Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College Students: A Hierarchical Approach

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 8(4), 4 0 7 2 3 0 Copyright 63 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Understanding Compulsive Buying Among College Students: A Hierarchical Approach John C. Mowen Department of Marketing Oklahoma State University

Nancy Spears Department of Management, Marketing, and International Business Stephen F. Austin University

Borrowing from Allport (1961).we propose ahierarchical approach in which cardinal psychologicaltraits predict central traits, whichin turn predict surface traits. The hierarchical perspective was employed to investigate the surface trait of compulsive buying among college students-a growing problem at U.S. universities. In Study 1, traits from the Five-Factor Model of personality were employed as cardinal traits, the needs for arousal and for materialism were employed as central traits, and compulsive buying was the dependent variable. Structural equation modeling was employed to find the best fitting model, which accounted for 19%of the variance in compulsive buying. In Study 2, this model was confirmed and accounted for 28% of the variance in compulsive buying. Implications for theory and for understanding compulsive buying are identified. Consumer research on compulsive buying began with work by Faber, O'Guinn, and Krych (1987), Faber and O'Guinn (1988, 1989), O'Guinn and Faber (1989), and Valence, dlAstous, and Fortier (1988). Faber and O'Guinn (1988) defined compulsive consumers as "people who are impulsively driven to consume, cannot control this behavior, and seem to buy in order to escape from other problems" (p. 99). Edwards (1992) defined compulsive buying behavior as "a chronic, abnormal Requests for reprints should be sent to John C. Mowen, Oklahoma State University, College of Business Administration, 201 Business, Stillwater, OK 7 4 0 7 8 2 0 1 1 .

408

MOWEN AND SPEARS

form of shopping and spending characterized, in the extreme, by an overpowering, uncontrollable, and repetitive urge to buy, with disregard for the consequences" ( P 54). Research on compulsive consumption reveals a number of consistent findings. As discussed by Faber, Christenson, de Zwaan, and Mitchell (1995), compulsive consumption behaviors are associated with low levels of self-esteem, high levels of depression, and high levels of anxiety. In their summary of the literature, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) linked compulsive consumption to a number of psychological traits, including "dependence, denial, depression, lack of impulsive control, low self-esteem, approval seeking, anxiety, escape coping tendencies, general compulsiveness, materialism (envy), isolation, excitement seeking, and perfectionism" (p. 232). In their research, DeSarbo and Edwards identified two clusters of compulsive consumers. They identified an internal compulsive buying group that they argued is driven by deep psychological problems, their personality structure, and family upbringing. The second group of compulsive consumers appeared to be driven by personal circumstances rather than such deep-seated psychological factors. The trait of impulsiveness was significant for both groups of respondents. dYAstous(1990) investigated compulsive consumption among a population of "normal" consumers. She obtained evidence that the same theoretical relations found in previous studies, in which known groups of compulsive consumers were compared to the general population, are found in the general population. Supporting previous work, she found that individuals scoring high on a compulsive consumption scale had lower levels of self-esteem. She also found that compulsive buying is negatively associated with age and that compulsive buying tendencies "may originate in people's early consumption experiences" (p. 23). She further suggested that compulsive consumption appears to exist on a continuum. As can be seen in this brief literature review, a large number of constructs have been linked to compulsive buying behavior. Researchers have followed an approach of searching through the psychological and consumer literature for individual constructs having properties that may predispose individuals to compulsive buying behavior. The net effect is that a plethora of traits are identified that possess no theoretical linkages with each other. In the research presented in this article, we suggest an alternative approach. Following the work of Allport (1961) and Lastovicka (1982), we propose a hierarchical model in which three types of personality traits are proposed: cardinal, central, and surface traits. As described in the next section, the hierarchical approach provides a means of delimiting the number of personality factors investigated. The purpose of our research is to test the hierarchical perspective within the context of understanding factors influencing compulsive buying. Thus, we seek to follow the approach advocated by Kurt Lewin in which theoretical analysis is employed to understand an applied problem. As stated by Jones and Gerard (1967),

COMPULSIVE BUYING

409

Lewin emphasized that "research should be designed to clarify explanatory mechanisms underlying the surface manifestations of observed behavior" (p. 4). Thus, we seek to advance theory and further the understanding of the individual difference mechanisms underlying compulsive buying. The next section discusses the hierarchical approach to understanding individual differences in consumer buying behavior. In this section, we discuss the Five-Factor Model of personality, which provides the cardinal traits for the hierarchical model. In addition, we also identify the two central traits that are employed as mediating variables in our research: the need for arousal and materialism. After developing a set of hypotheses, we present two research studies that test the hierarchical perspective. Finally, we discuss the results and identify future research directions.

THE HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY In a recent critique of contemporary personality research in consumer behavior, Endler and Rosenstein (1997) advocated an interactionist approach as a means of increasing the predictive ability of personality traits. In another influential article, Buss (1989) made a similar argument. He suggested that researchers investigate manipulations and traits jointly, which he proposed is similar to looking at the interaction between person and situation. In his article, Buss also distinguished between two types of traits. Borrowing ideas from Allport (1961), he distinguished surface traits from psychological traits. He suggested that surface traits are summaries of surface behaviors. In contrast, psychological traits exist at a deeper level and act as the foundation for the more specific surface traits. (Allport, 1961, also used the term secondary traits to describe the surface or stylistic trait idea.) We propose that in a consumer setting, surface traits describe individual differences in tendencies to behave within specific situational contexts. Specifically, we define surface traits as dispositions to act within specific situational contexts that result from the effects of cardinal traits, central traits, and previous learning history. Because of their specificity, hundreds of surface traits are likely to exist. To our knowledge, the conceptualization of surface traits as accounting for variance in behavior that occurs within Person x Situation interactions has not been previously made. As such, surface traits may be described as representing cells in a Person x Situation matrix. For example, the trait of compulsive buying (Faber & O'Guinn, 1989) represents individual differences (i.e., the person variable) in the ability to control buying (i.e., the situational variable of the task definition of buying; Belk, 1974). Examples of other surface traits found in the consumer psychology literature include coupon proneness (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990), consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987), and consumer innovativeness (Raju, 1980; Venkatraman & Price, 1990). In each case, the traits describe individual differences that influence behavior within the context of a

