Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Consumers’ personality and compulsive buying behavior: The role of

hedonistic shopping experiences and gender in
mediating-moderating relationships
Piotr Tarka a, *, Monika Kukar-Kinney b, Richard J. Harnish c
a
Poznan University of Economics and Business, Department of Market Research, al. Niepodleglosci 10, 61-875, Poznan, Poland
b
University of Richmond, Robins School of Business, Department of Marketing, 102 UR Drive, Richmond, VA, 23173, USA
c
Penn State University, New Kensington Campus, Department of Psychology, 3550 Seventh Street Road/RT 780, New Kensington, PA, 15068, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although existing research suggests that personality plays an important role in explaining compulsive buying
Personality (cardinal) traits behavior, there is still potential space to diagnose the theoretical mediational mechanisms underlying these
Hedonistic shopping experiences effects or the extent to which these relationships vary across different consumer demographic groups. Indeed, the
Compulsive buying
role of specific personality traits on hedonistic shopping experiences and compulsive buying still awaits an in-
Gender
Mediation and Moderation analysis
depth examination and clarification. Thus, the present research contributes to existing knowledge by: (1)
examining hedonistic shopping experiences (HSE) as a mediating mechanism on compulsive buying (CB); and (2)
investigating the role of gender as a moderating variable. Using a sample of 363 adults and data derived from the
US market, we confirmed the role of hedonistic shopping experiences, a central trait, in mediating the effects of
cardinal traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness), on
compulsive buying, a surface trait. Specifically, neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience exerted a more
indirect and positive influence on compulsive buying, while conscientiousness and agreeableness showed a
stronger direct and negative relationship with hedonistic shopping experiences and compulsive buying. In
addition, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience were a stronger driver of compulsive buying for
women than for men, while conscientiousness and agreeableness jointly decreased the importance of hedonistic
shopping experiences, and more strongly inhibited compulsive buying for women than for men. The research
findings offer important theoretical, public policy and marketing implications.

1. Introduction
Compulsive buying has garnered a growing interest among consumer
researchers over the past years (e.g., Ridgway et al., 2008). This path­
ological form of repetitive and excessive buying develops in response to
psychological problems (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989). Consumers who
engage in compulsive buying do so because it provides immediate,
although short-term, relief from anxiety or depression they are experi­
encing (Hassay and Smith, 1998). Consequently, compulsive buying
reflects a way of coping with life’s challenges brought about by low
self-esteem and self-image concerns (Roberts et al., 2014), as well as
emotional tension. Fulfillment of consumers’ consumption desires
generally leads to affective psychological states (e.g., pleasure, excite­
ment, discomfort, guilt; Boujbel and d’Astous, 2015); however, when
consumers lose control over buying and consume too many products, the
resulting consequences are broader and include social and budgetary
problems (Müller et al., 2015).
Compulsive buying disorder (see Ridgway et al., 2008) manifest it­
self in a consumer’s excessive attention to and engagement in shopping
and the overwhelming urge to buy (McElroy et al., 1994). The present
study examines the psychological nature of the antecedents of compul­
sive buying (Tarka and Harnish, 2020). More specifically, in the current
research, the influence of cardinal traits such as neuroticism, extraver­
sion, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness, and
of central traits such as hedonistic shopping experiences on a surface
trait such as compulsive buying is explored. In addition to evaluating
their direct relationships, we theorize that hedonistic shopping experi­
ences (Babin et al., 1994), a central trait, represents the underlying

