1

2

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Compulsive buying behavior .............................................................................. 8

1.2 Background ......................................................................................................... 9

1.3 Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 12

1.4 Research Objectives .......................................................................................... 13

1.5 Research Questions ........................................................................................... 13

1.6 Significance of the Study .................................................................................. 14

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance ............................................................................. 16

1.6.2 Practical Significance.................................................................................. 17

1.7 Definitions of Key Terms ................................................................................. 18

CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................... 21

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 21

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 21

2.1 Compulsive Phenomena.................................................................................... 22

2.2 Spectrum of irrational / non-essential spending drivers ................................... 25

2.3 Diverse constructs of compulsive buying behavior .......................................... 26

2.3.1 Degrees of compulsive buying behavior studied on a continuum: ............. 28

2.4 Relationships with other concepts or study variables ....................................... 33

2.4.1 Social influences ......................................................................................... 33

2.5 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 47

2.5.1 Research Hypotheses .................................................................................. 47

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................... 49

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 49

3. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 49

3.1 Date Collection ................................................................................................. 50

3.2 Population ......................................................................................................... 50

3.3 Sampling Unit ................................................................................................... 51

3.4 Sample Size & Sampling Technique ................................................................ 51

3.4.1 Appropriateness of Sample ......................................................................... 51

3.5 Research Design................................................................................................ 52

3.6 Questionnaire Design and Measures ................................................................. 53

3

3.6.1 Social Shopping Motivation (SSM) ............................................................ 55

3.6.2 Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence .................................... 56

3.6.3 Social risk toward fashion ........................................................................... 57

3.6.4 Social comparison orientation..................................................................... 58

3.6.5 Compulsive buying behavior ...................................................................... 58

3.7 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................... 70

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 70

4. Methods..................................................................................................................... 70

4.1 Descriptive statistics ......................................................................................... 71

4.1.1 Gender ......................................................................................................... 71

4.1.2 Age .............................................................................................................. 72

4.2 Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 77

4.2.1 Examination of Measurement Model.......................................................... 77

4.2.2 Examination of Structural Model................................................................ 80

4.3 Hypotheses Testing ........................................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................... 85

DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE

RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................... 85

5. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 85

5.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................ 89

5.2 Implications....................................................................................................... 89

5.2.1 Theoretical Implications ............................................................................. 90

5.2.2 Practical Implications.................................................................................. 93

5.3 Direction for Future Research ........................................................................... 95

5.3.1 Other associated moderators and mediators ............................................... 96

5.3.2 Enhancement of external validity ............................................................... 97

5.3.3 Improving generalizability .......................................................................... 97

5.4 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 98

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Common compulsive buying measures.........................................................33

Table 3.1: Research Hypotheses ………………………………………….…………….54

Table 3.2: Variables used………….…………………………………………………….55

Table 3.3 Summary of instruments and authors regarding variables used ……………..62

Table 3.4: Adopted goodness of fit statistics...................................................................70 Table 4.1: Summary of Gender………………………………………………………….72

Table 4.2: Summary of Gender w.r.t Edwards‟ compulsive continuum………………...73

Table 4.3: Summary of Age w.r.t Edwards‟ compulsive continuum……………………75

Table 4.4: Samples description…………………………………………………………..77

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I: Compulsive buying behavior as a continuum………………………………….30

Figure II: Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………..48

Figure III: Measurement model specification....................................................................80

Figure IV: Structural model specification.........................................................................82

LIST OF APPENDICES

S. No. Title of Annexes Page

No.

Annex A Descriptive statistics 130

Annex B Results of measurement model 132

Annex C Results of structural model‟ 134

Annex D Questionnaire 137

5

_____________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

_____________________________________________________________

Consumers express different buying behaviors due to their different sets of wants, needs

and desires. Then buying patterns are developed upon the combination of their social,

cultural, psychological and environmental factors. In this study social factors are

emphasized specifically which may affect the behavior of consumers that can lead to

compulsivity regarding purchases. The humans commonly act on impulse or urge which

can raise direct changes in individual‟s buying behavior. Thus disorders in urge control

can lead to negative results such as addiction.