41 0

MOWEN AND SPEARS

specific consumption situation. Thus, surface traits predict behavioral tendencies in the Person x Situation interactionsdescribed by Endler and Rosenstein (1997). In contrast to surface traits, cardinal and central traits are proposed to exist at a deeper level (Allport, 1961). Few in number, cardinal traits identify basic dimensions on which individuals diverge. We define cardinal traits as the basic, underlying predispositions of individuals that arise from genetics and their early learning history. Allport (1961) proposed that the number is likely to be between 5 and 10. If a limited set of cardinal traits can be identified, it will provide parsimony in developing our models of individual differences in consumer behavior. As noted by Morgan and Hunt (1994), parsimony is an important scientific principle. Although disagreement is found in the psychological literature as to how many cardinal traits may exist, we tentatively propose that consumer researchers should first turn to the Five-Factor Model of personality to identify them (Costa & McCrae, 1985; Goldberg, 1993; Wiggins, 1996). In this article, we employ the traits of extraversion, agreeability, stability, openness to experience, and conscientiousness found in the Big Five model developed by Goldberg (1992) and refined by Saucier (1994). Central traits represent the third category of individual difference variables found in the hierarchical model. Based on Buss (1989) and Allport (1961), we conceptualize central traits as narrower in application and emerging from the interplay of cardinal traits, the culture in which an individual lives, and the learning history of the individual. These individual difference dimensions are more narrowly focused than the cardinal traits, and dozens may exist. The cardinal traits are predictive of central traits, and the central traits may or may not mediate the effects of cardinal traits on surface traits. Thus, the hierarchical model that we propose is expected to involve the partial mediation of the constructs rather than a full mediation of the constructs. Examples of central traits include constructs such as need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), need for arousal (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), self-monitoring (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984), and materialism (Richins & Dawson, 1992). It should be added, however, that no clear criteria were identified by Allport (1961) or Buss (1989) for determining whether a particular trait is cardinal, central, or surface. We speculate on such criteria later in the Discussion section. An important feature of surface trait scales is that they create a closer linkage between behavior and the individual difference measure than is possible with either cardinal or central traits. As a result, surface traits can be expected to account for more variance in behavior than central or cardinal traits. Indeed, if one examines the items contained in consumption-related surface trait scales, they tend to be composed of a series of questions that tap the extent and frequency with which behavior occurs in a particular consumption situation. For example, Faber and O'Guinn's (1989) compulsive consumption scale has items such as: "Bought things even though I couldn't afford them," "I have gone on a buying

binge and wasn't able to stop," and "I have just wanted to buy things and did not care what I bought." Similarly, Raju's (1980) innovativeness scale contains items such as: "I am the kind of person who would try a new product once" and "I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in my purchases." A risk, however, is that when surface trait scales are developed, the researcher and, ultimately, managers and public policymakers forgo developing a deeper understanding of the processes that account for the consumption behavior. Thus, although a consumer innovativeness scale or a compulsive consumption scale may correlate highly with the behaviors they are developed to predict, they cannot provide information on why someone is innovative or compulsive because they measure only surface and stylistic level characteristics. We propose employing a hierarchical approach to solve this problem by measuring cardinal traits, central traits, and surface traits in research studies. In this hierarchical perspective, we first identify a general set of cardinal traits that are predictive of a variety of central traits and, potentially, consumption traits as well. To obtain parsimony, we propose using the same set of cardinal traits across all contexts. As an initial approach, we use scales adapted from those identified in the Five-Factor Model of personality developed by Goldberg (1992) and refined by Saucier (1994). Next, based on previous research, we identify central traits that are expected to be predictiveof theconsumption trait of interest. Finally, we identify and develop a surface trait scale that predicts the specific behavior of interest. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is then employed to identify the relations among the variables. By simultaneously modeling the cardinal, central, and consumption traits, researchers may have a means for understanding the psychological antecedents of the surface traits while accounting for large amounts of variance in behavior. It is important to recognize that mediational models are commonly used in the consumer behavior literature. Perhaps the first proposal for the use of mediation models in marketing was made by Vinson, Scott, and Lamont (1977), who argued that personal values exist in a system in which relatively few global values influence people to hold numerous domain-specific values. In turn, these values influence many more evaluative beliefs about product attributes. .However, these authors did not empirically test this innovative perspective. In a review and illustration of lifestyle traits, Lastovicka (1982) observed that lifestyle traits such as price consciousness are a type of secondary disposition that may be influenced by cardinal and central dispositions discussed by Allport (1961). Venkatraman and Price (1990) employed a mediational model in which they found that cognitive innovativeness and sensory innovativeness mediate the effects of general innovativeness on internal and external cognition and internal and external sensation. Carlson and Grossbart (1984) employed the ideas of Allport (1961) to investigate the central traits of inherent novelty seeking, independent judgment making, and exploratory behavior within the context of inno-

41 2

MOWEN AND SPEARS

vative behavior. None of these authors, however, attempted to identify and use cardinal traits in their models or to employ a full hierarchical approach to investigate the constructs. Joachimsthaler and Lastovicka (1984) came the closest to employing the hierarchical approach. They used SEM to investigate whether the construct of optimal stimulation level (OSL) acts as a mediating variable to influence information seeking and innovativeness. They concluded that OSL does not mediate the traits of locus of control or social character. These results are consistent with proposing that OSL, locus of control, and social character are all central traits. In sum, previous researchers have advocated distinguishing cardinal, central, and surface traits. To our knowledge, no researchers have actually employed a full model in which cardinal traits, central traits, and surface traits are all investigated in a single hierarchical model. As described earlier, in this research we employ the Five-Factor Model of personality as the source of the cardinal traits in the hierarchical model. The next section briefly discusses this model.