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: piotr.tarka@ue.poznan.pl (P. Tarka), mkukarki@richmond.edu (M. Kukar-Kinney), rjh27@psu.edu (R.J. Harnish).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102802
Received 26 April 2021; Received in revised form 10 September 2021; Accepted 4 October 2021
Available online 13 October 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Tarka et al.
theoretical mechanism behind the effects of cardinal traits (i.e.,
neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness
and agreeableness) on the surface trait - compulsive buying, thus,
empirically confirming the mediating role of the central trait (i.e.,
hedonistic shopping experiences). By exploring the hedonistic aspects of
consumption, we take into account the consumers’ emotional nature
when purchasing products and the positive affect derived from the act of
buying (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989). By investigating the mediating in­
fluence hedonistic shopping experiences have on compulsive buying, we
acknowledge the personalized ways consumers derive pleasure from
shopping activities (Babin et al., 1994), their intrinsic hedonistic need of
experiencing adventure and the excitement sought during shopping, as
well as their irrational and impulsive thinking while shopping. Because
of this, consumers’ focus on hedonistic consumption experiences should
enhance compulsive buying as it provides and stimulates consumers’
positive feelings and desirable emotions (Ridgway et al., 1990), which in
turn, allows them to escape from negative feelings about self and
negative states (e.g., depression) that are frequent triggers of compulsive
buying (Ridgway et al., 2008; Tarka, 2020).
The current study postulates that consumers’ strong focus, or alter­
natively, their resistance to hedonistic consumption and subsequent
compulsive buying is impacted by their cardinal personality traits (e.g.,
neuroticism, extraversion). We first review previous research findings
that suggest various personality theories explain compulsive buying
behavior among consumers (e.g., Claes and Müller, 2017). Our theo­
retical propositions are derived from works that previously focused on
evaluating the influence of consumers’ hedonistic shopping motivations
(Ali et al., 2020; Horváth and Adigüzel, 2018) and hedonistic patterns of
consumption (Tarka and Harnish, 2020) in stimulating compulsive
buying. Additionally, we draw on research findings of Guido et al.
(2015), and Guido (2006), that examined the association between the
Five-Factor Model of Personality (“Big Five”; Costa and McCrae, 1992,
2008) and hedonistic shopping values as measured in the context of
consumers’ shopping motives. Although other personality traits such as
impulsivity (Black et al., 2012), or anxiety (Williams, 2012), have been
explored in conjunction with compulsive buying, we wished to examine
the broader dimensions of personality by employing the Five-Factor
Model of Personality (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Additionally, by using
the Five-Factor Model of Personality, the current findings could be
compared to previous research findings, which also used the Five-Factor
Model of Personality (see Andreassen et al., 2013; Mikolajczak-De­
grauwe et al., 2012; Mowen and Spears, 1999; Otero-Lopez and Villar­
defrancos, 2013a; Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos 2013b).
Interestingly, all the aforementioned studies explored direct mech­
anisms linking personality with compulsive buying, or personality with
hedonistic shopping values, or hedonistic shopping motivation with
compulsive buying. Two rare exceptions in the consumer behavior
literature are the work by Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos (2013b) that
employed a mediational mechanism, which explained the influence of
personality traits on compulsive buying via materialism, and a study by
Mowen and Spears (1999) that examined the impact of personality on
compulsive buying via consumers’ need for arousal and materialistic
orientation. Given this, the current work has two aims. First, we aim to
conduct research based on a proportionally better-gender balanced
sample using a more reliable measure of compulsive buying behavior
that allows for the capturing of both the obsessive-compulsive elements
of compulsive buying and the impulse-control elements of compulsive
buying (Ridgway et al., 2008). Second, we advance consumer behavior
theory by reformulating the theoretical context of the
materialism-compulsive buying relationship. By replacing the materi­
alism construct with hedonistic shopping experiences (see Babin et al.,
1994), we examine the more personalized or psychological nature of a
consumer’s hedonistic shopping experiences, and not their hedonistic
shopping motivations nor values as previously documented (Ali et al.,
2020; Guido et al., 2015; Guido, 2006; Horváth and Adigüzel, 2018). In
other words, we propose a more complex conceptualization of how
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
hedonistic shopping experiences mediates the effect of personality on
compulsive buying.
Lastly, the extant literature offers insufficient knowledge about the
extent to which theoretical mediational mechanisms underlie the effect
of personality on compulsive buying across different consumer de­
mographic groups. Thus, we aim to investigate the role of gender as a
possible moderator for any observed effects. The focus on gender dif­
ferences is justified by prior research findings that indicate women tend
to be more vulnerable to compulsive buying tendencies than men
(Dittmar 2005; Mueller et al., 2011). In addition, women, in comparison
to men, focus more on the enjoyable aspects of buying, possess a
stronger emotional motivation for shopping (Dittmar et al., 2004), and
are more susceptible to impulse buying (Baumeister and Heatherton,
1996). The evidence also shows that women compared to men score
higher on hedonic motivation toward shopping (Arnold and Reynolds,
2003; Brusdal and Lavik, 2005; Davis et al., 2020), and use their pur­
chases to manage their mood in order to engender positive emotions and
reduce stress levels in their daily lives (Coley and Burgess, 2003). To
conclude, the goal of the current research is to examine hedonistic
shopping experiences (Babin et al., 1994) as a mediating theoretical
mechanism between the Big Five personality traits and compulsive
buying with gender as a moderator.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. The hierarchical and Big Five model of personality
Allport (1961) proposed a hierarchical model of personality that
comprises of cardinal, central, and surface traits that vary according to
their degree of concreteness. According to Allport, cardinal traits are the
least concrete, are few in number and form the basic dimensions of
personality. Although there has been long debate surrounding exactly
how many cardinal traits there are, Allport (1961) posited that there
likely are 5–10 cardinal traits. Further consumer researchers (e.g.,
Mowen, 2000; Mowen and Spears; 1999) have successfully employed
Allport’s hierarchical model, by using the Big Five (Costa and McCrae,
1992, 2008) as cardinal traits to provide an integrated theoretical ac­
count of how personality may influence consumer feelings, thoughts and
behaviors. It is thus believed that the solution comprising Big Five (Costa
and McCrae, 2008), represents the most optimal structure in diagnosing
personality. Furthermore, by using the model proposed by Mowen
(2000) we could explore the effects of central personality traits on car­
dinal and surface traits, and relate this structure to previous research
findings, which also benefited from Big Five (Andreassen et al., 2013;
Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012; Mowen and Spears, 1999; Oter­
o-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013a; Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos
2013b).
The proposed model (see Fig. 1) comprises of five cardinal traits
(Costa and McCrae, 1992, 2008): neuroticism, extraversion, openness to
experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness. Neuroticism is defined
as the consumer’s psychological instability associated with their emo­
tions; in contrast, extraversion reflects a strong need for social activeness
(Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012). Note that the latter trait is often
related to the third trait (Mowen, 2000) - openness to experience - which
defines people as open to new experiences that is obtained through in­
tellectual curiosity (see Costa and McCrae, 1992). In contrast, consci­
entiousness refers to well-organized and scrupulous individuals, while
agreeableness refers to sympathetic, trusting and cooperative people
(Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012).
At the next level of the conceptual model hierarchy, we positioned
hedonistic shopping experiences as a central trait. According to Allport
(1961), a central trait (i.e., hedonistic shopping experiences) may either
partially or fully mediate the effects of a cardinal trait (i.e., neuroticism,
extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness)
or may have no influence whatsoever on the cardinal trait. Lastly,
compulsive buying was defined as a surface trait. Note that surface traits
P. Tarka et al.
Fig. 1. Model linking “Big 5” personality traits with compulsive buying via hedonistic shopping experiences, including moderation with genderLegend: Independent
latent variables: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Mediator: Hedonistic Shopping Experiences, measured as a unidimensional
latent variable. Dependent latent variable: CB (Compulsive Buying) measured by Obsessive Compulsive Buying and Impulsive Buying. The arrows indicate the
direction of the impact of cause on effect.
are usually those which researchers wish to predict or explain (Roberts
et al., 2015), and are the most concrete reflecting behavioral tendencies.
2.2. Relationship of cardinal (personality) traits with compulsive buying,
a surface trait
As personality traits help to comprehensively understand consumer
behavior (Mowen, 2000; Haugtvedt et al., 1992; Kassarjian, 1971), we
first offer a brief overview of prior research that has examined the in­
fluence of cardinal traits using the Five-Factor Model of Personality (e.
g., Costa and McCrae, 1992, 2008) to explain compulsive buying. Note
that when conceptualizing compulsive buying we are referring to two
closely related constructs: obsessive compulsiveness, and insufficiency
of impulse-control (Ridgway et al., 2008), which manifest themselves in
a consumer’s preoccupation with buying (McElroy et al., 1994).
Although in prior works (e.g., Darrat et al., 2016; Kwak et al., 2006;
Verplanken and Sato, 2011), both constructs were said to be similar to
each other; however, the fact is they also differ. For example, as related
to compulsive buying, the lack of impulse-control (i.e., low impulse
control to purchase items) posits that consumers are unable to resist
their impulses, which leads to harmful behaviors (Ridgway et al., 2008).
In contrast, obsessive compulsiveness reflects recurring thoughts that
interfere with normal life (i.e., when all other aspects of life center on
buying activities). Thus, we conceptualized compulsive buying as being
comprised of two aspects (impulsivity and compulsivity) where both
elements are complementary, consistent with existing research
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
(Ridgway et al., 2008).
2.2.1. Neuroticism and compulsive buying
Compulsive buying often affects emotional instability (Mowen and
Spears, 1999; Mueller et al., 2010), and leads to increased anxiety,
sadness, and depression (Claes and Müller, 2017). Less emotionally
stable people also tend to experience a greater variety of negative
emotions (e.g., insecurity, failure, embarrassment; Mowen and Spears,
1999). They are more dissatisfied with life (Thørgersen et al., 2009) and
are more likely to complain (Souiden et al., 2019). Therefore, in­
dividuals who frequently experience such emotions are prone to engage
in compulsive buying behavior (Andreassen et al., 2013; Miko­
lajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012; Olsen et al., 2016), which serves as a
‘compensatory mechanism’ in response to negative feelings (Oter­
o-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013a). As neuroticism indicates
emotional vulnerability and instability (Winter and Kuiper, 1997),
neurotic individuals should be more prone to compulsive buying
(O’Guinn and Faber, 1989).
2.2.2. Extraversion and compulsive buying
Social attention theory (Ashton et al., 2002) posits that extraversion
represents a human tendency to draw, maintain, and enjoy the attention
of other individuals in society. Extraverted individuals look for potential
social rewards and express positive emotions (e.g., enjoyment, energy,
and excitement) more intensely. Such individuals have a need for
attention and reactions from others (Chugani and Irwin, 2020), which
P. Tarka et al.
encourages them to engage in more extraverted behavior. Extraverted
behavior may lead to compulsive buying (see Andreassen et al., 2013;
Balabanis, 2001) when people seek out excessive social or external
stimulation (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). As Verplanken and Herabadi
(2001) explained, extraverts often purchase products to signify them­
selves or to display a group identity. Thereby, the linkage of extraversion
with compulsive buying is expected to be enhanced for gregarious,
talkative and socially active individuals (Shahjehan et al., 2012).
2.2.3. Openness and compulsive buying
The personality trait, defined as openness to experience, character­
izes individuals through the lens of curiosity and imagination (Costa and
McCrae, 2008), and is a strong predictor of variety seeking (Olsen et al.,
2016), but also results in the development of consumers’ increased
passion for shopping activities (Wang and Yang, 2008). As a result, the
search for new objects and sensations, and the accompanying lack of
enjoyment of what one already has, also may become a driver of
compulsive buying. This is because a desire for new intellectual expe­
riences is not only connected with novelty-seeking (Di Nicola et al.,
2010), but also with an urge for aesthetic stimulation, such as browsing
a variety of aesthetically pleasing products in a store (Andreassen et al.,
2013; Claes and Müller, 2017). As a result, various sensory stimuli later
may become triggers for compulsive buying. Interestingly, consumers
who are more open to experience are influenced to a greater degree by
their moods (Forgas and Ciarrochi, 2001). For such consumers,
novelty-seeking and new experiences increase their restlessness and
impatience (Black et al., 2012). As such, consumers with a higher
inclination toward openness to experience exhibit a stronger need to
constantly purchase new products in order to satisfy their desire for
novelty and to experience the pleasure derived from the aesthetic at­
tributes of products (e.g., Faber and O’Guinn, 1992).
2.2.4. Conscientiousness and compulsive buying
Research conducted by Andreassen et al. (2013) and Mowen and
Spears (1999) indicated that conscientiousness, defined as re­
sponsibility, precision, self-discipline, and competence, is negatively
related with compulsive buying. Indeed, non-compulsive buyers who
are highly conscientious, are expected to show less excessive buying
patterns (Wang and Yang, 2008). Conversely, a lack of conscientiousness
or competence may result in compulsive buying such that lower
competence potentially leads to higher compulsive buying. In this re­
gard, compulsive buying should be driven by a lack of responsible
consumption-related behavior (e.g., consumers do not carefully plan
buying activities or control their financial budgets). This is because
those who lack conscientiousness give low priority to personal re­
sponsibilities and social obligations (Andreassen et al., 2013). In addi­
tion, such individuals lack planning ability (Verplanken and Herabadi,
2001), display lower level of self-control (Baumeister, 2002), and pro­
crastinate (Lee et al., 2006). Such behaviors can lead to increased
compulsive buying, which is contingent on one’s self-regulation abilities
(Fenton-O’Creevy et al., 2018) to control consumption (Lawson, 2001).
Similarly, conscientiousness plays a positive role in the planning of
future expenses. Consequently, conscientiousness results in a weaker
tendency to buy compulsively as consumers are more future-oriented
and better able to manage their money (Donelly et al., 2012).
2.2.5. Agreeableness and compulsive buying
Agreeableness is negatively correlated with compulsive buying
(Andreassen et al., 2013; Balabanis, 2001). Compulsive buyers may be
more prone to avoid conflict with other people; consequently, their
behavior will contradict the elementary aspects of agreeableness such as
sympathy, politeness or friendliness (Graziano and Tobin, 2009; see also
Andreassen et al., 2013). Agreeableness (vs. hostility) serves as a pro­
tective factor against behavioral addictions. As compulsive buying is not
a socially approved behavior (Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012),
highly agreeable individuals should exhibit a lower tendency for
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
compulsive buying because of their greater motivation to sustain good
relations with other people (see Jensen-Campbell and Graziano, 2001).
In contrast, people with high compulsive buying tendencies tend to
exhibit lower agreeableness across facets such as trust, altruism,
straightforwardness, and modesty. Because those with low agreeable­
ness exhibit a lower level of benevolence in relationships as well as a
lack of straightforwardness and modesty in their relationships, low
levels of agreeableness should intensify compulsive buying.
In light of the reviewed research findings, we propose that the car­
dinal personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to
new experience correspond to negative characteristics of compulsive
buying behavior (Edwards, 1993; O’Guinn and Faber, 1989) thus
increasing the likelihood of compulsive buying (a surface trait). In
contrast, the cardinal personality traits of conscientiousness and agree­
ableness are associated with positive characteristics within a consumer’s
life and consequently reduce the likelihood of compulsive buying (a
surface trait). Next, we discuss the influence of hedonistic shopping
experiences, a central trait, on compulsive buying and its relationship
with the Five-Factor Model of Personality.
3. Development of the research conceptualization
3.1. The choice of hedonistic consumption (a central trait) as a theoretical
mediator
Because prior studies (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2013; Claes and Müller,
2017; Otero-López and Villardefrancos, 2013a; Mikolajczak-Degrauwe
et al., 2012) concentrated on explaining the direct relationships between
compulsive buying and cardinal personality traits, a theoretical media­
tional mechanism (i.e., central traits) underlying these effects has been
insufficiently examined. In the current research, we propose hedonistic
shopping consumption, specifically hedonistic shopping experiences
(Babin et al., 1994) as the underlying conceptual mechanism (i.e., a
central trait that mediates cardinal traits on compulsive buying, a sur­
face trait). Note that hedonism as a personal value (O’Shaughnessy and
O’Shaughnessy, 2002; Moen, 2016) denotes pleasure, enjoyment, and
delight as one’s highest and sole motive, consequently hedonistic con­
sumers are individuals who focus on pleasure-seeking activities in the
course of shopping (Alba and Williams, 2013; Babin et al., 1994;
Heathwood, 2006). As such, hedonism is associated with positive
emotions and excessive behaviors, similar to what is typically associated
with purchasing and using products (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982).
By its nature however, hedonistic shopping cannot be rational (De Witt
Huberts et al., 2014; Yuengert, 2001) and is frequently based on irra­
tional experiences (Kesari and Atulkar, 2016) which only increase
emotional arousal and heighten involvement (Kronrod and Danziger,
2013). By accentuating a specific role of hedonistic shopping experi­
ences in the postulated relationships of our conceptual model, we refer
to consumers’ personalized ways of deriving pleasure from shopping
activities, including desirable affect (i.e., the enjoyment of experiencing
‘good feelings’, see Solomon et al., 2012), and emotional arousal (Babin
et al., 1994). As such, we capture consumers’ hedonistic shopping ex­
periences (Babin et al., 1994) which occur in a retail context (Das and
Varshneya, 2017), along with the irrational and impulsive thinking
associated with the excitement, adventure, and emotions that are sought
during a shopping experience. Such hedonistic shopping experiences are
typically observed in bricks-and-mortar and online stores, with con­
sumers spending money without restraint, indicating irrationality and a
lack of financial responsibility (e.g., over-spending; Harnish and Roster,
2019; Harnish et al., 2018; Tomer, 2001). However, hedonistic shopping
experiences generate positive (i.e., pleasant) feelings in response to
negative emotions accumulated in life, including frustration, sadness,
and anxiety, which, as noted earlier, contribute to the growth of
compulsive buying (Faber and O’Guinn, 1992).
There are two specific reasons why we selected hedonistic shopping
experiences as a theoretical mediator of the personality-compulsive
P. Tarka et al.
buying relationship and not hedonistic shopping motivations or hedo­
nistic shopping values. First, hedonistic shopping motivations charac­
terize a consumer’s goal of continuing or terminating a certain behavior
at a particular time (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003), while hedonistic
shopping values reflect a consumer’s preferences in the course of
shopping and related purchases; they define the importance consumers
attach to specific objects (Homer and Kahle, 1988). Second, hedonistic
shopping motivations have been examined as an independent theoret­
ical construct in direct structural relationship with compulsive buying
(Ali et al., 2020; Horvath and Adgüzel, 2018), while hedonistic shopping
values were diagnosed on the ground of bivariate correlations with
personality (Guido et al., 2015; Guido, 2006).
3.2. Relationship of cardinal personality traits with hedonistic
consumption, a central trait
Emotionally unstable (i.e., neurotic) individuals frequently experi­
ence anxiety, moodiness, irritability, sadness, and depression
(Andreassen et al., 2013; Chien-Huang and Hung-Chou, 2012). These
negative emotions and states also may encourage hedonistic shopping