A behavioral disorder is known as compulsive buying that causes a person to make

purchases continually regardless of psychological, social or financial consequences

(Damon 1988; Faber 1992; Krueger 1988; Faber and O'Guinn 1992; Scherhorn 1990,

Valence et al. 1988). Dysfunction in all or any one of the processes: society,

psychological issues, heredity and family of origin may result in such behavioral disorder

of compulsive buying (Damon 1988, Faber 1992, Hirschman 1992; Scherhorn 1990;

Valence et al. 1988). Following characteristics can express the differences between

compulsive buying and functional buying: basic value of items is not considered while

shopping, there is no botheration of the negative results of compulsive buying, it is

troublemaking to a person‟s life, frequent failures in controlling the behavior and inner

push to buy (Faber, O'Guinn, and Krych 1987; Krueger 1988; O'Guinn and Faber 1989;

Valence et al. 1988).

6

It is anticipated that among many other factors socio-cultural environment is also a cause

to create compulsive buyers (Damon 1988; Faber 1992; Hirschman 1992; Valence et al.

1988). People‟s perceptions about which behavior is appropriate and which is

inappropriate usually based on individual, societal and cultural norms. In socialization

process, people/consumers gain knowledge about unacceptable and acceptable behaviors.

If the socialization process of a person is going to be dysfunctional then such

dysfunctional behavior makes the individual like a person who believes that they behave

“normally”. Moreover, if the socialization process is encouraging to the dysfunctional

behavior then norms of the individual become strengthen.

While studying the literature on compulsive buying, it familiarizes us about the

importance and existence of socio-cultural environment but literature does not focus on

the characteristics which form individual‟s attitude for buying behavior. There is a vice

versa relation that when social norms influence the compulsive buying then the created

compulsive buyers will affect norms, individuals‟ attitudes and society. This thesis

explores the compulsive buying tendency and buyers‟ attitudes influenced by social

factors.

Whenever a person goes for shopping, he or she must go through decision making

processes to make a shopping and all major decisions are mostly influenced by external

and internal factors. Regarding buying behavior internal factors of consumer differentiate

him or her from others so the most significant are individual‟s internal factors. On the

other hand, the theorists consumer‟s buying behavior (Howard and Sheth, 1969; Loudon

and Bitta, 1993) and models of cognitive decision process (Cziko, 2000; Blackwell, R.

D., Miniard, P. W., and Engel, J. F. (2001/ Blackwell, et al., 2001) have the same opinion

7

that external effects also play a significant role to develop individual‟s buying behavior

by leaving considerable impact on internal factors‟ influences.

People often act on a sudden urge which may cause unexpected changes in consumers

buying behavior. Hence impulse control disorder can potentially give negative results like

addiction and excessive buying. Compulsive buyers have a characteristic of intense urge

and in excessive buying they practice the intense urge. Lifestyles of compulsive buyers

are actually made up of general shopping sprees (Black, 1996; 2007). Faber and O„Guinn

(1989) explained prime criterion to establish the leniency or potential irregularity of

compulsive buying for example, whether a consumer‟s buying behavior creates trouble in

the standard way of living or not.

In the same way Nataraajan and Goff (1991) also defended it and considered that such

buying behavior is troublesome and indicates the abnormality which may slow down the

other spheres of a person‟s life, such as financial health, associations with friends and

family, employment matters, consequently obscuring the standard functioning of life.

Valence, d'Astous and Fortier (1988) expressed that compulsive buying behaviour is

uncontrolled inclination to buy, caused by a psychological disorder which may arise

because of internal factors, feeling of relief is normally accompanied with it, in addition

to these it may cause by frustration like triggered by addiction.

This practice is known as addictive or compulsive buying behavior. It is observed as "an

inappropriate type of consuming behavior, excessive in itself, and obviously disturbing

for the existence of individuals who seem to be prone to impulsive consumption." (Faber,

O'Guinn & Krynch, 1987, p. 132).