The Cardinal Traits: The Five-Factor Model of Personality Perhaps the approach having the greatest impact on personality psychology today is the Five-Factor Model. As described by Goldberg (1993), the idea that five dimensions make up personality emerged from studies in which long lists of trait descriptive adjectives were factor analyzed. The possibility that five factors could be used to describe personality originated with the work of Thurstone (1934). Fiske (1949) supported a Five-Factor structure and replicated it across samples of self-ratings, observer ratings, and peer ratings. Most recently, work by Costa and McCrae (1985) among others has supported the existenceof five factors, which can be labeled extraversion, emotional stability (or neuroticism), agreeability (or psychoticism), conscientiousness, and openness to experience (or creativity). Other researchers have developed their own versions of the Five-Factor Model, including Goldberg (1993), Saucier (1994), and Duijsens and Diekstra (1995). Currently, applied work based on the Five-Factor Model has been focused predominantly on job performance (Goldberg, 1993) rather than on consumption-based behavior. One exception is the work of Mooradian and Olver (1997), who investigated extraversion and stability (as derived from the work of Eysenck, 1985) as mediators of positive and negative emotions in their research on satisfaction and complaining behavior. In a different domain, Arthur and Graziano (1996) found that individuals low in stability were involved in significantly more driving accidents than individuals high in stability. If one views driving a car as a consumer action, the research has relevance to consumption-related behaviors. A central issue in research on personality concerns whether the fundamental factors that delineate individual differences among humans are limited to five con-

COMPULSIVE BUYING

413

structs. For example, according to Goldberg (1993), the respected psychologist R. B. Cattell is a strong believer in the proposition that many more than five factors make up human personality. Similarly, in a critical analysis of the Five-Factor approach, Block (1995) noted that five factors may emerge because of "unrecognized constraints on the variable sets analyzed (p. 187). Currently, it is difficult to identify the criteria that should be employed to determine whether a trait is cardinal or central. In the hierarchical approach proposed in this article, we employ the Five-Factor Model developed by Saucier (1994), which is a shortened version of Goldberg's (1992) model, to provide the cardinal traits.

The Central Traits Employed in the Research One goal of the hierarchical model is to provide parsimony to the enterprise of identifying personality traits that can be employed to predict consumer behavior. For this reason, the research reported here investigates the Five-Factor Model as an approach for providing the underlying cardinal traits. From the perspective of the hierarchical model, many more central traits are likely to exist. As a result, judgment must be employed in identifying which ones to investigate in a mediation model. In a compulsive buying context in particular, and possibly within consumer contexts in general, we propose that two central traits are likely to have particular importance. First, based on previous literature, materialism (Richins, 1987) was identified as a variable to investigate in a setting that deals with the purchase of goods. As a result, this construct was a priori identified as a central trait in our research. Another central trait that may have importance in consumer settings is the need for arousal (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974;Raju, 1980;Zuckerman, 1979). In many cases, consumers purchase goods and services for the feelings that they provide (Holbrook& Hirschman, 1982).As a result, one can expect that individual differences in this construct should consistentlybe related to individual differencesin various surface traits. Based on these considerations,the need for arousal was identified a priori as the second mediating variable for investigation in the research reported here.

Hypotheses To our knowledge, the Five-Factor Model constructs have not previously been related to compulsive buying, the need for arousal, or materialism. As a result, our hypotheses must be developed through a process in which we look for empirical and conceptual linkages among the variables previously found to predict compulsive buying, the need for arousal, materialism, and the Five-Factor traits. For example, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) found self-esteem to be associated with compulsive buying. Other researchers (Costa & McCrae, 1985) found that

41 4

MOWEN AND SPEARS

self-esteem is related to the Five-Factor construct of stability. Based on these relations, we propose the hypothesis that stability is related to compulsive consumption. We view this approach of developing hypotheses inferentially to be superior to the alternative of not attempting to develop any a priori predictions. Another issue in hypothesis development concerns the situation that researchers have not previously investigated compulsive buying from a structural equation framework. As a result, our hypotheses are phrased in terms of bivariate relations rather than in terms of making predictions concerning whether the effects are direct or partially or fully mediated. As noted earlier, the Five-Factor Model of personality contains constructs that may relate to a number of the personality traits predictive of compulsive consumption described in the literature review in this article. One consistent finding in the literature was the relation between self-esteem and compulsive consumption (e.g., Faber et al., 1995). Research on the Five-Factor Model found that individuals low in stability tend to have low self-esteem, high levels of anxiety, and high levels of depression (Costa & McCrae, 1985). These relations lead to the development of the first hypothesis: H1: A negative relation will be found between stability and compulsive consumption. In a review and analysis of compulsive buying behavior, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) identified a number of variables associated with compulsive consumption. Standard regression analysis and clusterwise constrainedregression analysis identified materialism, excitement seeking, and isolation to be predictive of compulsive buying. Isolation is closely related to introversion, which is a component of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Based on this relation, the following hypothesis was developed: H2: A significant negative relation will be found between introversion-extraversion and compulsive consumption. Neither excitement seeking nor materialism, which were identified by DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) as predictive of compulsive buying, are traits identified in the Five-Factor Model. From the perspective of the hierarchical model of personality, both constructs represent central traits that may be predicted by the Five-Factor Model. Materialism has been investigated previously in the consumer behavior literature (Richins & Dawson, 1992). Excitement seeking is closely related to the need for arousal and excitement (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). H3: A significant positive relation will be found between the need for arousal and compulsive consumption.