experiences, which allows consumers to at least temporarily overcome
their negative feelings and experience pleasure and excitement. In such
cases, shopping links with gratification seeking, while providing stress
relief and the alleviation of negative affect because hedonistic shopping
offers a ’special treat’ to such consumers (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).
Therefore, we argue that strongly neurotic individuals, extraverted
consumers, who desire to experience more positive emotions when
consuming (Solomon et al., 2012), as well as shoppers who are highly
open to experiences are more prone to hedonistic shopping experiences
as compared to those high in conscientiousness and agreeableness.
Indeed, research conducted by Ksendzova et al. (2015) suggests that
consumers’ excessive pleasure-seeking corresponds to lower agreeable­
ness, conscientiousness, and a higher level of neuroticism, while
research by Goldsmith (2016) found that extraversion increases shop­
ping frequency among consumers. In sum, we propose that cardinal
personality traits such as neuroticism, extraversion and openness to
experience are positively related to a central trait (i.e., hedonistic
shopping experiences), while the cardinal personality traits of consci­
entiousness and agreeableness are negatively related with this central
trait. Note, as already discussed, hedonic consumption captures con­
sumers’ shopping experiences that are characterized by emotional and
sensorial aspects (see Alba and Williams, 2013; Dittmar et al., 2004;
Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). As such, hedonistic shopping lacks
functional and rational purchasing decisions and should correlate
positively with openness to experience, extraversion, and emotional
instability (see Guido, 2006; Guido et al., 2015). We expect such con­
sumers to show more eagerness in seeking new shopping experiences
and novelties, as well as being more impulsive during shopping pro­
cesses (Tarka and Harnish, 2020).
3.3. Compulsive buying, a surface trait, and hedonistic consumption, a
central trait
Compulsive buying is related to a consumer’s tendency to strongly
fantasize (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989), and to seek excitement (DeSarbo
and Edwards, 1996) in the buying process. Thus, compulsive buyers gain
internal benefits (i.e., values) from the acts of purchasing (Babin et al.,
1994; Faber and O’Guinn, 1992). Similarly, hedonistic shopping pro­
vides enjoyment and pleasure (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982) such
that consumers “[buy] so they can shop, not shopping so they can buy”
(Langrehr, 1991, p. 428). The increased state of arousal and emotions,
including the need to fantasize, boost positive feelings that only enhance
hedonistic shopping experiences, which compulsive buyers desire
(Kesari and Atulkar, 2016; Ridgway et al., 1990; Tarka and Harnish,
2020). The act of purchasing by itself produces hedonic value (Babin
et al., 1994) serving as a sort of ‘climax’ for the buying process (Fischer
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
and Arnold, 1990). Thus, purchases result from an irrational desire to
experience the pleasurable act of purchasing, rather than a real or util­
itarian need for the product (Horváth and Adigüzel, 2018; Parsad et al.,
2021). In other words, consumers who are strongly focused on adven­
ture, sensation seeking, emotional excitement, or the hedonistic goal of
shopping in itself, will more likely be compulsive buyers (Ali et al.,
2020). For compulsive buyers, hedonistic shopping experiences are a
remedy for negative feelings (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989). Indeed, in­
dividuals who enjoy shopping are more likely to spend more time
searching for products, while those who enjoy experiencing positive
feelings, respond better to pictures, ads and shopping stimulus (see
Solomon et al., 2012). Consequently, such individuals may be more
likely to engage in compulsive buying behavior.
4. Hypotheses
We posit that the following cardinal personality traits - extraversion,
neuroticism, and openness for new experiences – will induce compulsive
buying, a surface trait, through hedonistic shopping experiences, a
central trait, while the cardinal personality traits of conscientiousness
and agreeableness will have an inverse impact and reduce compulsive
buying, a surface trait, through hedonistic shopping experiences, a
central trait. This conceptualization is presented in Fig. 1. The line of
predicted directions of relationships in Fig. 1 represents a mediation
model in which the theoretical constructs appear in the following order:
Cardinal personality traits → central trait (mediator) → surface traits. As
such, the model seeks to answer two questions: 1) Do specific personality
traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, and openness for new experiences)
lead to increased hedonistic shopping experiences, which in turn stim­
ulates compulsive buying; and 2) Do personality traits such as consci­
entiousness and agreeableness reduce hedonistic shopping experiences,
which in turn discourages compulsive buying? By formulating such
questions, we extend the research by Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos
(2013b), who employed a different mediational mechanism (i.e.,
materialism) to explain the influence of personality traits on compulsive
buying via materialism, as well as a study by Mowen and Spears (1999),
who explored the impact of personality traits on compulsive buying via
consumers’ needs for arousal and materialistic orientation. A key dif­
ference between both studies and the present conceptualization lies in
the proposition of a new mediational construct (i.e., hedonistic shopping
experiences; Babin et al., 1994). Thus, in the current study, we refor­
mulate the examined relationships between personality traits and
compulsive buying. Based on this, the proposed hypotheses are stated as
follows:
H1. : a) The cardinal traits of neuroticism, extraversion, and openness
to experience have a positive effect on compulsive buying, a surface
trait.b) This effect is mediated through hedonistic shopping experiences,
a central trait.
H2. a) The cardinal traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness have
a negative effect on compulsive buying, a surface trait.b) This effect is
mediated through hedonistic shopping experiences, a central trait.
Although existing research has examined compulsive buying from
the perspective of gender differences as applied to: 1) materialistic
values; 2) financial perceptions and satisfaction (Dittmar, 2005; Hira
and Mugenda, 2000; Mueller et al., 2011); and 3) consumption habits,
needs, and preferences (see Catterall and Maclaran, 2002), little, if any,
research has explored other relevant areas such as hedonistic shopping
experiences. Clearly, gender differences are important in explaining
personality variables such as neuroticism, hedonistic shopping experi­
ences, and compulsive buying. For example, prior research indicated
that women score higher on neuroticism but lower on extraversion than
men (Lynn and Martin, 1997). Women also exhibit a stronger compul­
sive buying tendency than men (Faber and O’Guinn, 1992), and hold a
stronger orientation toward hedonistic shopping than men (Arnold and
P. Tarka et al.
Reynolds, 2003; Brusdal and Lavik, 2005; Davis et al., 2020). Women
buy compulsively because they tend to treat the buying process as a
means to regulate emotions (Dittmar et al., 2004) and also are more
susceptible to impulse buying (Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996;
Mueller et al., 2011).
Given that women score higher in neuroticism, and openness to
feelings1 but lower in extraversion than men, and due to the greater
susceptibility of women (vs. men) to buying as a way to regulate emo­
tions and obtain pleasure (the hedonistic aspect of consumption, see
Homer and Kahle, 1988), we expect that the relationships predicted in
H1 and H2 will vary in strength based on the consumer’s gender, such
that they will be stronger for women than for men. This is because
research has shown that gender moderates the effects of various con­
sumer characteristics (e.g., self-worth, self-construal) on consumer re­
sponses (e.g., Amos et al., 2014; Bakir et al., 2020); however, gender
effects impacting consumers’ personality traits have yet to be deter­
mined. Therefore, we predict:
H3. a. The positive effect of the cardinal traits of neuroticism, extra­
version, and openness to experience on compulsive buying, a surface
trait, will be stronger for women than for men.H3. b. The negative effect
of the cardinal traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness on
compulsive buying, a surface trait, will be stronger for women than for
men.
5. Methodology
5.1. US market as the research target area
For the study, we selected the US market because majority of the
prior research exploring consumers’ personality and dysfunctional -
compulsive buying - behaviors were mainly centered in European
countries with the exception of Mowen and Spears (1999). That is, prior
research examining personality and compulsive buying were conducted
in Spain (Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos 2013 a-b), Norway
(Andreassen et al., 2013; Olsen et al., 2016), Belgium (Miko­
lajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012), and Italy (Di Nicola et al., 2010). Other
studies were conducted in Asia (Cheema et al., 2014; Shahjehan et al.,
2012); however, the findings were nonsignificant. Moreover, Horváth
and Adigüzel (2018) explored the influence of consumers’ hedonistic
shopping motivations and compulsive buying among German and Dutch
consumers, while Guido et al. (2015; see also Guido, 2006) examined the
relationship between the Five-Factor Model of Personality and hedo­
nistic shopping values as measured in the context of consumers’ shop­
ping motives in Italy.
Lastly, in selecting the US market, we followed data by the World
Bank report (2019) indicating that the US represent one of the world’s
largest economies by nominal GDP (Gross Domestic Product), and after
China is dominant in purchasing power parity. Moreover, according to
the Human Development Index (United Nations Development Pro­
gramme, 2019), a measure reflecting achievement in key dimensions of
human development such as a long and healthy life, knowledge and
standard of living, the US is closely positioned to the wealthy economies
of the UK, Canada, and Belgium. Given this, and a very high rate of
compulsive buying prevalence among US consumers compared to other
consumer cultures (see Maraz et al., 2016), we selected the US for our
study.
1
Recently, Costa, Terracciano and McCrae (2001) have argued that although
women and men should not differ in terms on their openness to experience, it is
likely that women score higher on openness to feelings whereas men score
higher on openness to ideas.
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
5.2. Data collection and sample
An online survey containing items measuring the “Big Five” per­
sonality traits, hedonistic shopping experiences, and compulsive buying,
along with measures of selected demographic characteristics was
administered in the United States between September and October of
2019, using Amazon’s Mechanical (MTurk) platform. For data collec­
tion, we used the quota sampling and method based on an Internet-
administered questionnaire survey (Evans and Mathur, 2005). As some
authors argue, web-based surveys presently fare well against more
traditional means such as physical mail, or telephone (Cook et al., 2000;
Fricker and Schonlau, 2002; Cobanoglu et al., 2001, for a review). Note
also that over the past 25 years, the Internet has progressively become
part of how we live; it changed the way we communicate and exchange
knowledge. Consequently, the Internet has become a powerful tool for
conducting academic research (Callegaro et al., 2014). We chose MTurk
as the platform of communication with respondents due to its growing
popularity among consumer researchers (Buhrmester et al., 2016).
Recent studies also report (Behrend et al., 2011) that data collected
through MTurk service is as good as data collected by traditional survey
methods.
The administered questionnaire was completed by respondents
anonymously, while all procedures involving human participants were
in accordance with the ethical standards set forth by, and approved by
the IRB, the Commission of Research Ethics. Data was collected over
several different days (Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays)2 and times
(between 6:00–9:00 a.m. and 6:00–9:00 p.m.) throughout two weeks to
minimize the effect of possible bias related to the day and time of survey
administration, as well as to randomly balance the whole sample via the
Mturk platform. To increase confidence in the empirical results, re­
spondents were recruited according to following strategy: some were
asked to provide their answers before the afternoon (i.e., in the morn­
ing), while others were asked during evening hours. As such, we did not
contact with respondents at midday, as it is not a recommended option
(Faught et al., 2004).
The above strategy of recruiting respondents lends itself to obtaining
approximately equal proportions of different personalities. This is
because biological human traits theory suggests that some people are
more oriented toward mornings, while others toward evenings (Foster
and Kreitzman, 2005). As Díaz-Morales (2007) reported,
morning-oriented people are happier, and are more conscientious and
agreeable than evening-oriented people, who are more open, extra­
verted, anxious, and impulsive. Additionally, evening-oriented people
are more prone to anxiety, depression, and unhealthy behaviors like
disordered eating, Internet addiction, and impulsivity (see Moss, 2020).
In sum, we recruited 410 Mechanical Turk respondents. Of all whom
started responding to the questionnaire, with 99% of surveys were
completed. This high response rate may be due to fact that respondents
received a small monetary compensation ($2) for their participation.
Quality checks of data were conducted. First, we examined the time
taken to complete the survey (i.e., a minimum of 15 min as confirmed in
a pilot study3) to identify “speeders”. We also evaluated correct
completion of attention check questions. Finally, we identified outliers.
Based on these decision rules, we retained 363 observations in the final
sample. Thus, a general rate of collected responses was 89%. The mean
2
Report by Check Market Research (2021) agency shows that the best day to
send out online surveys is: Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. In contrast,
Mondays, Thursdays and Sundays are not recommended.
3
For the pilot study, we used a randomly selected class of students and
members of academic staff at a university. We evaluated qualitative elements of
the main survey such as time required to effectively complete survey, technical
navigation (i.e., effective passages between survey questions), and overall vi­
sual attractiveness of the questionnaire, including the level of understanding of
questions by respondents.
P. Tarka et al.
age of respondents in the sample was 38 years and 51% of the partici­
pants were women. Thirty-nine percent completed college and 51% had
household income of less than $50,000 (see Table 1). Note that, we
aimed to obtain a balanced number of women and men, because gender
was a key element of the planned moderation analysis of gender in our
conceptual model. Thus, we wished to avoid disproportionate sampling
that might overrepresent women or men in our sample.
5.3. Data analysis
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was applied as the analytical
strategy, while computations were performed in Mplus software. We
chose to conduct the analysis with SEM because it can estimate the
model utilizing all information in estimating parameters, as well as
providing direct statistical tests of mediation (Bollen, 1989). We eval­
uated both the direct and indirect effects of each personality trait on
compulsive buying using mediation analysis. First, we tested the general
configuration of model based only on single direct effects, where the
cardinal traits such as conscientiousness (CO), agreeableness (AG),
openness to experience (OP), extraversion (EX), and neuroticism (NE),
were used as independent variables, while a surface trait, compulsive
buying (CB) represented the dependent variable. After that, we tested
the same configuration assuming this time both direct and indirect re­
lationships. Thus, we extended this model with a central trait, hedonistic
shopping experiences (HSE), and conducted the mediation analysis. In
this regard, we followed the preconditions set by Baron and Kenny
(1986; see also Hoyle and Kenny, 1999). For mediation, we assumed the
relevance of the direct relationship of each Big Five trait (i.e., NE, EX,
OP, CO, and AG) with the outcome variable – compulsive buying (CB),
and hedonistic shopping experiences (HSE) as central trait, as well as the
significance of the relationship of HSE with CB. The applied SEM
allowed us to test hypotheses H1a-b and H2a-b.
Next, we tested the structural parameter coefficients across two
gender groups to diagnose the moderating effects of gender on each
path, as stated in hypothesis H3a, as well as whether they showed dif­
ferences within female and male consumers as posited in hypothesis H3b.
As such, first, we conducted an omnibus test in SEM, assuming the
equality of the overall structure of model between women and men (for
more methodological details, see Jose, 2013); thus, we constrained all
structural part parameters to be equal across both groups. The next step
was to remove all equality constraints and examine each of the con­
straints one step at a time. By fixing a parameter of a particular path to
be equal across groups, we applied the chi-square difference test to di­
agnose the fit of model. Next, the same model was compared to the
model with all paths being equal. Thus, we tested significance of each
path in the model independently. In addition, to examine the relation­
ships across female and male consumers, we applied a Wald test (see
Kwan and Chan, 2011).
Lastly, to enhance the interpretability of data, we mean-centered all
Table 1
Sample selected characteristics [N = 363].
Age Mean 38 (Min = 19, Max = 73)
Gender Men 49%
Women 51%
Total 100%
Education Less than high school 4%
High school degree 8%
Some college 27%
College degree 39%
Some graduate school 10%
Graduate degree 12%
Total 100%
Income of household $ 49,999 or less 51%
$50,000 – $74,999 26%
$75,000 and above 23%
Total 100%
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
the variables (Hayes, 2015), and for estimation purposes, we used the
maximum likelihood approach with 5.000 bootstrapped subsamples
(Bollen and Stine, 1990). This analytical procedure provides a higher
level of accuracy for estimates, compared to the more conservative Sobel
test, which has very low power (MacKinnon et al., 1995).
5.4. Measures
All measures used in the current study (see Appendix) were derived
from their original sources: ‘Big Five Inventory – GSOEP’ was developed
by Hahn et al. (2012), ‘Richmond Compulsive Buying Scale’ by Ridgway
et al. (2008), and ‘Hedonistic Shopping Experiences’ (HSE) scale by
Babin et al. (1994). The ‘Big Five Inventory – GSOEP’ (Hahn et al., 2012)
was used to assess the five types of personality traits. We opted for this
particular set of measures due to their significance in examining the
compulsive buying phenomenon, but also to maintain consistency with
prior studies (e.g., Donelly et al., 2012; Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos,
2013b), which evaluated personality traits rather than personality fac­
ets. The GSOEP measure consists of 15 items in total with three items per
trait. This measure generates good psychometric properties (Hahn et al.,
2012). Participants responded to a 7-point Likert-type scale to indicate
their level of disagreement or agreement with the statements, with
higher scores indicating greater agreement.
Compulsive buying (CB) was measured with the Richmond
Compulsive Buying Scale (Ridgway et al., 2008), also using a 7-point
Likert-type scale. The advantage of this scale, as explained in Tarka
(2020), over other measures (e.g., Clinical Screener; Faber and O’Guinn,
1992) is that it characterizes compulsive buying through the lens of
obsessive-compulsive elements in compulsive buying (i.e., preoccupa­
tion with buying) as well as impulse-control elements (i.e., the inability
to control the urge to buy; see Ridgway et al., 2008). Further, the scale
administration it not limited to individuals diagnosed with psychiatric
compulsive buying problems (Tarka and Harnish, 2020) and can be
applied to a general consumer population (Ridgway et al., 2008).
Hedonic shopping was measured by the Hedonistic Shopping Expe­
riences (HSE) scale by Babin et al. (1994). Respondents indicated their
(dis)agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale. This construct is partic­
ularly relevant when examining compulsive shoppers who focus on
shopping as a pursuit of hedonic fulfilment based on experiences (Babin
et al., 1994, p. 653; O’Guinn and Faber, 1989). In the present work, prior
to completing the HSE scale, we asked the respondents to tell us about
their general shopping experiences to emphasize the experiential aspect
of shopping. Because the original measure (Babin et al., 1994) refers to a
specific purchase experience at a given time and does not express an
overall purchase tendency, the items were slightly adjusted to capture
broader hedonistic shopping experiences rather than a particular
context or a specific shopping trip. These minor modifications were
conducted according to feedback derived from participants of the pilot
study.
6. Analysis and research findings
6.1. Evaluation of psychometric quality of measures
Evaluation of the data indicated good psychometric quality of the
measures including significant correlations within the particular theo­
retical constructs and the values of Composite and Alpha Reliability
coefficients, which exceeded the 0.70 cut-off level (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). The measures under study also indicated good convergent val­
idity by Average Variance Extracted, which exceeded the 0.50 cut-off
level (see Hair et al., 2010). Similarly, items measuring their respec­
tive theoretical construct exceeded the minimum required level of 0.50
(see Table 3) indicating 0.70 and higher for their factor loadings (for a
review of the methodological aspects, see Hair et al., 2010). Computed
correlations (see Table 2) and the Average Variance Extracted values
(see Table 3) indicate strong discriminant validity based on Kline’s
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