8

According to Etzioni (1986) “Consumers' purchases often seem to be desire, mood, or

emotion driven, which thus seems natural and the default state of affairs”. In the literature

of consumer behavior, it has been admitted that individual‟s buying behavior hardly ever

go subsequent to the economic theory‟s philosophy. Compulsive buyers get utility and

primary motivation in buying practice itself rather than the anticipated utility through the

consumption of products (Tauber, 1972). People not only get certain desired products but

also persuaded by several psychological desires like to articulate an identity, to have

excitement, to prevail over negative feelings, to enhance self esteem, etc. These „non-

rational‟ purchasing behaviors have been identified as compulsive and impulsive

behaviors (Stern, 1962; Rook, 1987; Rook and Gardner, 1993; Rook and Fisher, 1995;

Dittmar, H., Beattie, J., and Friese, S. (1995/ Dittmar et al., 1995, 1996; Beatty and

Ferrell, 1998; Wood, 1998; Dittmar and Drury, 2000).

Compulsive buying is illustrated by uncontrollable, repetitive, time consuming and

excessive buying in result of negative circumstances and mood‟s status (Faber and

O‟Guinn, 1992; McElroy, Keck, Pope, Smith and Stakowski, 1994). In a society where

people give importance to materialism compulsive buying is often neglected as problem

but considered as fun. Compulsive buying can be harmful financially, mentally, socially

and as well as emotionally.

1.1 Compulsive buying behavior

Marketing and consumer behavior researchers investigated about the consumer‟s unusual

consumption behavior i.e. compulsive behavior (Faber and O‟Guinn 1992; O‟Guinn and

Faber 1989). Compulsive buying shows the propensities to be anxious about buying that

9

is exposed by recurring purchasing and uncontrollable impulse over buying (Ridgway,

Kukar-Kinney, and Monroe 2008). Compulsive buying could be resulted in many

destructive consequences to distressed consumers i.e. financial difficulties, emotional

destruction (feeling of guilty and depression) and communal and affiliation problems

(Faber and O„Guinn 1992).

Consumer‟s behavior known as compulsive addictive buying and it is expressed as a

continuum of probable levels of such behavior. The word “compulsive” refers to a

person‟s feeling of pushed himself or herself to do and do again an action yet one‟s will

is not involved, while “addiction” is an irresistible urge of a person which he faces

according to his or her own needs or wants (Scherhorn, 1990, p.34).

1.2 Background

Research on compulsive buying started by the mid of 1980‟s but in 1972 Tauber was

previously investigating individual‟s shopping motivation. He got that to buy specific

products and needed goods is not the key reason for shopping as some people use this

practice for leisure when they bored, for social communication when they feel alone and

for a little bit nice when they depressed.

Earlier studies on compulsive buying are bounded to critical articles (Kaufman 1976),

few reports in the famous press (Jacoby 1986; Mundis 1986), critical essays (Kaufman

1976) and two initial surveys (Faber et al. 1987; Valence, d'Astous, and Fourtier 1988).

Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) summed up the shopper‟s kind which was being

studied by Tauber. They also obtained that for some people buying act is the basic

motivation for shopping. Bellenger and Korgaonkar labeled these shoppers as

10

“recreational shoppers”. In their results they found 40% to 70% buyers of survey fell into

such kind of recreational shoppers. Most of the females are recreational buyers,

convenient location is not the most important condition to choose a store for shopping but

comfortable atmosphere and an attractive store‟s decoration matter a lot.

In the last quarter of twentieth century, journalists and various articles published in

magazines assigned more recognition to consumers‟ addictive or compulsive features

(e.g., Jacoby, 1986). Currently, few research teams have initiated their work to

investigate such phenomenon critically (Faber, O'Guinn & Krynch, 1987; Faber &

O'Guinn, 1988a, 1988b, 1989; O'Guinn & Faber, 1989; Valence, d'Astous & Fortier,

1988; d'Astous, 1990; Scherhorn, 1990; Scherhorn, Reisch & Raab, 1990).

Currently the psychological community, consumer behavior researchers and economists

have been studied the practice of compulsive buying. Compulsive buying is an unusual

type of shopping and consuming in which the consumer is badly affected by an

uncontrollable, overwhelming, chronic and recurring desire to buy and consume.