H4: A significant positive relation will be found between materialism and compulsive consumption. One advantage of the hierarchical approach is that one can simultaneously investigate factors predictive of the central traits and the surface traits. As a result, we sought to identify which of the Five-Factor traits may be predictive of the need for arousal and materialism. Raju (1980) found that intolerance of ambiguity was negatively related to OSL. Although we could not find literature that has investigated tolerance for ambiguity and the Five-Factor Model, the construct parallels the openness to experience construct. That is, people who reveal an openness to experience (i.e., are creative, find novel solutions, and enjoy beauty) are likely to be tolerant of ambiguity. Based on these ideas, we tentatively developed the next hypothesis:

H5: Openness to experience will be positively associated with the need for arousal. We also reviewed the literature on materialism to develop hypotheses concerning which of the Five-Factor traits might be related to this construct. Richins and Dawson (1992) proposed that materialism could influence the activities in which a person engages. For example, they stated that a "materialist may choose to work longer hours and earn more money instead of using that time for leisure activities" (p. 307). Because people who exhibit high levels of conscientiousness can be expected to work long hours, we expected the construct to be related to materialism. This led to the next hypothesis: H6: Conscientiousness will be positively related to materialism. In their research, Richins and Dawson (1992) found that their measure of materialism was negatively associated with self-esteem. As noted previously, the stability trait in the Five-Factor Model is associated with self-esteem. Based on these ideas, this hypothesis was developed: H7: Stability will be negatively related to materialism.

STUDY 1 Methodology Participants were students enrolled in introductory marketing and introductory psychology classes at a Southwestern university. In the data collection effort, 31 1

students answered a self-administered, 134-item survey. After deleting respondents who did not complete all of the questions or revealed high levels of yea-saying, 304 acceptable questionnaires were retained. Compulsive consumption was measured via the scale developed by Faber and O'Guinn (1989). In the survey, respondents also completed the Five-Factor Model scale developed by Saucier (1994), which is a shortened version of Goldberg's Five-Factor Model. On Saucier's scale, respondents rated the extent to which 40 traits accurately described them. Nine-point scales ranging from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 9 (extremely accurate) were employed. In addition, we generated items to assess arousal needs and material needs. Items for the need for arousal scale were derived from work by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and Zuckerman (1979). We did not employ the specific items developed by these researchers for two reasons. First, their scales are quite long. Second, the scales were developed in the 1970s, and the wording of the items does not appear to match the vernacular of the late 1990s. It should be noted, however, that five of the seven items developed for the need for arousal scale closely match those in the Mehrabian and Russell scale. To assess the convergent validity of the new scale, pilot work was conducted. In two data collection efforts involving more than 300 respondents, items were generated, exploratory factor analyses were conducted, and items were eliminated and added in an iterative fashion. To assess the convergent validity of the scale, a pretest compared the need for arousal scale to a venturesomeness scale (Bruning, Kovacic, & Oberdick, 1985). Respondents were 165 students in introductory marketing classes who answered the items in the scales at different points in time 2 weeks apart. The correlation between the venturesomeness scale and need for arousal was r = .59. These results provide evidence of the convergent validity of the construct. Similarly, we did not use the precise items developed by Richins and Dawson (1992) or Richins (1987) to assess materialism. We sought to operationalize materialism in a less value-laden fashion than Richins, and we sought to employ fewer items than Richins and Dawson. Thus, although the items bear strong resemblance to several of those developed by Richins and Dawson and by Richins, the exact wording of the scale was changed. To assess the convergence of the new materialism scale, a pretest was conducted in which 129 students in consumer behavior classes completed a questionnaire containing the Richins and Dawson (1992) scale, the Richins (1987) scale, and the new materialism scale. The correlation between the new scale and Richins and Dawson's scale was .68, and its correlation with the Richins scale was .67. We believe that college students represent an appropriate population from which to study compulsive buying behavior. First, compulsive consumption and excessive debt is a serious problem among college students. From the director of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in the city in which our university is located, we learned that, at any particular point in time, as many as 50% of the ser-

COMPULSIVE BUYING

417

vice's clients have been college students (S. Smith, personal communication, November 24,1998). (It should be noted that college students represent about 50% of the population of the local community.) The director of the office stated that his student clients have described themselves as feeling like lambs led to a slaughter when they arrived at the university and found credit card issuers clamoring to offer them financial services. Recent articles in the popular press have also noted that compulsive buying and high credit card debt are major problems among young people (McBride, 1997). In addition, d'Astous (1990) found in her research that compulsive buying is negatively correlated with age, r = -.34. She also found that "compulsive buying tendencies may originate in people's early consumption experiences" (p. 23). This evidence suggests that younger consumers are appropriate respondents for investigations of compulsive buying behavior. Another factor regarding the choice of sample involves the fact that we did not obtain a sample of individuals with known financial problems. d' Astous (1990) argued that it is legitimate to investigate the generalized urge to buy found in normal consumer populations. From this perspective, compulsive buying exists on a continuum. The likely effect of not including individuals with extreme dysfunctional behavior is to attenuate the effects found.

Results In the first phase of the analysis, the coefficient alphas of compulsive buying and of the eight personality scales were assessed. The coefficient alpha for compulsive buying was .74. Alphas for the Five-Factor scales were as follows: stability = .79, extraversion = 3 6 , openness = .76, conscientiousness = 35, and agreeability = 31. The coefficient alpha for the central trait of need for arousal was .77, and for the central trait of materialism, it was 36. Table 1 provides the items for the need for arousal and materialism scales. It should be noted that the coefficient alphas for the Five-Factor scales taken from Saucier (1994) were very close to those he obtained. Using Amos 3.6 (Arbuckle, 1997), a single indicator latent variable model was employed to explore the relations within the hierarchical model. In the hierarchical model, the Five-Factor Model's traits were employed as exogenous variables, the need for arousal and materialism were employed as mediating variables, and compulsive consumption was the dependent variable. In the first analysis, a full mediational model was run. Because several of the hypotheses proposed direct paths from the Five-Factor traits to compulsive buying, a full mediation model was not expected to provide a good fit with the data. The results of the full mediation ~ .Owl, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) < .80, model were very poor, x2 > 1 , 0 0 0 , < Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) < .70, comparative fit index (CFI) < 30, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) > .lo. Thus, a partial mediation model is suggested.