Table 2
Basic descriptive statistic and correlation of measures.
Measures Descriptive statistics

Correlations Mean Sta. Dev.

NE EX OP CO AG HSE CB

NE 1.00 18.085 2.070

EX .078 1.00 16.059 1.623
OP .132* .395** 1.00 15.725 3.789
CO -.397** .061 .102* 1.00 11.680 4.740
AG -.412** .096 .188** .371** 1.00 13.808 4.940
HSE .422** .447** .438** -.361** -.151* 1.00 36.061 12.679
CB .404** .287** .259** -.498** -.324** .504** 1.00 15.985 9.652

**. Correlation is significant at p < .01.

* at p < .05. Short-cuts: NE = Neuroticism, EX = Extraversion, OP = Openness, CO = Conscientiousness, AG = Agreeableness, HSE = Hedonistic Shopping Experiences,
CB = Compulsive Buying.

6.2. Results of structural equation modeling

Table 3
Measures as inherent parts of SEM model.
6.2.1. Evaluation of model fit according to selected data strategy
Parameters Factor loadings with standard errors CR/A/AVE coefficients In evaluating the goodness of fit of the SEM model, we used the
NE by Ne1 .569 HSE by .872 NE .820/.810/.611 recommended indices (see Hu and Bentler, 1999) such as RMSEA,
(.037) Hse1 (.011) EX (61%) SRMR, and CFI. Based on the literature guidelines of RMSEA cutoff
Ne2 .872 Hse2 .712 OP .817/.782/.610
values of 0.05 to .08, SRMR values of 0.08 or less and CFI values of 0.95
(.025) (.030) CO (61%)
Ne3 .865 Hse3 .886 AG .767/.714/.524 or higher (Hu and Bentler, 1999), the model testing the direct re­
(.022) (.012) HSE (52%) lationships of personality traits (e.g., neuroticism) with compulsive
EX by Ex1 .537 Hse4 .885 CB .859/.788/.670 buying (without the hedonistic shopping experiences construct as a
(.031) (.012) (67%) mediator) as well as the model with both direct and indirect relation­
Ex2 .942 Hse5 .837 .764/.720/.527
ships through the hedonistic shopping experiences exhibited satisfactory
(.018) (.017) (53%)
Ex3 .809 Hse6 .848 .963/.892/.726 fit. The results of the direct-effects model (Table 4) were: χ 2(184) =
(.022) (.014) (72%) 198.614, p = .097; RMSEA = 0.0192; CFI = 0.963; SRMR = 0.034,
OP by Op1 .762 Hse7 .859 .927/.911/.681
(.033) (.012) (68%)
whereas the results of the direct- and indirect-effects model were: χ 2(199)
Op2 .754 Hse8 .875 = 210.173, p = .135; RMSEA = 0.0176; CFI = 0.978; SRMR = 0.029. As
(.036) (.011) such, the second model with more complex configuration obtained a
Op3 .651 Hse9 .858
much better fit, compared to the model including only direct relation­
(.038) (.013)
CO by Co1 .804 Hse10 .873 ships (considering chi-square statistic and CFI index). More importantly,
(.019) (.012) the global fit of the mediational model did not get worse from the basic
Co2 .816 CB by Cb1 .821 solution (Δχ 2(15) = 11.559, p = .712; ΔCFI = 0.008, which is less than
(.016) (.018)
Co3 .836 Cb2 .881 0.01 cut-off level, see Chen, 2007).
(.013) (.012) Finally, in regard to the baseline SEM model, which allowed the
AG by Ag4 .542 Cb3 .901 examination of the moderation effects based on gender, the general test
(.041) (.012)
indicated significant differences at p = .006, with χ 2(398) = 472.233;
Ag5 .764 Cb4 .866
(.020) (.013) RMSEA = 0.0795; CFI = 0.932; SRMR = 0.052. These differences are
Ag6 .838 Cb5 .736 due to varying magnitudes of the respective paths of the structural
(.014) (.021) model; the strongest moderation effects between women and men were
Cb6 .728
observed (see Table 5) on the following paths of the tested model: OP →
(.019)
HSE; NE → HSE; EX → HSE; HSE → CB, and further on OP → CB; NE →
All factor loading parameters are significant at p < .01 Short cuts: CR = Com­ CB, and EX → CB. Lesser differences were observed in the paths: CO →
posite Reliability; A = Alpha Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Explained. HSE; AG → HSE; AG → CB; and CO → CB.
The other short-cuts, see Table 1.

6.2.2. Hedonistic shopping experiences as mediating variable

recommendations (2010) as well as Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) crite­
rion that Averaged Variance Extracted exceed the squared construct
correlations of all respective constructs.
Lastly, because data were collected from a single source at the same
time, the problem of common variance of applied measures may be
present, which would raise serious concerns about the validity of the
research results. Therefore, to check for common variance, we used
Harman’s single factor test (see Podsakoff et al., 2016). Results showed
that all items, as inherent parts of the conceptual model, can be cate­
gorized into seven separate latent variables, with the first variable
explaining 24% of the variance and that common bias was less than
50%. Consequently, common variance bias was not present in the data.
In the mediation analysis (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Hoyle and Kenny,
1999), we assumed that: (1) the predictor variables – personality traits
(NE = Neuroticism, EX = Extraversion, OP = Openness to experience,
CO = Conscientiousness, AG = Agreeableness) must be significantly
associated with the outcome variable – the compulsive buying (CB); (2)
the personality traits of NE, EX, OP, CO, AG should be associated with
the mediating variable – hedonistic shopping experiences (HSE); and (3)
the hedonistic shopping experiences (HSE) should be significantly
associated with compulsive buying (CB), when the NE, EX, OP, CO, AG
traits are included in the structural model. These conditions were met in
the analysis, because all correlations between the personality traits of
NE, EX, OP, CO, AG and hedonistic shopping experiences (HSE); hedo­
nistic shopping experiences (HSE) and compulsive buying (CB), and the
personality traits of NE, EX, OP, CO, AG and compulsive buying (CB)

8
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

Table 4
Evaluation of results of the structural model.
Structural parameters Direct effects

Path value (β) SE Critical value CI Structural parameters Path value (β) SE Critical value CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper

NE → CB .434*▪ .079 5.494 .278 .589 NE → HSE .597* .077 8.273 .366 .668
.368* .062 5.935 .246 .469 EX → HSE .483* .101 4.782 .285 .681
EX → CB .291*▪ .033 8.818 .226 .356 OP → HSE .511* .078 6.551 .358 .664
.255* .018 13.05 .200 .270 CO → HSE -.365* .096 − 3.802 -.553–.177
OP → CB .254**▪ .078 2.256 .106 .407 AG → HSE -.286* .063 − 4.540 -.409–.163
.213** .093 2.183 .118 .287 HSE → CB .716* .047 15.23 .623 .808
CO → CB -.490*▪ .121 − 4.050 -.727–.252
-.458* .131 − 3.496 -.715–.201
AG → CB -.396*▪ .081 − 4.889 -.555–.237
-.372* .094 − 3.957 -.556–.187
Mediation (indirect) effects Effect size of mediated relationship

Path value (β) SE Critical value CI Total effect SE Critical value Proportion of explained effects
Lower Upper
NE → HSE → CB .427* .062 7.335 .334 .578 .795* .067 13.28 Direct (46%), Indirect (54%)
EX → HSE → CB .345** .105 2.286 .139 .551 .601* .079 8.057 Direct (43%), Indirect (57%)
OP → HSE → CB .365* .078 4.679 .212 .518 .578* .087 7.115 Direct (37%), Indirect (63%)
CO → HSE → CB -.261* .058 − 4.512 -.375–.147 -.719* .091 − 7.901 Direct (64%), Indirect (36%)
AG → HSE → CB -.205* .027 − 7.593 -.257–.152 -.576* .068 − 8.471 Direct (65%), Indirect (35%)

▪ SEM model fit without (HSE) variable including direct relationships only: χ 2(184) = 198.614, p = .097; RMSEA = 0.0192; CFI = 0.963; SRMR = 0.034.
SEM model fit including both indirect and direct relationships based on (HSE) - mediating variable: χ 2(199) = 210.173, p = .135; RMSEA = 0.0176; CFI = 0.978; SRMR
= 0.029.
*. Parameter is significant at p < .01; at ** 0.05. CI = Confidence interval set at 95%. SE = Standard error.
Proportion of mediated (indirect) = (the estimate of indirect effect)/(total effect). Proportion of direct effect = (estimate of direct effect)/(total effect).