Typically compulsive spending acts as a way to lessen the destructive feelings of anxiety

and stress. Compulsive buying opposes the impulsive buying which often refers to

unplanned purchases of inexpensive items but purchases under compulsive buying

behavior leads to critical negative results specifically intense financial debt, it severely

disturbs daily life of the consumer when his process of purchasing and consuming

becomes addictive.

There is a range of compulsive buying definitions in recent research studies i.e. Rook,

(1987); Rook and Hoch, (1985); Weinberg and Gottwald,(1982) investigated impulsive

buying regarding that what is conceptualized more properly as compulsive buying

11

behavior due to similarities in features and signs of obsessive compulsive behavior, on

the whole compulsive buying is lack of impulse control. Compulsive buying is

specifically studied by two groups of buyer researchers. Faber, O'Guinn, and Krych

(1987), Faber and O'Guinn (1988a, 1988b, 1989, and 1992), and O'Guinn and Faber

(1987 and 1989) explained that compulsive buying associates with family patterns of

communication, demographic variables, personality traits. They also build up a

diagnostic tool to measure and classify the compulsive against non-compulsive shoppers.

Valence, d'Astous, and Fortier (1988) recommended another approach which narrates a

relation of compulsive buying with three forces of emotional activation, high reactivity

and great cognitive control. d‟Astous (1990) suggested compulsive buying is a high point

of generalized inclination to buy.

Compulsive buyers are like the substance users as they cannot control themselves from

buying and experience an extraordinary will by purchasing merchandise (Magee, 1994;

Black 1996; 2007). Recently, many researchers (e.g., McElroy et al. 1991; 1994;

Christenson et al., 1992; Magee, 1994; Faber et al. 1995; Black 1996; 2007) started to

explore a range of negative psychological, financial and social results associated with

approximately 18 million compulsive shoppers (Bragg, 2009).

On the other hand it is not a one day happening for a person to fall in the category of

compulsive buyers (d‟Astous 1990; Dittmar and Drury 2000; O‟Guinn and Faber 1989).

The level of consumers unplanned buying is an important forecasting factor of their

compulsive buying tendencies. Consumers making more unexpected buying are

significantly show evidence of more compulsive tendency (Shoham and Brencic 2003,

p.132).

12

Many studies have revealed that most of the compulsive buyers comply with their urge of

purchasing by buying apparel related goods. Hence there is great attachment and

attraction for compulsive buyers for such apparel products as many compulsive buyers

get satisfaction by purchasing apparel or apparel related goods. Kapferer and Laurent‟s

(1985/1986) results showed that females had extraordinary interest in apparel products.

Previous studies usually explained that compulsive buying is dichotomous as a buyer

might be a compulsive buyer or a non-compulsive buyer. Some researchers consider

many differences which may exist on several levels of buying. There may be a sequence

of compulsive buying from strong to weak (Nataraajan and Golf, 1991). Five levels are

taken into account in which all buyers can be collected. Such levels are shown on a

continuum and known as non-compulsive, recreational, borderline, compulsive and

addicted (Edwards, 1993). Edwards (1993) explained these levels separately.

1.3 Problem Statement

Compulsive buying is dark side of shopping. As highlighted above consumers are

exposed and easily drawn to compulsive buying, yet there are lacks of research about it in

Pakistani context. There are many empirical researches e.g. (Kwak, Zinkhan, and

Roushanzamir, 2004, O‟Guinn and Faber 1989) about compulsive buying behavior but

most of them are from the western perspective. Social influence is the first factor

regarding the manner it motivates the CBB. Consumer's perceptions about proper and

improper behavior are based on social values and norms and these social factors

influence or even regulate behavior (Moschis & Cox., 1989; Hanley & Wilhelm, 1992).

13

“To what degree social factors influence consumer‟s CBB”. In response to this problem,

research will find the answer of this question and will give explanation to understand the

scope of consumer‟s social influences which determine their compulsive buying

behavior.

1.4 Research Objectives

The key objective of this study is to explore that how various social factors affect

consumer behavior which varies from top to bottom or high to low at the continuum of

compulsive buying. The secondary objective of the study is to examine the affect of

demographic factors to identify the group of compulsive buyers on its continuum.