41 8

MOWEN AND SPEARS

TABLE 1 New Scales Developed for Study 1 A. Need for arousal (coefficient a = .77; in Study 2, a = .82) 1. I really like surprises. 2. I am drawn to experiences that have an element of danger. 3. 1 like the tried and true, rather than the new and different. R 4. People view me as an impulsive, unpredictable person. 5. I get bored when I am continually around the same people and places. 6. I actively seek out new experiences. B. Need for material resources (coefficient a = .86; in Study 2, a = .83) 1. Enjoy buying expensive things. 2. Enjoy owning luxurious things. 3. My possessions are important to my happiness. 4. Acquiring valuable things is important to me. 5. Like to own nice things more than most people.

Note. R indicates that the item is reverse scored.

The modification indexes were then examined to eliminate paths and add paths as necessary. Figure 1 provides the results of this exploratory analysis. (Only the significant paths with p < .05 are shown in the figure.) The fit of this model was vastly improved, ~2 = 44.2, df = 16, p < .01, GFI = .97, AGFI = .93, CFI = .90, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 3 2 , RMSEA = .08, with a confidence interval of .05 to .lo. Overall, the model accounted for 19% of the variance in the measure of compulsive consumption, 2 1% of the variance in the need for arousal, and 14% of the variance in materialism. Overall, five of the seven hypotheses were supported. As predicted by H1, a significant negative path was found between stability and compulsive consumption. As predicted by H4, a significant positive path was found between materialism and compulsive consumption. Supporting H5, the path between openness to experience and need for arousal was positive and significant. Supporting H6, the path between conscientiousness and materialism was positive. Finally, supporting H7, the path between stability and materialism was negative and significant. In the model, the paths between the need for arousal and compulsive consumption (H3) and between extraversion and compulsive consumption (H2) were not significant. Bivariate correlations were run to further investigate these relations. The results revealed a significantbut low correlation between arousal and compulsive consumption, r = .19,p < .01. These results indicate that this covariation was accounted for by other variables in the structural equation model. In contrast, the correlation between extraversion and compulsive consumption was not significant ( p > .20). Thus, the bivariate correlation analysis provides weak support for H3 but no support for H2.

COMPULSIVE BUYING

41 9

FIGURE 1 Exploratorypathrnodelfor Study 1andconfirmationby Study 2. Pathcoefficients for Study 1 precede those for Study 2, which are in parentheses.All paths for Study 1 are significant atp < .05, except for agreeability atp < .lo. For Study 2, all paths are significant a l p < .05 with two exceptions.The path from conscientiousnessto compulsive buying was significant atp < .lo, and the path from extraversion to arousal was significant at p < .15.

The hierarchical model also identified two additional significant direct paths to compulsive buying that were not hypothesized. The path between conscientiousness and compulsive consumption was significant (p < .001). The negative path coefficient indicates that higher levels of compulsive consumption are associated with lower levels of conscientiousness. In addition, the path between agreeability and compulsive buying was significant (p < .lo),providing evidence that individuals higher in the agreeability trait were more compulsive in their buying.

In addition, the hierarchical model provided information on the cardinal traits predictive of materialism and the need for arousal. Supporting H5, the results revealed that the need for arousal was positively associated with openness to experience. In addition, the results revealed that the need for arousal was negatively associated with conscientiousness, positively associated with extraversion, and positively associated with materialism. To our knowledge, these relations have not previously been identified in the literature. Overall, the model accounted for 21% of the variance in the need for arousal.' The results also revealed that 14% of the variance in materialism was accounted for if the need for arousal is estimated. Three significant paths were found. As predicted in H6, the path from conscientiousness to materialism was positive. As predicted in H7, the path from stability to materialism was negatively signed. Finally, the path from need for arousal was positive, which is a relation that was not hypothesized. In sum, higher levels of materialism were associated with higher conscientiousness, lower stability, and higher needs for arousal. To test the hierarchical model, nested model tests were conducted that compared three models that differ only in the number of estimated paths. Two comparisons were made: 1. The hierarchical model was compared to a fully saturated one, in which both indirect and direct paths were estimated 2. A direct model, in which only direct effects of the cardinal and central traits were estimated, was compared to the fully saturated model. A nonsignificant difference in chi-square indicates support for the more parsimonious model. A comparison of the hierarchical model to the fully saturated model yielded a nonsignificant chi-square difference, x2diff = 10.4, df = 1, p > .30. Based on the parsimony criterion, these results provide support for the hierarchical model. The comparison between the direct model and the fully saturated one produced a significant chi-square difference, x2diff = 5.6, df = 1, p c .05, indicating the superior fit of the saturated model. In concert, these tests provide support for the superiority of the hierarchical model over the fully saturated model and the direct model. In the last analysis, we began the process of exploring the underlying structure of the Five-Factor Model of Saucier (1994). In developing his reduced version of Goldberg's (1992) model, Saucier analyzed data from a series of six data sets in which more than 1,500 respondents participated. Using exploratory factor analysis 'Two additional analyses were conducted. In the first, the direction of the path was changed so that it ran frommaterialismto the need for arousal. In this case, the fit statistics were worse. In the second analysis, two paths were run between materialism and arousal. In this case the path from materialism to arousal was not significant.

COMPULSIVE BUYING

421

procedures, he eliminated items that cross-loaded across factors. However, he did not report doing a confirmatory factor analysis. Although estimation and respecification of the measurement model are recommended prior to the concurrent estimation of the measurement and structural models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), Study 1 examined the measurement model of Saucier (1994) subsequent to the estimation of the structural model. Two reasons can be provided for this ordering: (a) We wanted to employ the existing scales of Saucier as an initial starting point; and (b) based on previous research (McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996), we anticipated that it would be difficult to confirm the structure of the Five-Factor Model. Thus, we examined the structure of the Five-Factor Model with the anticipation of reassessing the scales and providing input for scale development in Study 2. We performed a confirmatory factory analysis on the 40 items in Saucier's (1994) scale using Amos 3.6. The analysis revealed an extremely poor fit in which all fit indexes were well outside acceptable boundaries. We explored eliminating items to improve the fit. However, after eliminating numerous items, the model became unidentifiable. Thus, although the coefficient alphas of the scales in the Five-Factor Model were all acceptable and very close to those obtained by Saucier, we were unable to confirm the structure of the model. This result is consistent with previous attempts in which researchers were unable to confirm successfully the structure of the Five-Factor Model (McCrae et al., 1996).