hedonistic shopping experiences on compulsive buying; EX → CB: β =

Table 5
0.291 at p < .01; with 0.036 for the effect of extraversion to hedonistic
Moderation analysis with gender in SEM model based on tested path.
shopping experiences on compulsive buying; OP → CB: β = 0.254, p <
Structural parameters Chi-Square Change .05, with 0.041 for the effect of openness to hedonistic shopping expe­
Δχ 2 Δdf p-value forχ 2 difference riences on compulsive buying; versus the following diagnosed re­
lationships: CO → CB: β = − 0.490, p < .01; with 0.032 for the effect of
NE → CB 13.374 5 .020
NE → HSE 19.858 5 .001
conscientiousness to hedonistic shopping experiences on compulsive
buying; AG → CB: β = − 0.396, p < .01; with − 0.024 for the effect of
EX → CB 12.029 5 .003
EX → HSE 18.899 5 .002 conscientiousness to hedonistic shopping experiences on compulsive
OP → CB 16.128 5 .005 buying. Thus, as expected, personality traits such as NE, EX, OP related
OP → HSE 20.282 5 .001 positively with the compulsive buying, in support of H1a, while the other
CO → CB 11.054 5 .040 traits denoted as CO, AG decreased compulsive buying, in support of
CO → HSE 13.032 5 .023 H2a. After we added the mediating variable, hedonistic shopping expe­
AG → CB 11.930 5 .036 riences (HSE), with the paths running from NE, EX, OP to compulsive
AG → HSE 12.795 5 .025 buying (CB) we observed (in comparison to model without HSE) their
HSE → CB 16.425 5 .005 significant and slightly lower values: NE → CB: β = .368 at p < .01; EX →
CB: β = 0.255 at p < .01; and OP → CB: β = 0.213 at p < .05. Concur­
Note: The chi-square values represent changes within two types of compared
models: Model with single path constrained vs. baseline model. The general fit of
rently, the paths running from the conscientiousness (CO) and agree­
baseline model (assuming both direct and indirect relationships based on HSE as ableness (AG) to compulsive buying were smaller and negative: CO →
mediating variable), examined in two groups, was: χ 2(398) Gender = 472.233, p = CB: β = − 0.458, p < .01; and AG → CB: β = − 0.372, p < .01.
.006; RMSEA = 0.0795; CFI = 0.932; SRMR = 0.052. Lastly, the mediated effects were significant, specifically, the indirect
effects of the cardinal personality traits (NE, EX, OP) via the central trait
of hedonistic shopping experiences were positive: NE → HSE → CB: β =
were significant (see Table 2). Note that the relationship of hedonistic
0.427, p < .01; EX → HSE → CB: β = 0.345, p < .05; and OP → HSE → CB:
shopping experiences (HSE) with compulsive buying (CB) was also
β = 0.365, p < .01, supporting H1b. On the other hand, the indirect ef­
significant, when NE, EX, OP, CO, AG traits were added to model
fects of the CO and AG traits on compulsive buying via hedonistic
(Table 4). In this regard, we tested whether the HSE construct can
shopping experiences, were negative: CO → HSE → CB: β = − 0.261, p <
effectively mediate (i.e., reduce the strength) the basic relationships
.01; and AG → HSE → CB: β = − 0.205, p < .01, supporting hypothesis
between the variables (i.e., NE, EX, OP, CO, AG and CB), when the
H2b. However, support for the hypothesis is conditional because the
mediating variable (HSE) is included in the model. However, to test this
explained proportions (see below) of the indirect effects (CO → HSE →
effect, we had to re-conduct the analysis and compare the respective
CB; AG → HSE → CB) to the total effect were lower compared to direct
structural regression coefficients by testing one model without the
effects.
mediator present (i.e., based solely on the direct relationships of the NE,
EX, OP, CO, AG traits with CB) and the second model which included all
6.2.3. Explained proportion of direct vs. indirect effects
direct and indirect relationships (Table 4).
To diagnose the proposed mediation effects in-depth, we calculated
As observed, the direct relationships between NE, EX, OP, CO, AG
the proportion of direct and indirect effects compared to the total effects,
personality traits with compulsive buying (CB) within the first model
following recommendation of Jose (2013), and Preacher and Kelley
(without mediation) yielded the following structural paths at the level
(2011). See Table 4. The proportions of the mediated effects of cardinal
of: NE → CB: β = .434, p < .01; with 0.066 for the effect of neuroticism to

9
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

personality traits on the surface trait of compulsive buying through the
central trait of hedonistic shopping experiences, were as follows: 63%
for openness to experience, 57% for extraversion, 54% for neuroticism;
compared to the proportion of 36% explained by conscientiousness and
35% by agreeableness. Conscientiousness accounted for almost 64%
while agreeableness accounted for 65% of the direct effect on compul­
sive buying. This indicates a stronger direct and inverse impact of
conscientiousness and agreeableness traits on compulsive buying, with
hedonic shopping experiences as a mediator being significantly weaker.
In contrast, hedonic shopping experience was generally a stronger
mediator of the other personality traits (i.e., openness to experience,
extraversion, neuroticism), while their direct effect on compulsive
buying was significantly weaker (see Table 4). It appears that in order to
stimulate compulsive buying these cardinal traits require some level of
emotional arousal via a central trait (i.e., hedonistic shopping experi­
ences). Conversely, the cardinal traits of conscientiousness and agree­
ableness are related to compulsive buying more directly and inversely,
without needing a higher level of emotional stimulation through hedo­
nistic shopping experiences. Specifically, consumers who are higher in
these traits are less likely to be prone to compulsive buying.
6.2.4. The role of gender: Moderation of direct, indirect relationships
Next, we evaluated the proposed moderating role of gender. Results
presented in Tables 5 and 6, indicate significant differences between
women and men, due to varying magnitudes of the respective paths of
the structural model. Specifically, the strongest differences in modera­
tion associated with direct effects of the tested model, were detected on
paths denoted as (see Table 5): neuroticism → hedonistic shopping ex­
periences; openness to experience → hedonistic shopping experiences;
extraversion → hedonistic shopping experiences, as well as hedonistic
shopping experiences → compulsive buying, and next (to a minor
extent) on: neuroticism → compulsive buying, extraversion →
compulsive buying; and openness to experience → compulsive buying.
Therefore, this result indicates a larger scale of differences in groups in
terms of circular (i.e., indirect relationships) that occurred in the model.
With regard to the mediational effects (see Table 6) testing the
relationships of the cardinal traits of neuroticism (NE), extraversion
(EX), openness to experience (OP) → hedonistic shopping experiences
(HSE), a central trait → compulsive buying (CB), a surface trait, indi­
cated that for women, the indirect effects of neuroticism, extraversion,
and openness to experience on compulsive buying via the hedonistic
shopping experiences were stronger (NE → HSE → CB: β = 0.488 at p <
.01; EX → HSE → CB: β = 0.395 at p < .01; OP → HSE → CB: β = 0.377 at
p < .01), compared to the same indirect effects for men (NE → HSE →
CB: β = 0.133 at p < .05; EX → HSE → CB: β = 0.187, p < .05; and OP →
HSE → CB: β = 0.163, p < .01). Next, the Wald test of equality of the
particular structural path coefficients (Kwan and Chan, 2011),
confirmed the observed differences in groups on the following re­
lationships: NE → HSE → CB; EX → HSE → CB; OP → HSE → CB, at the
level p < 05. These results provide support for H3a.
When examining the indirect effects of the other cardinal traits of
conscientiousness (CO) and agreeableness (AG) on hedonistic shopping
(HSE) and further on compulsive buying (CB), we again observed a
greater magnitude of the structural coefficient for women (CO → HSE →
CB: β = − 0.323 at p < .01; AG → HSE → CB: β = − 0.253, p < .01)
compared to men (CO → HSE → CB: β = − 0.131 at p < .01; AG → HSE →
CB: β = − 0.124, p < .05). These differences, according to the Wald test
(Kwan and Chan, 2011) are significant at p < .05 for both paths: CO →
HSE → CB and AG → HSE → CB. Therefore, the findings support H3b,
which predicted that the negative effect of conscientiousness and
agreeableness on compulsive buying will be stronger for female than
male consumers. Note however, that for men, the structural coefficients
were zero in the upper 95% confidence interval in the bootstrapping
estimation (see Table 6); consequently, we suggest that cardinal traits of
conscientiousness and agreeableness do not always help to reduce the
surface trait of compulsive buying for men. Moreover, when comparing
men to women, both traits play a direct, rather than an indirect, role in
reducing compulsive buying.
In sum, the cardinal personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion,
and openness to experience represent stronger drivers of the surface trait
of compulsive buying, via the central trait of hedonistic shopping ex­
periences for women than they do for men. At the same time,

Table 6
Structural parameters between NE, EX, OP, CO, AG personalities, hedonistic shopping experiences, and compulsive buying with gender.
Structural parameters Direct effects

Path value (β) SE Critical value CI Structural parameters Path value (β) SE Critical value CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper

NE → CB .451 W .088 5.125 .277 .624 NE → HSE .578 W .089 7.618 .502 .853
EX → CB .216 M .058 3.724 .102 .330 .287 M .087 3.299 .255 .598
.314 W .049 6.408 .217 .410 EX → HSE .448 W .091 6.022 .368 .727
.177 M .046 3.848 .126 .267 .270 M .055 4.909 .166 .573
OP → CB .291 W .089 3.271 .115 .466 OP → HSE .523 W .078 6.705 .369 .676
CO → CB .197 M .027 7.296 .143 .250 .351 M .081 4.333 .231 .550
-.477 W .101 − 4.721 -.676–.277 CO → HSE -.379 W .086 − 5.221 -.668–.329
-.386 M .089 − 4.337 -.561–.210 -.282 M .068 − 4.147 -.416–.147
AG → CB -.395 W .067 − 5.896 -.527–.262 AG → HSE -.352 W .032 − 11.00 -.415–.288
-.303 M .054 − 5.611 -.409–.196 -.266 M .046 − 5.783 -.286–.105
HSE → CB .721 W .107 6.738 .509 .872
.465 M .121 3.834 .267 .744
Mediation (indirect) effects Effect size of mediated relationship

Path value (β) SE Critical value CI Total effect SE Critical value

Lower Upper
W W
NE → HSE → CB .488 .078 6.256 .334 .641 .939 .087 10.79
.133**/M .048 2.389 .102 .167 .349 M .093 3.753
EX → HSE → CB .395 W .086 4.702 .229 .560 .709 W .082 8.646
.187 **/M .092 2.166 .096 .307 .364 M .096 3.792
OP → HSE → CB .377 W .029 13.00 .221 .532 .668 W .091 7.341
.163 M .027 6.037 .109 .216 .360 M .080 4.500
CO → HSE → CB -.323 W .025 − 12.92 -.470–.175 -.800 W .098 − 8.163
-.131 M .033 − 3.970 -.196–.045 -.517 M .092 − 5.620
AG → HSE → CB -.253 W .040 − 6.325 -.331–.174 -.648 W .068 − 9.529
-.124 **/M .056 − 2.315 -.215–.033 -.426 M .073 − 5.836

*. All parameters are significant at p < .01 except those denoted as ** at p < .05. CI = Confidence interval set at 95%. Short-cuts for groups: W = Women; M = Men.

