کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
890614 | 914003 | 2013 | 6 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
• This study examines compulsive buying and the Five Factor Model using NEO-PI-R.
• We compare facets and factors as a function of compulsive buying propensity.
• High propensity persons show high neuroticism and low conscientiousness and agreeableness.
• Anxiety, impulsiveness and vulnerability facets underlie compulsive buying risk.
• Low levels in dutifulness and self-discipline facets are linked to compulsive buying.
In recent years, the broad dimensions of the Five-Factor Model have been an object of an increasing interest in the compulsive buying field. Nevertheless, the absence of studies that analyse the FFM facets in compulsive buyers is surprising. This study, employing the NEO-PI-R, intends to assess whether there are differences in both facets and broad traits, in three groups with low (n = 792), moderate (n = 456), and high (n = 117) compulsive buying propensities. The results confirm that the high propensity group presents the highest significant levels in neuroticism and the lowest in conscientiousness and agreeableness. Whereas all neuroticism and conscientiousness’ facets establish significant differences among the groups (the largest correspond to anxiety and impulsivity, and dutifulness and self-discipline, respectively), only some significant differences for agreeableness are established (namely, straightforwardness, altruism, trust, and modesty). Finally, even though there are no differences between groups in extraversion and openness factors, extraversion’s excitement-seeking, positive emotions and assertiveness facets, and openness’ aesthetics and ideas facets do establish significant differences. Generally speaking, these findings advocate the need to analyse facets, in addition to the broad factors, in the effort to advance our understanding about the elements that make up the personality structure of the compulsive buyer.
Journal: Personality and Individual Differences - Volume 55, Issue 5, September 2013, Pages 585–590