Discussion Five major findings emerged from Study 1. First, the results revealed that five of the seven hypotheses were supported. Significant paths were found between stability and compulsive consumption (HI), materialism and compulsive consumption (H4), openness to experience and need for arousal (H5), conscientiousness and materialism (H6), and stability and materialism (H7). We found weak support for a significant relation between the need for arousal and compulsive buying (H2). No support was found for a significant relation between extraversion and compulsive buying. The second major finding to emerge from Study 1 was that the cardinal traits and the central traits accounted for a moderate amount of variance (19%) in the surface trait of compulsive consumption. The use of a common set of cardinal traits was also able to account for 14% of the variance in materialism and 21% of the variance in the need for arousal. Third, a number of new relations were found in the research. The use of the Five-Factor Model also allowed us to identify conscientiousness and agreeability as constructs predictive of compulsive buying, which had not previously been identified. The negative relation between conscientiousness and compulsive buy-

422

MOWEN AND SPEARS

ing suggests that individuals who have difficulty controlling their buying may also reveal a lack of organization, precision, and efficiency in their daily lives. The positive relation between agreeability and compulsive buying indicates that uncontrolled shopping is associated with tendencies to be kindhearted, sympathetic, and not rude to others. Other new findings to emerge from Study 1 were significant paths from conscientiousness (negatively signed) and extraversion (positively signed) to the need for arousal. A significant path (positively signed) was found from the need for arousal to materialism. Finally, a significant path (positively signed) was found from conscientiousness to materialism. Although this effect was predicted, to our knowledge it had not previously been found in the literature. Fourth, the results of Study 1 supported the hierarchical model of personality. That is, an examination of the fit indexes and the chi-square tests of differences of fit indicated that the more parsimonious hierarchical model was superior to two competing models. One competing model was a direct model in which all of the factors were employed as cardinal traits. The second competing model was a fully saturated model with all direct and indirect paths estimated. Finally, the results revealed an inability to confirm the structure of the Saucier (1994) version of the Five-Factor Model. Although the goal of Study 1 was not to develop new scales to measure the five factors, the finding suggests the need to do more work on scale development. Based on the encouraging results obtained in Study 1, a second study was designed with two goals. First, it sought to test the best fitting model obtained in Study 1. Because an exploratory approach was taken to identify the significant paths in Study 1, chance effects might have been responsible for the paths identified and might have inflated the variance accounted for as well. Second, because the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the Saucier (1994) Five-Factor Model were disappointing, we wanted to investigate adding new items to Saucier's scale. If successful, we would increase the internal reliability of the constructs, improve the fit characteristics of the model, and account for more variance in the central traits and in the surface trait of compulsive buying.

STUDY 2 Method Respondents were students in consumer behavior and promotional strategy courses at a Southwestern university. As part of a class exercise, 185 students received a questionnaire that contained revised scales that operationalized the Saucier (1994) Five-Factor Model, the scales employed in Study 1 to measure the need for arousal and materialism, and the compulsive consumption measure developed by Faber and O'Guinn (1989).

Table 2 provides the initial set of items employed to measure the Five-Factor Model as well as the final set that resulted from the confirmatory factor analysis. It also provides the coefficient alphas for the scales prior to and after performing the confirmatory factor analysis. As described earlier, items that loaded poorly in the confirmatory factor analysis were deleted from the Five-Factor scale developed by Saucier (1994). In addition, items were added that we obtained from other Five-Factor models developed by Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) and Duijsens and Diekstra (1995). Coefficient alphas for all of the scales were higher than .78.

Results In the first analysis, the items employed in the modified Five-Factor scale used in Study 2 were subjected to a confirmatory analysis. As was anticipated, the initial analysis revealed a very poor fit, x2> 1,000. After a series of iterations in which modification indexes were used to eliminate items, a satisfactory fit was obtained, ~2 = 247.7, df = 179,p < .00, GFI = 3 9 , AGFI = 3 5 , CFI = .96, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .05, with a confidence interval of .03 to .06. New scales were then created from the remaining items. These reduced scales are found in Table 2 along with their coefficient alphas. All coefficient alphas were higher than .78 for the revised Five-Factor constructs. A structural equation model was run in which the final model from Study 1 was analyzed. The fit indexes were satisfactory, ~2 = 29.6, df = 16, p < .01, GFI = .96, AGFI = .92, TLI = 38, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07, with a confidence interval of .03 to .11. The variance accounted for in compulsive buying improved from .19 in Study 1 to .28 in Study 2. Variance accounted for in materialism was .15, and variance in need for arousal was .l5. Although the fit was acceptable for the model run in Study 2, when the results are compared to those of Study 1 some differences in the paths were identified. First, the relation between extraversion and the need for arousal was lower in Study 2 ( p < .20). Second, a strong negative relation was found between stability and the need for arousal ( p < .01). The other relations were supported, including the weak ( p < .lo) association between agreeability and compulsive buying. To assess the hierarchical model, nested model tests were conducted that compared models with different numbers of estimated paths. A comparison of the hierarchical model to the fully saturated one yielded a nonsignificant chi-square difference, x2diff = 10.4, df = 9 , p > .30, indicating the superiority of the hierarchical model based on the parsimony criterion. The comparison between the direct model and the fully saturated model produced a significant chi-square difference, x2diff = 4.3, df = 1, p < .05, indicating the superior fit of the saturated model. In agreement with the results from Study 1, these tests provide support for the superiority of the hierarchical model over the fully saturated and the direct model.