There are three core objectives of this study:

To amplify understanding concerning the determinants of compulsive buying

behavior.

To examine the consumer‟s social influences i.e. Social comparison orientation,

Susceptibility to Normative influence, Susceptibility to Informative influence,

Social Shopping motivation, and Social Risk towards fashion, which strengthen

the consumer‟s susceptibility to be compulsive.

To find out the impact of demographic factors (age and gender) on compulsive

buying behavior.

1.5 Research Questions

What is the role of consumer‟s social influences in the construction of compulsive

buying behavior?

14

What is the effect of demographic factors on compulsive buying behavior?

1.6 Significance of the Study

Pakistan is one of the developing countries on the globe. The country‟s economy is

expanding and shopping malls are being increased in big cities to upgrade the citizens‟

quality of life. Increasing rate of inflation and price rising do not seem to affect some

buyers as they are addicted to buy and wide variety of goods attract them which may put

them in financial hardships. The study is more significant for such developing countries

where people are at low income and becoming psychic patients after drastic use of credit

card. Compulsive buying is one of the reasons for stress and depression. Hence, by the

findings of this study it can be understood that how people can avoid stress and

depression and which type of decisions may influence consumer‟s behavior.

This study can help the marketers to understand such consumer‟s social influences on

compulsive buying in order to formulate an appropriate marketing strategy, design

effective marketing tactics and allocate marketing resources. It is also important for the

consumers to understand about it as they might be victim of compulsive buying without

understanding this concept.

Due to globalization the current economy presented mass stimuli of marketing to the

modern buyers. Consumerism illustrates the approach of linking personal contentment

with getting material ownership and utilization of that material in excess of one‟s need.

Conventionally, consumerism was associated with west and capitalism. Now, compulsive

buying has crossed the geographical restrictions due to extensive growth of

communication. Hence, the perception of term „consumerism‟ is negative. People are not

15

ready to accept that they are compulsive buyers or usually they are compelled to buy.

They normalize the process of consumption and find rationales for their purchasing

behavior. Compulsive buying is one of the most important areas of concern while finding

the relationship between consumer and marketer. Compulsive buying negatively affects

the buyer that they cannot manage their debts.

The development of society produced strong shift and also affected buying habits and

consumption of goods in routine life. According to Moschis and Cox (1989) consumption

norms differ from culture to culture and vary over time. It is considered that such

consumption norms may change because of progress in technology, purchasing decision

and buying procedure continues to be quicker due to progressively more international

market places and social ethics or principles are easily customized (Magee, 1994; Dittmar

and Drury, 2000).

Consumers may influenced by abundant and recurring marketing campaigns and

advertising messages as there is a vast expansion of mass media which strengthens and

encourages the belief that shopping is an activity to enhance pleasure (Faber, 1992;

Roberts, 1998). Shopping malls and market places are transforming into socialization

places and due to a considerable number of shopping malls shoppers are frequently

attracted to buy additional items. Such conditions increase thought provoking queries

with developing interests concerning buyer‟s compulsive buying behavior. Dittmar et al.,

(1995) proposed that qualitatively compulsive buyers are similar to normal buyers but

some dim features. Additionally Shiffman and Kanuk, (2000) encouraged the opinion and

said that dark side of normal buying behavior is considered as buyer‟s compulsive buying

behavior. With the same intention, McElroy, S. L., Keck Jr, P. E., Pope Jr, H. G., Smith,

16

J. M., and Strakowski, S. M./McElroy et al., (1994) explained that compulsive behavior

of buyers is mutually injurious for the buyer and society. Such negative buying behavior

known as compulsive buying behavior is caused by efforts of traders and marketers to

achieve high profits but end result will be more unhappy, ungratified, disturbed and

helpless consumers.

In recent years there is an amazing increase of compulsive buying behavior of Pakistani

buyers which has been creating a mass consumption community in Pakistan. Vast study

of literature gives information that there are very insufficient studies regarding

compulsive buying behavior of Pakistani consumers. According to Triandis (1995)

collectivist culture has more significant impact of social influences on buyer‟s buying

behavior. Pakistani culture is also a collectivist or socialist culture that has been more

influenced by social factors and this view is rationally and reasonably sufficient to create

requirement for performing such research with reference to social influences; and to

explore their effects on buyer‟s compulsive buying behavior in Pakistani context. The

present research will make easy to identify prominent external factors which accelerate

buyer‟s compulsive behavior. This study will also help to expose the true association of

external and internal factors relating to compulsive buying behavior.