10
P. Tarka et al.
conscientiousness and agreeableness, which decrease hedonistic shop­
ping experiences, represent stronger inhibitors of compulsive buying for
women than men. Thus, compulsive buying is more strongly affected by
the set of personality traits as neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to
experience, and is further enhanced via hedonistic shopping experi­
ences. Concerning men, the cardinal traits are more likely to impact
compulsive buying directly while, the central trait of hedonistic shop­
ping experiences and its related emotional background plays a marginal
role in shaping compulsive buying.
7. Summary of empirical research findings
The present research findings, based on a sample of US consumers,
using the hierarchical model of personality (Mowen, 2000), confirms an
influence of cardinal personality traits on a surface trait, compulsive
buying. The personality-compulsive buying relationships also are
mediated by a central trait, hedonistic shopping experiences. Further­
more, these relationships were compared across two demographic
groups, men and women. We found that the cardinal traits of consci­
entiousness (a tendency to act dutifully and to planned) and agree­
ableness (being cooperative) did not strongly affect hedonistic shopping
experiences. More importantly, conscientiousness and agreeableness
also may counteract the development or realization of compulsive
buying. In contrast, the cardinal traits of neuroticism, extraversion and
the openness to experience, significantly and positively affected both
theoretical constructs: they increased consumers’ hedonistic shopping
experiences and subsequent compulsive buying. Thus, it appears that
self-oriented endeavors, which are enhanced by positive emotions
associated with hedonistic acts, over time may lead to excessive buying
and compulsive buying tendencies. In addition, the effects of cardinal
traits on compulsive buying are stronger for women than for men.
Because of this, women who exhibit stronger level of neuroticism, ex­
traversion, and openness to experience are inclined to compulsive
buying. In contrast, women who exhibit higher levels of conscientious­
ness and agreeableness may be less likely to desire hedonic shopping
experiences and are more able to resist compulsive buying.
For men, compulsive buying was less strongly affected by the car­
dinal traits. This may be due to gender norms associated with shopping.
That is, given that men are less likely to shop or find shopping enjoyable
(Hira and Mugenda, 2000), it is not surprising that compulsive buying
was not as strongly impacted by cardinal traits for men. Additionally,
the items used to assess compulsive buying reflect shopping behaviors,
which men may not endorse due to gender role norms. Because of this,
future research should examine how personality traits affect collecting,
an activity more popular for men than women (Olmstead, 1991), but
which is linked to purchasing behaviors similar to those of compulsive
buyers (Sherrell et al., 1991)
8. Discussion of study findings and implications
8.1. Directional effects: personality-compulsive buying
Although personality represents an important determinant of con­
sumer purchases and decision making processes (e.g., Olsen et al., 2016;
Mowen, 2000; Haugtvedt et al., 1992; Kassarjian, 1971), the role of
personality traits in explaining compulsive buying behavior (Faber and
O’Guinn, 1992; Hassay and Smith, 1998; Ridgway et al., 2008), spe­
cifically being enhanced via hedonistic shopping experiences (see Alba
and Williams, 2013; Babin et al., 1994; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982;
Kesari and Atulkar, 2016) has remained insufficiently explored. The
present research, by using a hierarchical model of personality (Mowen,
2000) answers this call by employing “Big Five-Factors” as cardinal
traits to determine their unique associations with a surface trait,
compulsive buying, via a central trait, hedonistic shopping experiences;
thus, all traits are integrated within the single conceptual study frame­
work. In doing so, we extend the prior lines of research (Andreassen
11
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
et al., 2013; Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al., 2012; Otero-Lopez and Vil­
lardefrancos, 2013a; Mueller et al., 2010) on a direct relationship of
various cardinal personality traits on compulsive buying, a surface trait.
The European studies (e.g., Andreassen et al., 2013; Otero-Lopez and
Villardefrancos 2013a), however, tested the personality-compulsive
buying relationship in a clinical- or community-based sample which
comprised mostly of women or students, showing that compulsive
buying is positively associated with neuroticism, and negatively with
agreeableness and conscientiousness. Other studies conducted in Asia
(see Cheema et al., 2014; Shahjehan et al., 2012) did not confirm these
findings.
Interestingly, by reviewing the above research, we find there exists
inconclusive evidence of the influence of two personality types - open­
ness to experience and extraversion. For example, Balabanis (2001) and
Andreassen et al. (2013), in a study conducted among university stu­
dents, showed that extraversion was positively associated with
compulsive buying, while Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al. (2012) using a
sample consisting primarily of female participants from Belgium,
showed extraversion was negatively related to compulsive buying. Also,
Mikolajczak-Degrauwe et al. (2012) found extraversion was negatively
related to compulsive buying, while Andreassen et al. (2013) found this
relationship to be positive. Given this inconsistency, the present work
clarifies the personality-compulsive buying relationship, first by pre­
senting a stronger theoretical rationale and adaptation of Mowen’s hi­
erarchical model of personality (2000), and second, by using a sampling
strategy that afforded a more balanced and diversified structure of
consumers in the US, which previous studies seemed to lack.
8.2. Mediational effects comprising hedonistic shopping experiences
The current study also extends the line of two studies: one by Mowen
and Spears (1999) conducted in the US among college students, which
examined the influence of personality traits on compulsive buying via
the consumers’ needs for arousal and for materialism; and another study
by Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos (2013b) conducted in Spain
(comprising mostly of women), that employed a mediational mechanism
to diagnose relationships of personality traits with compulsive buying
via materialism. Mowen and Spears (1999) confirmed that instability (i.
e., construct measured alternatively as neuroticism) is positively asso­
ciated with materialism and the ensuing compulsive buying problems.
Furthermore, extraversion and openness to experience traits were found
to be positively associated with consumers’ arousal, and materialism,
leading to compulsive buying. In contrast, conscientiousness was
negatively related to arousal, materialism, and compulsive buying;
whereas, agreeableness was found to be a dubious trait for the examined
relationships.
The second Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos (2013b) study also
confirmed that neuroticism exerts both positive direct and indirect in­
fluences on compulsive buying. Materialism was found to successfully
mediate the influence of extraversion and openness to experience on
compulsive buying (Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013b) where
extraversion showed a positive association with materialism, while
openness to experience presented a negative relationship with materi­
alism which, in turn, was associated with higher compulsive buying
propensity. Conscientiousness was the only exception to the mediating
model, and presented a direct and negative relation with compulsive
buying, while agreeableness revealed a negative relationship with
materialism (Otero-Lopez and Villardefrancos, 2013b).
Our research advances both works not only by reformulating the
theoretical context of the examined relationships, specifically by
replacing materialism and consumers’ needs with hedonistic shopping
experiences. Additionally, the current research yields a proportionally
gender-balanced sample of US consumers. By adding hedonistic shop­
ping experiences to the postulated relationships in our conceptual
model, we extend the prior line of research by Guido (2006) and Guido
et al. (2015) who focused on explaining direct correlations, which
P. Tarka et al.
occurred between the “Big Five Factors” and consumers’ hedonistic
shopping values and their shopping motives. Moreover, we extended the
line of research conducted by Ali et al. (2020) and Horvath and Adgüzel
(2018), studies that used a women-based sample, but explored only
direct structural relationships without focusing on mediational aspects
between consumers’ hedonistic shopping motivation and their
compulsive buying. In the current research, we accentuated the role of
personal hedonistic shopping experiences (Babin et al., 1994), as a
theoretical mediator of personality-compulsive buying relationships,
while the studies conducted by Ali et al. (2020) and Horvath and Adg­
üzel (2018) largely aimed to describe social aspects of hedonistic
shopping motivations (e.g., idea shopping, social shopping, and role
play; see Arnold and Reynolds, 2003) treating this construct as the direct
driving force of compulsive buying behavior.
Most of the prior research (except the Spanish study by Otero-Lopez
and Villardefrancos 2013; and the US study of college students by
Mowen and Spears, 1999) focused on testing the relationships among
cardinal, central and surface constructs on the ground of direct re­
lationships, Given this, we developed a more complete model and pro­
vided new empirical evidence of the theoretical mediational mechanism
underlying the effects of cardinal traits on compulsive buying via
hedonistic consumption (Babin et al., 1994). Our findings also confirm
the usefulness of a hierarchical model of personality (Mowen, 2000) to
understand complex consumer behavior, as well as providing supportive
and more conclusive evidence for the contention (e.g., Nettle, 2006) that
extreme scores associated with the “Big Five Factors” represent “at-risk”
factors that bear responsibility for developing compulsive buying. That
is, neuroticism represents a very strong - and one of the unquestionable -
driver of hedonistic shopping experiences and compulsive buying
because it is related to emotional survival (i.e., the reaction of in­
dividuals to physical or psychological threats).
Relatedly, extraversion relates to compulsive buying behavior,
because it reflects a need for social and physical stimulation, which can
be found in the process of buying. As found in consumer theory (Solo­
mon et al., 2012), extraverts like to experience emotions when
consuming products, and enjoy experiencing emotions during shopping
trips. Similarly, openness to experience represents an intrinsic need for
novelty-seeking such as in browsing products in a shopping center
(Black et al., 2012). In contrast, conscientiousness and agreeableness
seem to indicate a resistance to compulsive buying. This appears to be
due to their opposite characteristics compared to compulsive buying,
which is typically characterized by irrationality, irresponsibility and
opposition (Tomer, 2001). Indeed, supporters of responsibility, preci­
sion and self-discipline are exposing characteristic traits, that prevent
them to engage in excessive, irrational buying behavior.
In line with all above research findings, we can suggest that
compulsive buying behavior must be considered a maladaptive expres­
sion of personality, caused by the excessive influence of neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness to experience. As O’Guinn and Faber (1989)
explained, particular types of personalities correspond with certain
characteristics of compulsive buyers; among these, a high level of anx­
iety and depression, which are reflected in neuroticism, and low
self-esteem, which is reflected in extraversion, appear to make
compulsive buyers vulnerable to harmful behaviors that are
self-destructive. Additionally, these harmful behaviors are enhanced by
hedonistic shopping experiences (Babin et al., 1994).
8.3. Gender differences according to observed moderation effects
Another contribution of the current study is in identifying gender as a
moderating variable of the examined relationships. In particular, we
extend research that previously found gender differences apply to
materialistic values, financial perceptions and satisfaction in the context
of compulsive buying behavior (e.g., Dittmar, 2005; Hira and Mugenda,
2000; Mueller et al., 2011). Indeed, women exhibit a higher level of
compulsiveness in the course of buying as compared to men (Dittmar,
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
2005; Faber and O’Guinn, 1992) and have a greater level of suscepti­
bility to buy impulsively in order to regulate emotions and moods (Davis
et al., 2020; Dittmar et al., 2004; Baumeister and Heatherton, 1996), as
well as exhibit a stronger orientation toward hedonistic shopping than
men (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). In this context, hedonistic shopping
experiences, as examined in our mediational model, appear to play an
essential role. The pleasure and joy experienced in shopping more
strongly impacts women than men, with the personality traits of
neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience having a weaker
impact on men. As noted earlier, this finding may be due to gender
norms that consider shopping as an activity in which women, but not
men, should enjoy and participate. Regardless of gender norms, there
exists a particular set of common personality traits (i.e., neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness to experience), which encourage hedonistic
shopping experiences, especially for women, resulting in compulsive
buying. In this context, hedonistic shopping experiences play an
enhancing and stimulating role in women’s compulsive buying
behavior. Thus, women and men differ not only by their personalities,
but also by different shopping orientations and buying behaviors. As a
recent review of gender differences shows (Meyers-Levy and Loken,
2015), women are less cautious than men when shopping, and are more
responsive and sensitive to communication processes and market mes­
sages. This, in turn, makes them more prone to hedonistic shopping
experiences and compulsive buying. The current research extends this
knowledge by testing the personality-hedonistic shopping
experiences-compulsive buying relationship, and accentuating the role
of a mediational mechanism (i.e., consumers’ hedonistic shopping
experiences).
8.4. The US market and extension of studies on Western consumer culture
The current study was conducted in the US market, one of the
world’s wealthiest economies, possessing high levels of purchasing
power parity (World Bank report, 2019) and reflecting a high level of
human development (e.g., long and healthy life, high standard of living).
This prosperity paradoxically leads to higher prevalence rates of
compulsive buying among US consumers as compared to other con­
sumer cultures (see Maraz et al., 2016). Given this, by conducting
research in the American society, we can gain better insight into the
driving factors behind compulsive buying and hedonistic consumption.
Additionally, we extend the findings from studies examining the direct
personality-compulsive buying relationship and the hedonistic shopping
motivation-compulsive buying relationship in Europe.
9. Marketing and public policy implications
Results of the current research suggest that compulsive buyers have a
great need for hedonic stimulation, consequently helping them to avoid
such stimulation may prevent them from overspending. As an example,
it may be beneficial for compulsive buyers to engage in ‘mindfulness
interventions’ (see Creswell, 2017), when experiencing or feeling the
need for greater hedonic stimulation. Note that the goal of ’mindfulness
interventions’, in itself, is to foster a greater awareness of the present
moment in order to cope with the stressors of daily life (Creswell, 2017).
Research has demonstrated that mindfulness interventions result in a
broad range of positive personal effects, including better
mental-physical health (Ludwig and Kabat-Zinn, 2008) as well as af­
fective, cognitive and interpersonal outcomes (Brown et al., 2015). As
such, mindfulness aids an individual in assimilating an attitude of
openness toward one’s experience and related facts about one’s own
personal life and behavior, even though if that experience or facts may
be one that cause anxiety, depression, or negative feelings (Creswell,
2017).
As retailers (e.g., Macy’s See Your Space IRL) begin to embrace more
Virtual Reality (VR) as a means to engage their customers, compulsive
buyers may be more attracted to, and therefore, more susceptible to
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

overspending in such shopping experiences. The reason for this is that
participants find VR shopping experiences to be highly enjoyable (Lee
and Chung, 2008; Jin, 2009) and our results suggest that compulsive
buying is enhanced via hedonistic shopping experiences. However,
Peukert et al. (2019) found that adoption of VR shopping is tempered by
how realistic the experience is. Thus, policy makers and retailers have
the opportunity to set limits for how realistic VR shopping will be for
consumers and to develop screeners much like those used by alcohol
purveyors that ask visitors to the website questions about their age to
determine whether to provide access to the site. With regard to
compulsive buying, instead of asking for one’s age, visitors to the VR
website could be asked to complete the Richmond Compulsive Buying
Scale (Ridgway et al., 2008) and those who score 25 or more, and are
thus identified as compulsive buyers be transferred to the retailer’s
regular website or, at minimum, presented with a warning message that
entering the VR website may produce unrestrained purchasing.
10. Study limitations and future research projects
The current study has a few limitations. First, we did not focus on a
specific retailing context; hence it is worth exploring whether the
prevalence of compulsive buying, along with the effect of personality on
compulsive buying significantly differs by shopping channel, the sales
strategy (either online or offline), or the type of product offered. Second,
data gathered in our study were based exclusively on self-reports, which
may result in underreporting of dark-side behaviors such as compulsive
buying. As such, supplementary methods of data collection, such as
tracking on actual behavior, are still needed. Third, the current data
provide a snapshot of the compulsive buying phenomenon at one point
in time. Thus, it is also recommended to explore the influences of per­
sonality traits on hedonistic shopping experiences and related compul­
sive buying over time within a longitudinal framework. Fourth,
although the current study focuses on the development of a mediational
model by examining hedonistic shopping experiences, following a
similar line of conceptualization as proposed by Otero-Lopez and Vil­
lardefrancos (2013b) using a single mediator (materialism), other
studies might examine the influence of utilitarian shopping as potential
mediator. However, because utilitarianism in itself is not related to
compulsive buying (Müller et al., 2015), its mediational role may be
suspect. Lastly, because compulsive buying is a global phenomenon,
affecting consumers in the Western and in developing economies alike
(e.g., Horvath and Adgüzel 2018), further exploration of the model re­
lationships should be made using samples from other cultures (e.g.,
Poland; see Tarka, 2020), leading to a more advanced understanding of
the relationship of personality with hedonistic consumption and
compulsive buying in global and cross-cultural contexts.
Authors’ statement and funding information
1.There is no conflict of interest
2.The research from this work was supported by Kosciuszko
Foundation
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Kosciuszko Foundation, Ex­
change Program 2019.