TABLE 2 New Scales Employed in Study 2 A. Instability (coefficient a = .90; reduced scale a = .90) 1. Moody more than othersa 2. Temperamental" 3. Touchy 4. Enviousa 5. Emotions go way up and downa 6. Testy more than othersa 7. Jealous B. Extraversion (coefficient a = 37; reduced scale a = .78) 1. Feel uncomfortable in a group of people R 2. Prefer to be alone rather than in a large group R 3. Feel bashful more than others Ra 4. Bold" 5. Extroverted when with people 6. Shy RB 7. Quiet when with people R" 8. Talkative when with others 9. Withdrawn from others R C. Openness to experience (coefficient a = 34; reduced scale a = 32) 1. Frequently feel highly creatives 2. Imaginativea 3. Appreciate arta 4. Enjoy beauty more than others 5. Find novel solutionsa 6. More original than othersa D. Disagreeable (coefficient a = .SO;reduced scale a = .SO) 1. Rude with others R 2. Harsh when others make a mistake R 3. Tenderhearted with othersa 4. Sympathetic 5. Cold to others R 6. Kind to othersa E. Conscientiousness(coefficient a = 32; reduced scale a = 32) 1. Careless 2. Precisea 3. Efficient 4. Organizeda 5. Sloppy Ra 6. Orderlya Note. R indicates that the item is reverse scored. The coefficient alpha gives the internal reliability measure for the full scale, and the reduced scale alpha provides the internal reliability measure for the scale after confirmatory factor analysis was performed. For the traits of disagreeable, stability,openness to experience, and extraversion, short phrases were added to some of the adjectives used by Saucier (1994) to provide a frame of reference for respondents. %ems in final scale after confirmatory factor analysis.

GENERAL DISCUSSION In combination, the results of Studies 1 and 2 support a hierarchical perspective in which four of the five cardinal traits identified in the Five-Factor Model of personality (i.e., extraversion, stability, openness to experience, and conscientiousness) and the central traits of the need for arousal and materialism accounted for high levels of variance in the surface trait of compulsive buying. Importantly, the results of Study 2 confirmed the exploratory findings of Study 1. Indeed, the relations found in Study 2 were stronger than those obtained in Study 1. Thus, the variance of compulsive buying accounted for improved from 19% in Study 1 to 28% in Study 2. The results also provide new insights into the personality traits associated with compulsive buying. Specifically, researchers had not previously investigated the relation between the Five-Factor Model traits and compulsive buying. As a result, the negative relation between conscientiousness and compulsive buying and the positive relation between agreeability and compulsive buying had not previously been found. As predicted, the trait of stability also had a direct path to compulsive consumption. Previously, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) found that low self-esteem was associated with compulsive buying, but to our knowledge researchers have not previously investigated the relation of the underlying cardinal trait of emotional stability with compulsive buying. Another advantage of the hierarchical approach is that it provides information on the relation between the cardinal traits and the central traits. The results of our research revealed that the need for arousal is associated with low conscientiousness, high extraversion, high openness to experience, and materialism. In addition, in Study 2 stability was negatively associated with the need for arousal. This overall pattern of relations has not previously been identified in the literature. The model also found that materialism is negatively related to the Five-Factor trait of stability and positively related to conscientiousness. Again, these relations have not previously been identified. As proposed in the introduction, the hierarchical approach is compatible with the interactionist perspective that personality traits moderate the effects of environmental influences. For example, consider the effects of different types of messages (i.e., environmental influences) on consumers who vary on a compulsive buying continuum. Suppose that an organization was interested in developing a message that would appeal to compulsive buyers and influence them to come in for help. By knowing the psychological antecedents of the surface traits, marketers might gain insight into how to develop messages that would appeal to individuals high in the trait of compulsive buying. Our research indicates that the constructs of stability, materialism, agreeability, and conscientiousness have direct paths to compulsive buying. Based on schema congruity theory (Fiske & Taylor, 1984), it can be predicted that if messages employ themes related to low stability, high materialism, high agreeability, and low conscientiousness, they should activate

schemas among consumers high in the trait of compulsive buying. In contrast, messages using themes involving high stability, low materialism, and high conscientiousness should activate schemas among consumers low in the trait of compulsive buying. The activation of self-schemas should then influence consumer reactions to the message and impact attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and behavioral intentions. Through this process of self-schema activation, the trait of compulsive buying may moderate the effects of the message theme on consumer reactions. In sum, the hierarchical perspective may provide a means of empirically identifying the types of messages that will be moderated by the individual difference variable (i.e., the surface trait). Of course, these inferences must be empirically tested. We believe that this research contributes to both theory and application. From a theory development perspective, we have obtained support for a hierarchical approach to personality. From an applied perspective, we have identified additional personality traits predictive of compulsive buying (e.g., low conscientiousness, high agreeability, and low stability). In addition, the research has potential for providing an empirical means of developing message themes that may influence consumers. As described earlier, future research should test whether the traits predictive of compulsive buying can be employed as themes in messages to influence compulsive buyers to seek assistance or to decrease their desire to make purchases. The research may also have application to counseling compulsive buyers. For example, it might be possible to provide compulsive buyers with techniques to increase their conscientiousness by helping them to become more organized, precise, and orderly in their lives.

Future Research Directions and Study Limitations From a theory development perspective, future research should investigate whether the hierarchical perspective works across a variety of additional surface traits. Examples of other consumption traits on which to test the hierarchical perspective include coupon proneness and value consciousness (Lichtenstein et al., 1990), consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987), consumer assertiveness (Richins, 1983), and consumer innovativeness (Raju, 1980). In particular, it will be important to investigate whether the Five-Factor Model provides an appropriate set of cardinal psychological traits that account for large amounts of variance in these surface traits. It will also be important to identify the central traits that may partially or fully mediate the effects of these cardinal traits on the surface traits. Another research direction involves identifying new surface traits for investigation. By analyzing various types of consumption situations, it might be possible to identify new surface traits. For example, one type of consumer situation involves