1.6.1 Theoretical Significance

In existing literature and theories this investigative work will be a vital addition as it will

contribute to:

(1) Make specific formation and pattern of buyer‟s compulsive buying behavior‟s

taxonomy.

17

(2) Identify the relationship of consumer‟s social influences with compulsive buying.

(3) Find the group diversity on the basis of gender about cognitive decision practice.

1.6.2 Practical Significance

Compulsive buying behavior is an unexpected social conduct which must be controlled.

To curtail such abnormal social behavior analytical research is required for understanding

of the influential social factors and contribution of those components towards the

cognitive decision making process. Investigation of social influences concerning

compulsive buying behavior of consumer is helpful in public domain policy makers. It is

also helpful for institutions to inform the consumers and to restrain this unwanted social

behavior of individuals like undue usage of credit card and shopping addiction.

The results and conclusions of this study may also help the individuals to lessen the

social harms associated with compulsive buying behavior by giving awareness about

most important social influencers. These findings can be used by the groups working for

consumer welfare or public policy administrators to develop a course of action for

marketers and traders to curtail them from doing such practices that may cause abnormal

purchasing behavior. Merchants can also be there to take away the buyers from awkward

buying behavior by recommendation and support of their upgraded communication. In

this way they can save compulsive buyers such harmful practices of buying.

Similarly, the marketers, public representatives and trade researchers can also

utilize the findings of this study concerning social shopping motivation and the results of

social comparison orientation, susceptibility to normative influence, susceptibility to

informative influence and social risk towards fashion to identify the compulsive buyer.

18

As marketers need to be aware of such user behavior to regulate proper marketing

strategy, assign resources for marketing and outline efficient marketing tactics.

Additionally, this study is beneficial for planning suitable social marketing involvement

like assistance and counseling to control the increasing rate of consumer debts due to

compulsive buying behavior that eventually result in economic and financial hardships.

1.7 Definitions of Key Terms

Consumer Behavior

The analysis of consumer behavior is the basis of marketing. Blackwell et al. (2001)

defined the consumer behavior as those acts of persons which are completely involved in

finding, handling and discarding the economic products and services, it also comprises

the course of decisions that leads and establishes those acts of people.

Compulsive Buying

A behavioral disorder in which an individual makes nonstop purchases despite the

importance of social, psychological and financial results (Damon 1988; Faber 1992;

Krueger 1988; Faber and O‟Guinn 1992; Scherhorn 1990; Valence et al. 1988)

Social Influences

Social influences are the sum of all things that can change or can affect an individual‟s

actions, feelings and thoughts. Mostly, this concept is studied in sociology and social

psychology but its applications are useful in various fields like marketing.

Susceptibility to interpersonal influence:

The probability of a person to make a compulsive buying depends on their tendency of

impulse buying and their susceptibility to interpersonal influence which is their need to

19

classify and to enhance their view in the observation of others by the purchase and use of

merchandise and brands, to examine, to get information and to be consistent with others‟

beliefs and norms (Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel 1989). A person‟s want to conform to the

beliefs of selected noteworthy others is viewed as “susceptibility to interpersonal influence”

and the extent to which people‟s beliefs affect the individual, such degree may vary along

with the individual and situational attributes (Bearden et al., 1989 referring to McGuire,

1968).

Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a personal concept consisting of two

aspects: informational influence and normative influence (Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel

1989; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and Gerard 1955; McGuire 1968).

Informational influence

Informational influence is explained as the tendency to rely on the information acquired from

others and to make it as precise representation of certainty and truth (Burnkrant and

Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and Gerard 1955). Such transfer of information may take place by

observation or verbal communication (Park and Lessig 1977).

Normative influence

It is defined as the propensity to conform to the prospects of others and people‟s norms

(Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel 1989; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and Gerard

1955; Fisher and Ackerman 1998; White, Hogg and Terry 2002).