Appendix

I see myself as someone who: Big Five Inventory, GSOEP (Hahn et al., 2012)
… does a thorough job
..is communicative, talkative
..is sometimes somewhat rude to others
… is original, comes up with new ideas
… worries a lot
..has a forgiving nature
… tends to be lazy
… is outgoing, sociable
… values artistic experiences
… gets nervous easily
… does things effectively and efficiently
… is reserved
… is considerate and kind to others
… has an active imagination
… is relaxed, handles stress well
I think that: Compulsive Buying Scale, RCBS (Ridgway et al., 2008)
… I’m an impulse purchaser
… my closet, has unopened shopping bags in it
… buy things I don’t need
… much of my life centers around buying things
… buy things I did not plan to buy
… others might consider me a ‘shopaholic’
Tell us yet about your general shopping experience: Hedonistic Shopping Experiences Scale, HSE (Babin et al., 1994)
… for me, shopping is truly a joy
… I shop not because I have to, but because I want to … shopping feels like an escape
… compared to other things I could do, the time spent shopping is truly enjoyable
… when shopping, I enjoy being immersed in exciting new products
… I enjoy shopping for its own sake, not just for the items I may purchase
… I have a good time shopping because I am able to act on the "spur-of-the-moment”
… when shopping, I feel the excitement of the hunt
… while shopping, I am able to forget my problems
… while shopping, I feel a sense of adventure

13
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

References and Assessment, Personality Measurement and Testing, 2. SAGE Publications,

Thousand Oaks, pp. 179–198.
Costa, P.T., Terracciano, A., McCrae, R.R., 2001. Gender differences in personality traits
Alba, J.W., Williams, E.F., 2013. Pleasure principles: a review of research on hedonic
across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81, 322–331.
consumption. J. Consum. Psychol. 23 (1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 1992. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 13
jcps.2012.07.003.
(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I.
Ali, A., Li, C., Hussain, A. Bakhtawar, 2020. Hedonic shopping motivations and
Creswell, J.D., 2017. Mindfulness interventions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 668, 491–516.
obsessive-compulsive buying on the Internet. online first Global Bus. Rev. online first
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139/.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150920937535.
Darrat, A.A., Darrat, M.A., Amyx, D., 2016. How impulsive buying influences compulsive
Allport, G.W., 1961. Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Reinhart & Winston,
buying: the central role of consumer anxiety and escapism. J. Retailing Consum.
Oxford.
Serv. 31, 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.009.
Amos, C., Holmes, G.R., Keneson, W.C., 2014. A meta-analysis of consumer impulse
Das, G., Varshneya, G., 2017. Consumer emotions: determinants and outcomes in a
buying. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21, 86–97 org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.004.
shopping mall. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 38, 177–185.
Andreassen, C.S., Griffiths, M.D., Gjertsen, S.R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., Pallesen, S.,
Davis, R., Lang, B., Diego, J.S., 2020. How gender affects the relationship between
2013. The relationship between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of
hedonic shopping motivation and purchase intentions? J. Consum. Behav. 13 (1),
personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions 2 (2), 90–99, 10.1556/jba.2.2013.003.
18–30.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retailing 79 (2),
De Witt Huberts, J., Evers, C., de Ridder, D., 2014. Thinking before sinning: reasoning
77–95.
processes in hedonic consumption. Front. Psychol. 5 (1268) https://doi.org/
Ashton, M.C., Lee, K., Paunonen, S.V., 2002. What is the central feature of extraversion?
10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01268.
Social attention versus reward sensitivity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 245–252.
DeSarbo, W.S., Edwards, E.A., 1996. Typologies of compulsive buying behavior: a
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.245.
constrained clusterwise regression approach. J. Consum. Psychol. 5 (3), 231–262.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
Di Nicola, M., Tedeschi, D., Mazza, M., Martinotti, G., Harnic, D., Catalano, V.,
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656. https://doi.org/
Bruschi, A., Pozzi, G., Bria, P., Janiri, L., 2010. Behavioural addictions in bipolar
10.1086/209376.
disorder patients: role of impulsivity and personality dimensions. J. Affect. Disord.
Bakir, A., Gentina, E., de Araujo Gil, L., 2020. What shapes adolescents’ attitudes toward
125 (1–3), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2009.12.016.
luxury brands? The role of self-worth, self-construal, gender, and national culture.
Díaz-Morales, J.F., 2007. Morning and evening-types: exploring their personality styles.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 57 (November) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Pers. Indiv. Differ. 43 (4), 769–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.002.
jretconser.2020.102208.
Dittmar, H., 2005. Compulsive buying: a growing concern? An examination of gender,
Balabanis, G., 2001. The relationship between lottery ticket and scratch-card buying
age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. Br. J. Psychol. 96,
behavior, personality and other compulsive behaviors. Journal of Consumer
467–491 org/10.1348/000712605X53533.
Behavior 2 (1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102208.
Dittmar, H., Long, K., Meek, R., 2004. Buying on the internet: gender differences in
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
online and conventional buying motivations. Sex. Roles 50, 423–444.
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers.
Donelly, G., Iyer, R., Howell, R.T., 2012. The big five personality traits, material values,
Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182.
and financial well-being of self-described money managers. J. Econ. Psychol. 33,
Baumeister, R.F., 2002. Yielding to temptation: self-control failure, impulsive
1129–1142. /10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.001.
purchasing, and consumer behavior. J. Consum. Res. 28, 670–676 org/10.1086/
Edwards, E.A., 1993. Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying
338209.
behavior. Financ. Counsel. Plann. 4 (1), 67–84.
Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., 1996. Self-regulation failure: an overview. Psychol.
Evans, J.R., Mathur, A., 2005. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 15 (2), 195–219.
Inq. 7 (1), 1–15, 10.1207/s15327965pli0701_1.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510590360.
Behrend, T.S., Sharek, D.J., Meade, A.W., Wiebe, E.N., 2011. The viability of
Eysenck, H.J., Eysenck, M.W., 1985. Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural
crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav. Res. Methods 43, 800–813 org/10.3758/
Science Approach. Plenum Press, New York.
s13428-011-0081-0.
Faber, R.J., O’Guinn, T.C., 1992. A clinical screener for compulsive buying. J. Consum.
Black, D.W., Shaw, M., McCormick, B., Bayless, J.D., Allen, J., 2012. Neuropsychological
Res. 19 (3), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1086/209315.
performance, impulsivity, ADHD symptoms, and novelty seeking in compulsive
Faught, K.S., Whitten, G.D., Green, K.W., 2004. Doing surveys research on the Internet:
buying disorder. Psychiatr. Res. 200, 581–587 org/10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.003.
yes, timing does matter. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 44 (3), 26–34.
Bollen, K.A., Stine, R., 1990. Direct and indirect effects: classical and bootstrap estimates
Fenton-O’Creevy, M., Dibb, S., Furnham, A., 2018. Antecedents and consequences of
of variability. Socio. Methodol. 20, 115–140 org/10.2307/271084.
chronic impulsive buying: can impulsive buying be understood as dysfunctional self-
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley, New York.
regulation? Psychol. Market. 35 (3), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21078.
Boujbel, L., d’Astous, A., 2015. Exploring the feelings and thoughts that accompany the
Fischer, E., Arnold, S.J., 1990. More than a labor of love: gender roles and Christmas
experience of consumption desires. Psychol. Market. 32 (2), 219–231. https://doi.
shopping. J. Consum. Res. 17 (December), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1086/
org/10.1002/mar.20774.
208561.
Brown, K.W., Creswell, J.D., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), 2015. Handbook of Mindfulness: Theory,
Forgas, J.P., Ciarrochi, J., 2001. On being happy and possessive: the interactive effects of
Research, and Practice. Guilford Publishing.
mood and personality on consumer judgements. Psychol. Market. 18 (3), 239–260.
Brusdal, R., Lavik, R., 2005. Young hedonists and rational grown-ups? A closer look at
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equations models with
consumer identities in Norway. World Leisure Journal 47 (4), 12–22. https://doi.
unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18, 39–50 org/
org/10.1080/04419057.2005.9674412.
10.1177/002224378101800104.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., Gosling, S.D., 2016. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new
Foster, R.G., Kreitzman, L., 2005. Rhythms of Life: the Biological Clocks that Control the
source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? In: Kazdin, A.E. (Ed.), Methodological
Daily Lives of Every Living Thing. Profile Books, London.
Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research. American Psychological Association,
Fricker, R.D., Schonlau, M., 2002. Advantages and disadvantages of internet research
pp. 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009.
surveys: evidence from the literature. Field Methods 14 (4), 347–367.
Callegaro, M., Baker, R., Bethlehem, J., Goritz, A.S., Krosnick, J.A., Lavrakas, P.J., 2014.
Goldsmith, R., 2016. The Big Five, happiness and shopping. J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, West
31 (July), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.007.
Sussex.
Graziano, W.G., Tobin, R.M., 2009. Agreeableness. In: Leary, M.R., Hoyle, R.H. (Eds.),
Catterall, M., Maclaran, P., 2002. Gender perspectives in consumer behaviour: an
Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. Guilford Press, New York,
overview and future directions. Market. Rev. 2, 405–425.
NY, pp. 46–61.
Cheema, F., Phanwar, I., Zia, S., Rasool, M., 2014. Exploring the personality traits as
Guido, G., 2006. Shopping motives, big five factor, and the hedonic/utilitarian shopping
cause of compulsive buying behavior. J. Bus. Strat. 8 (2), 19–29.
values: an integration and factorial study. Innovat. Market. 2 (2), 57–67.
Chen, F.F., 2007. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
Guido, G., Peluso, A.M., Capestro, M., Miglietta, M., 2015. An Italian version of the 10-
invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 14 (3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/
item Big Five Inventory: an application to hedonic and utilitarian shopping values.
10705510701301834.
Pers. Indiv. Differ. 76, 135–140. .org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.053.
Chien-Huang, L., Hung-Chou, L., 2012. Effects of mood states on variety seeking: the
Hahn, E., Gottschling, J., Spinath, F.M., 2012. Short measurements of personality:
moderating roles of personality. Psychol. Market. 29 (3), 157–166. https://doi.org/
validity and reliability of the GSOEP big five (BFI-S). J. Res. Pers. 46, 355–359 org/
10.1002/mar.20512.
10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.008.
Chugani, S., Irwin, J.R., 2020. All eyes on you: the social audience and hedonic
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
adaptation. Psychol. Market. 37 (11), 1554–1570. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Pearson, London.
mar.21401.
Harnish, R.J., Bridges, K.R., Nataraajan, R., Gump, J.T., Carson, A.E., 2018. The impact
Claes, L., Müller, A., 2017. Resisting temptation: is compulsive buying an expression of
of money attitudes and global life satisfaction on the maladaptive pursuit of
personality deficits? Current Addiction Reports 4, 237–245 org/10.1007/s40429-
consumption. Psychol. Market. 35 (3), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/
017-0152-0.
mar.21079.
Cobanoglu, C., Warde, B., Moreo, P.J., 2001. A comparison of mail, fax, and web-based
Harnish, R.J., Roster, C.A., 2019. The tripartite model of aberrant purchasing: a theory to
survey methods. Int. J. Mark. Res. 43 (4), 441–452.
explain the maladaptive pursuit of consumption. Psychol. Market. 36 (5), 417–430.
Coley, A., Burgess, B., 2003. Gender differences in cognitive and affective impulse
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21159.
buying. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 7, 282–295.
Hassay, D.N., Smith, M.C., 1998. Compulsive buying: an examination of the consumption
Cook, C., Heath, F., Thompson, R.L., 2000. A meta-analysis of response rate in web- or
motive. Psychol. Market. 13 (8), 741–752.
internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60 (6), 821–836.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., 2008. The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R). In:
Boyle, G.J., Matthews, G., Saklofske, D.H. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory

