, L.L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41(1), 1-32.Tupes, E.C., & Christal, R.E. (1961). Recurrent Personality Factors Based on Trait Ratings.

Lackland Air Force Base, TX: Personnel Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command.Valence, G., d’Astous, A., & Fortier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement.

Journal of Consumer Policy, 11(4), 419-433.Wang, C.-C., & Yang, H.-W. (2008). Passion for online shopping: the influence of personality

and compulsive buying. Social Behaviour and Personality, 36(5), 693-706.Watson, S. (2009). Credit card misuse, money attitudes, and compulsive buying behaviours:

A comparison of internal and external locus of control (LOC) consumers. College Student Journal, 43(2), 268-275.

Workman, L., & Paper, D. (2010). Compulsive Buying: A Theoretical Framework. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 1, 89-126.

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11JCB238

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMikołajczak-Degrauwe, Rossi, Wauters & Brengman Can we identify compulsive buyers 239

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CORRESPONDENCE

Kalina Mikołajczak-Degrauwe graduated in Psychology (Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw), with a 1.5 year exchange program at Ghent University (Belgium). Currently she is a PhD student at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium), where she is an assistant for the course International Marketing Project, and occasionally gives lectures on compulsive buying behaviour, this being the topic of her PhD dissertation. Her scientific research generally focuses on consumer behaviour and marketing, mainly uncontrolled buying behaviour, store atmospherics and consumers’ shopping motivations.

Corresponding author: Kalina Mikołajczak-Degrauwe, Doctoral Researcher, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences and Solvay Business School, Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.

E kalina.mikolajczak@vub.ac.be

Gina Rossi has a PhD in Psychological Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), and is currently Associate Professor at VUB, where she teaches courses on personality psychology at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (Personality Psychology I, Personality Psychology II, Capita Selecta Personality Psychology), and psychology at the Faculty of Law and Criminology. She is also a lecturer in postgraduate education programs, such as Forensic Diagnostics & Counseling at University College Lessius and the inter-university program Clinical Psychodiagnostics. Her research focus is mainly in the domain of personality, especially personality psychopathology and personality assessment. In addition, she also has an interest in forensic psychology. She has published her work in well-established journals such as Journal of Personality Disorders, Journal of Personality Assessment, Criminal Justice and Behavior, etc. She is a reviewer for several journals and consulting editor of the Journal of Personality Assessment and associate editor of Psychologica Belgica.

Gina Rossi, Professor, Personality Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Clinical and Life Span Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.

E gina.rossi@vub.ac.be

Birgit Wauters graduated in Sociology and Management (VUB). She is currently a PhD student at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), with a specialisation in social marketing and threat appeals. Her first article Functional effectiveness of threat appeals in exercise promotion messages was published in Psicologica a journal with articles on methodology and experimental psychology. Further research about threat appeals led to presentations at international congresses (ICORIA and ACR) and a forthcoming publication in Advances in Consumer Research. Her research domains are marketing, consumer behaviour, strategic marketing, effectiveness of marketing communication (threat appeals).

Birgit Wauters, Doctoral Researcher, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences and Solvay Business School, Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.

E birgit.wauters@vub.ac.be

AU

THO

R C

OP

YMalaika Brengman has a PhD in Applied Economics (University of Ghent), and is currently an Associate Professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel where she teaches marketing, strategic marketing management, consumer behaviour and market research. She started her academic career as Assistant Professor at Hasselt University, where she lectured on marketing communications, e-business, services and customer relationship management. As a guest lecturer she has been teaching consumer behaviour for a couple of years at the International School of Management of the Leti-Lovanium University in St. Petersburg (Russia) and still occasionally gives guest lectures. Her scientific research generally focuses on store atmospherics and consumers’ shopping motivations and behaviour, specifically with regard to alternative distribution channels such as online shopping. She also studies marketing communications’ effectiveness, especially with regard to new media. She has published her work in well-established journals as the Journal of Marketing Communications, the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Advances in Consumer Research and the Journal of Business Research Psychology and Marketing.

Malaika Brengman, Associate Professor Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Faculty of Economic, Social and Political Sciences and Solvay Business School, Department of Business, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.

E malaika.brengman@vub.ac.be

Journal of Customer Behaviour, Volume 11JCB240