COMPULSIVE BUYING

427

occasions when bargaining takes place, such as when purchasing cars, homes, stereo equipment, and goods sold at flea markets. It might be possible to employ cardinal and central traits to predict a disposition that may be called bargaining proneness, which results in a desire to engage in bargaining behaviors. Additional theoretical work needs to be performed on extending the Five-Factor Model for use in consumer settings. Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, and Powell (1995) found that the situational context within which the Five-Factor Model is employed impacts the validity of the scales. As a result, efforts to develop a Five-Factor scale appropriate to consumer settings appears warranted. The results of Study 1 revealed that our attempt to confirm the model of Saucier (1994) was not successful. As a result, items were added to the scale in Study 2, and a confirmatory factor analysis was successful. Additional work is needed to improve the psychometric properties of the modified Five-Factor Model. In particular, more items need to be added to several of the scales. In addition, alternative models of the Five- Factor Model should be operationalized and their properties compared to the revised Saucier scale developed in Study 2. From an applied perspective, future research needs to extend our work to other populations. In particular, our findings may not generalize beyond college students taking business courses at a large university. In addition, the work should be extended to investigate whether the relations hold if known groups of compulsive buyers are included in the sample. Another area for applied future research concerns identifying additional central traits, such as impulsivity, that may be predictive of compulsive buying. For example, DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) examined impulsivity and compulsive buying and concluded that impulse buying occurs when an external trigger, such as a product on a store shelf, causes a consumer to buy. In contrast, they proposed that compulsive buying results from an internal trigger, such as anxiety. In their view, shopping and spending act as an escape for the compulsive buyer. Future research should investigate the relation between these constructs and whether the same central and cardinal traits are predictive of them. In addition, there may be other central traits that are predictive of compulsive buying that could be investigated, such as the need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). One additional applied area of research involves investigating the role of situational variables in accounting for compulsive buying tendencies. In this article, we argue that surface trait measures, such as compulsive buying, account for a portion of the variance caused by situational factors. Thus, consumer buying can be seen as one possible task definition, which was identified by Belk (1974) as a situational factor. Undoubtedly, however, a variety of situational factors are apt to operate simultaneously within the causal texture of the environment. Thus, the effects of promotions by marketers, temporary mood states, and social influences may act to influence compulsive buying behavior as well. The two studies accounted for a moderate amount of variance in compulsive buying (i.e., 19% and 28%). By iden-

428

MOWEN AND SPEARS

tifying and accounting for variance caused by situational variables, it is likely that additional variance in compulsive buying can be explained.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Tom Brown, Goutam Chakraborty, and Richard Germain for their helpful comments on this article.

REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth inpersonality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 41 1-423. Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos users' guide, version 3.6. Chicago: Smallwaters. Arthur, W., Jr., & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor model, conscientiousnessand driving accident involvement. Journal of Personaliry, 64,593415. Belk, R. W. (1974). An exploratory assessment of situationaleffects in buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing Research. 11, 1556-1 563. Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. Bmning, E. R., Kovacic, M. L., & Oberdick, L. E. (1985). Segmentation analysis of domestic airline passenger markets. Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, 13, 17-31. Buss, D. M. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131. Carlson, L.. & Grossbart, S. L. (1984). Toward a better understanding of inherent innovativeness. In R. W. Belk et al. (Eds.), 1984AMA educators'proceedings (pp. 88-91). Chicago:American Marketing Association. Costa. P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources. d'Astous, A. (1 990). An inquiry into the compulsiveside of "normal" consumers. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13, 15-31. DeSarbo, W. S., & Edwards, E. A. (1996). Typologies of compulsive buying behavior: A constrained clusterwise regression approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 231-262. Duijsens, I. J., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (1995). The 23BB5: A new bipolar big five questionnaire.Personality and Individual D~rerences,19, 753-755. Edwards, E. A. (1992). Development and test of a theory of compulsive buying (Working Paper). Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan University. Endler, N. S., & Rosenstein, A. J. (1997).Evolution of the personality construct in marketing and its applicability to contemporary personality research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 5546. Eysenck, H. J. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum. Faber, R. J., Christenson, G. A,, de Zwaan, M., & Mitchell, J. (1995). Two forms of compulsive consumption: Comorbidity of compulsive buying and binge eating. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 296-304. Faber, R. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1988). Compulsive consumption and credit abuse. Journal of Consumer Policy, 11,97-109.

COMPULSIVE BUYING

429

Faber, R. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1989). Classifying compulsive consumers: Advances in the development of a diagnostic tool. In T. K. Srull (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 16, pp. 738-744). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Faber, R. J., O'Guinn, T. C., & Krych, R. (1987). Compulsive consumption. In M. Wallendorf & P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 14, pp. 132-1 35). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329-344. Fiske, S. T., &Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. Holbrook, M., & Hirschman. E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140. Joachimsthaler, E. A,, & Lastovicka, J. L. (1984). Optimal stimulation level exploratory behavior models. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 830-835. Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley. Lastovicka, J. L. (1982). On the validation of lifestyle traits: A review and illustration. Journal ofMarketing Research, 19, 126-138. Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1464. Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54,5447. McBride, S. (1997, November 20). Young deadbeats pose problems for credit-card issuers. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6. McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmentalpsychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mooradian, T. A,, & Olver, J. M. (1997). I can't get no satisfaction: The impact of personality and emotion on postpurchase processes. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 379-393. Morgan, R. M., &Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58,20-38. 0'Guinn.T. C., & Faber, R. 5. (1989). Compulsive buying: Aphenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 147-1 57. Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272-282. Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 73-82. Richins, M. L. (1987). Media, materialism, and human happiness. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 291-297). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303-316. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516. Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, A. B. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scales scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607-620.

430

MOWEN AND SPEARS

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280-289. Thwstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. The Psychological Review, 41, 1-22. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonaladjectivescale to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 78 1-790. Valence, G., d' Astous, A., & Fortier, L. (1988). Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement.Journal of Consumer Policy, 11.419433. Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business Research, 20, 293-3 15. Vinson, D. E., Scon, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41,44-50. Wiggins, J. S. (1996). The Five-Factor Model ofpersonality. New York: Guilford. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimum level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.

Accepted by Frank Kardes.