14
P. Tarka et al.
Haugtvedt, C.P., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., 1992. Need for cognition and advertising:
understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. J. Consum.
Psychol. 7 (3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80038-1.
Hayes, A.F., 2015. An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behav.
Res. 50 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.962683.
Heathwood, C., 2006. Desire satisfactionism and hedonism. Phil. Stud. 128 (3), 539–563.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-7817-y.
Hira, T.K., Mugenda, O.M., 2000. Gender differences in financial perceptions, behaviors
and satisfaction. J. Financ. Plann. 13 (2), 86–92.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. J. Market. 46 (3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298204600314.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140. https://doi.
org/10.1086/208906.
Homer, P.M., Kahle, L.R., 1988. A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior
hierarchy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54 (4), 638–646.
Horváth, C., Adigüzel, F., 2018. Shopping enjoyment to the extreme: hedonic shopping
motivations and compulsive buying in developed and emerging markets. J. Bus. Res.
86, 200–310. /10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.013.
Hoyle, R.H., Kenny, D.A., 1999. Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation.
In: Hoyle, R. (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),
1–55.
Jensen-Campbell, L.A., Graziano, W.G., 2001. Agreeableness as a moderator of
interpersonal conflict. J. Pers. 69 (2), 323–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
6494.00148.
Jin, S.A.A., 2009. The roles of modality richness and involvement in shopping behavior
in 3D virtual stores. J. Interact. Market. 23 (3), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2009.04.005.
Jose, P.E., 2013. Doing Statistical Mediation and Moderation. Guilford Press, New York.
Kassarjian, H.H., 1971. Personality and consumer behavior: a review. J. Market. Res. 8
(11), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377100800401.
Kesari, B., Atulkar, S., 2016. Satisfaction of mall shoppers: a study on perceived
utilitarian and hedonic shopping values. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 31, 22–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.005.
Kronrod, A., Danziger, S., 2013. We will rock you! the use and effect of figurative
language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. J. Consum.
Res. 40 (4), 726–739. https://doi.org/10.1086/671998.
Ksendzova, M., Iyer, R., Hill, G., Wojcik, S.P., Howell, R.T., 2015. The portrait of a
hedonist: the personality and ethics behind the value and maladaptive pursuit of
pleasure. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 79, 68–74.
Kwak, H., Zinkhan, G.M., DeLorme, D.E., Larsen, T., 2006. Revisiting normative
influences on impulsive buying behavior and an extension to compulsive buying
behavior: a case from South Korea. J. Int. Consum. Market. 18 (3), 57–80. https://
doi.org/10.1300/J046v18n03_04.
Kwan, J.L.Y., Chan, W., 2011. Comparing standardized coefficients in structural equation
modeling: a model reparametrization approach. Behavioral Research 43 (3),
730–745. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0088-6.
Langrehr, F.W., 1991. Retail shopping mall semiotics and hedonic consumption. In:
Holman, Rebecca H., Solomon, Michael R. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research,
18. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 428–433.
Lawson, R., 2001. Self-regulation of unwanted consumption. Psychol. Market. 18 (4),
317–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1010.
Lee, D.-G., Kelly, K.R., Edwards, J.K., 2006. A closer look at the relationships among trait
procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 40 (1),
27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.010.
Lee, K.C., Chung, N., 2008. Empirical analysis of consumer reaction to the virtual reality
shopping mall. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24 (1), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2007.01.018.
Ludwig, D.S., Kabat-Zinn, J., 2008. Mindfulness in medicine. Journal of the American
Medical Association 300 (11), 1350–1352. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jama.300.11.1350.
Lynn, R., Martin, T., 1997. Gender differences in extraversion, neuroticism, and
psychoticism in 37 nations. J. Soc. Psychol. 137, 369–373.
MacKinnon, D.P., Warsi, G., Dwyer, J.H., 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect
measures. Multivariate Behav. Res. 30, 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327906mbr3001_3.
Maraz, A., Mark, D., Demetrovics, Z., 2016. The prevalence of compulsive buying: meta-
analysis. Addiction 111 (3), 408–419.
Check Market Research Report, 2021. What is the best time to send a survey? Available
at. https://www.checkmarket.
com/blog/survey-invitations-best-time-send/(downloaded 2021.06.20.
McElroy, S.L., Keck, P.E., Pope Jr., H.G., Smith, J.M.R., Strakowski, S.M., 1994.
Compulsive buying: a report of 20 cases. J. Clin. Psychiatr. 55 (6), 242–248.
Meyers-Levy, J., Loken, B., 2015. Revisting gender differences: what we know and what
lies ahead. J. Consum. Psychol. 25 (1), 129–149.
Mikolajczak-Degrauwe, K., Brengman, M., Wauters, B., Rossi, G., 2012. Does Personality
Affect Compulsive Buying? an Application of the Big Five Personality Model. Intech
Open Science, Rijeka.
Moen, M.O., 2016. An argument for hedonism. J. Value Inq. 50, 267–281. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10790-015-9506-9.
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802
Moss, A., 2020. Does it matter what time of day a survey is sent out? Analytical Report:
cloud Research. available at. https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/research
/does-time-of-day-affect-survey-results/(downloaded 2021.06.20.
Mowen, J.C., Spears, N., 1999. Understanding compulsive buying among college
students: a hierarchical approach. J. Consum. Psychol. 8 (4), 407–430. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0804_03.
Mowen, J., 2000. The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical
Applications to Consumer Behavior. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
Dordrecht, London.
Mueller, A., Claes, L., Mitchell, J.E., Faber, R.J., Fischer, J., de Zwaan, M., 2011. Does
compulsive buying differ between male and female students? Pers. Indiv. Differ. 50,
1309–1312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.026.
Mueller, A., Claes, L., Mitchell, J.E., Wonderlich, S.A., Crosby, R.D., de Zwaan, M., 2010.
Personality prototypes in individuals with compulsive buying based on the Big Five
Model. Behav. Res. Ther. 48 (9), 930–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
brat.2010.05.020.
Müller, A., Mitchell, J.E., de Zwaan, M., 2015. Compulsive buying. Am. J. Addict. 24 (2),
132–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12111.
Nettle, D., 2006. The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals.
Am. Psychol. 61, 622–631.
O’Shaughnessy, J., O’Shaughnessy, N.J., 2002. Marketing, the consumer society and
hedonism. Eur. J. Market. 36 (5–6), 524–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090560210422871.
O’Guinn, T.C., Faber, R.J., 1989. Compulsive buying: a phenomenological exploration.
J. Consum. Res. 16, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/209204.
Olmstead, A.D., 1991. Collecting: Leisure, investment or obsession? J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 6
(6), 287–306.
Olsen, S.O., Tudoran, A.A., Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., 2016. Differences and
similarities between impulse buying and variety seeking: a personality-based
perspective. Psychol. Market. 33 (1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20853.
Otero-Lopez, J.M., Villardefrancos, E., 2013a. Five-factor model personality traits,
materialism, and excessive buying: a mediational analysis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 54,
767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.013.
Otero-Lopez, J.M., Villardefrancos, E., 2013b. Compulsive buying and the five-factor
model of personality: a facet analysis. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 55, 585–590. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.05.005.
Parsad, C., Prashar, S., Vijay, T.S., Kumar, M., 2021. Do promotion and prevention focus
influence impulse buying: the role of mood regulation, shopping values, and impulse
buying tendency. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2021.102554.
Peukert, C., Pfeiffer, J., Meißner, M., Pfeiffer, T., Weinhardt, C., 2019. Shopping in
virtual reality stores: the influence of immersion on system adoption. J. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 36 (3), 755–788.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P., 2016. Recommendations for creating
better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences.
Organ. Res. Methods 19, 159–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115624965.
Preacher, K.J., Kelley, K., 2011. Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative
strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol. Methods 16, 93–115 org/
10.1037/a0022658.
Ridgway, M.N., Dawson, S.A., Bloch, P.H., 1990. Pleasure and arousal in the
marketplace: interpersonal differences in approach-avoidance responses. Market.
Lett. 1, 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00435297.
Ridgway, N.M., Kukar-Kinney, M., Monroe, K.B., 2008. An expanded conceptualization
and a new measure of compulsive buying. J. Consum. Res. 35 (4), 622–639. https://
doi.org/10.1086/591108.
Roberts, J.A., Manolis, C., Pullig, P., 2014. Contingent self-esteem, self-presentational
concerns, and compulsive buying. Psychol. Market. 31 (2), 147–160. https://doi.
org/10.1002/mar.20683.
Roberts, J.A., Pullig, C., Manolis, C., 2015. I need my smartphone: a hierarchical model
of personality and cell-phone addiction. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 79, 13–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.049.
Shahjehan, A., Qureshi, J.A., Zeb, F., Saifullah, K., 2012. The effect of personality on
impulsive and compulsive buying behaviors. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (6), 2187–2194.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2275.
Sherrell, D.L., Burns, A.C., Phillips, M.R., 1991. Fixated consumption behavior: the case
of enduring acquisition in a product category. In: King, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
1991 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference.
Solomon, M.R., Russell-Bennett, R., Previte, J., 2012. Consumer Behaviour: Buying,
Having, Being. French Forest. Pearson Australia.
Souiden, N., Ladhari, R., Nataraajan, R., 2019. Personality traits and complaining
behaviors: a focus on Japanese consumers. Psychol. Market. 36 (4), 363–375.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21184.
Tarka, P., 2020. Influence of materialism on compulsive buying behavior: general
similarities and differences related to studies on young adult consumers in Poland
and US, 32 (3), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2019.1695240.
Tarka, P., Harnish, R.J., 2020. Toward the extension of antecedents of compulsive
buying: the influence of personal values theory. Psychol. Rep. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0033294120959777.
Thørgersen, J., Juhl, H.J., Poulsen, C.S., 2009. Complaining: a function of attitude,
personality, and situation. Psychol. Market. 26 (8), 760–777. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20298.
Tomer, J.F., 2001. Addictions are not rational: a socio-economic model of addictive
behavior. J. Soc. Econ. 33, 243–261.
United Nations Development Programme, 2019. Human Development Report HDI. New
York.
P. Tarka et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 64 (2022) 102802

Verplanken, B., Herabadi, A., 2001. Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: Practice, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Psychological Reports, International
feeling and no thinking. Eur. J. Pers. 15, S71–S83. Journal of Market Research, or Quality & Quantity, Journal of Marketing Analytics. He is also
Verplanken, B., Sato, A., 2011. The psychology of impulse buying: an integrative self- the author of monograph ‘Scales Construction for Consumers’ Personal Values: Method­
regulation approach. J. Consum. Pol. 34 (2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/ ological Aspects and Application’.
s10603-011-9158-5.
Wang, C.C., Yang, H.W., 2008. Passion for online shopping: the influence of personality
Monika Kukar-Kinney is the F. Carlyle Tiller Chair in Business and a Professor of Mar­
and compulsive buying. SBP (Soc. Behav. Pers.) 36, 693–705. https://doi.org/
keting at the Robins School of Business at the University of Richmond. Monika’s research
10.2224/sbp.2008.36.5.693.
focuses on three main topic areas, specifically, retailing and pricing, compulsive buying
Williams, A.D., 2012. Evaluation of the mood repair hypothesis of compulsive buying.
behavior, and consumer online buying behavior. Her work has been published in the
Open J. Psychiatr. 2 (2) https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpsych.2012.22012.
Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of
Winter, K.A., Kuiper, N.A., 1997. Individual differences in the experience of emotions.
Retailing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Business Research, and other outlets. Monika
Clin. Psychol. Rev. 17, 791–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00057-3.
is active in international circles and holds a Visiting Professor appointment at the Faculty
World Bank report, 2019. The World Development Report. International Bank for
of Economics, University of Ljubljana in Slovenia.
Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington.
Yuengert, A.M., 2001. Rational choice with passion: virtue in a model of rational
addiction. Rev. Soc. Econ. 59 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Richard J. Harnish received his Ph.D. in social psychology from Michigan State Uni­
00346760010017492. versity. Prior to joining Penn State in 2003, he spent 13 years working in private industry
most recently as director of market research for Blattner Brunner, a comprehensive mar­
keting services firm with offices in Atlanta, Washington DC, and Pittsburgh. Dr. Harnish
Piotr Tarka works as Associate Professor at the Faculty of Management in Market
has an active record of publications with a focus on four research interests – the functional
Research Department of the Poznan University of Economics in Poland, and was Visiting
theories of attitudes, person perception, consumer behaviour and compulsive buying. His
International Scholar at University of Richmond, Robins School of Business. His research
research has appeared in journals such as: Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Personality
interests are focused on: compulsive buying behavior, materialistic values, consumerism,
and Social Psychology, Journal of Research in Personality, Personality and Individual
socio-economic transitions in eastern countries, structural equation modelling and latent
Differences.
variables measurement. His articles were published in the journal of Marketing Theory and

16