Social comparison orientation

It is the tendency of making social comparison in the spheres of life; which is the degree

of commitment in comparison of opinion and capacity of others in everyday life

(Gibbons & Buunk, 1999).

20

Social shopping motivation

Social shopping motivation (SSM) is described as the pleasure of shopping by meeting

with people and bonding with family and friends (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003).

Social risk towards fashion

A user‟s realization about social risk toward fashion comprises such anxieties like fear

about what people may assume about his or her clothing and whether the attire he or she

purchased might not be according to current fashion (Halepete et al., 2009).

21

_____________________________________________________

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

_____________________________________________________

2. Introduction

This chapter recalls the intellectual literature concerning to the topic of this study. It is a

composition of present and past reviews about social influences on compulsive buying

behavior to highlight that what compulsive buying is in reality and the factors spurring it.

Some consumers feel shopping as an activity to release stress and some do shopping once

a week for satisfaction. Therefore, shopping has a vast impact on consumers. It is not a

sin to shop frequently but addiction to shopping is not good. It leads to compulsive

tendency and other negative behaviors too.

The chapter presents a broad and thorough check of literature, major hypothetical

fundamentals that are depicted from consumer‟s buying behavior theories, models and

methods which are particularly important to analyze consumer‟s compulsive buying

behavior. The basic purpose of the present study is to analyze the extent of social

influences participating to motivate CBB.

Thus the chapter describes the phenomena of CBB, different constructs and general

review of literature for concerning variables to explain the primary objective while

literature taken from consumer buying behavior models and theories present thorough

insights to explore the arrangement and decision process of CBB. Additionally this

22

section also gives detail about conceptual framework and development of hypothesis. The

present study explains four main features to illustrate compulsive buying behavior.

a. Compulsive phenomenon

b. Continuum of non-essential or irrational consuming drivers.

c. Chronological literature extract regarding definitions of CBB and explanation

with different constructs.

d. Relationship of compulsive buying behavior with all other variables of the study.

2.1 Compulsive Phenomena

Compulsion is characterized by various scholars as a recurring activity and actually a

decisive behavior carried out in line with procedures (Rycroft, 1968; Campbell, 1981;

American Psychiatric Association, 1985; 1987; Stone, 1988).

Various attributes of compulsive buying behavior from compulsive phenomena are

derived by Faber et al. (1987) i.e. impulse, wish to employ with the behavior, existence of

an urge, refusal from accepting the destructive effects of involvement in the behavior and

repetitive failure to modify or control the behavior. Kraepelin, (1915) and Bleuler, (1924)

stated that initially consumer‟s compulsive behavior was known as mental illness,

denoted as impulse disorder, obsession, compulsive buying and buying addiction.

O'Guinn and Faber (1989) analyzed consumer‟s compulsive behavior as a wider group

comprising compulsive buying and compulsive compusion such as drug abuse, gambling,

alcoholism and eating disorders etc. but conceptually compulsive buying is identified as a

major type of it. All mentioned disorders relating to compulsive consumer behavior may

appear at the same time in few individuals, whereas these disorders may arise

23

successively after the control of preliminary disorder or after a prior one has undergone

(Orford, 1985; Hirschman, 1992).

According to the literature by Valence, et al. (1988) McElroy, Pope, Hudson, Keck and

White (1991a; 1994); Faber, et al. (1995) and Kwak, et al. (2004) the simultaneous

presentation of compulsive behaviors in one person is examined and named as „Co

morbidity‟.

Disorders under compulsive behaviour have been explained and processed over many

centuries in the literatures of economics (Marshall, 1890), psychoanalytical psychology

and psychiatry literature (Freud, 1962; Beck, 1967; Milkman and Sunderwirth, 1982;

Chelton and Bonney, 1987; Christenson, Faber, De Zwaan and Raymond, 1994;

McElroy, et al. 1994; Lejoyeux, Hourtané and Adès, 1995), social psychology (Faber and

O‟Guinn, 1988a; Fabien and Jolicoeur, 1993; Dittmar et al., 1995) and sociology (Rotter,

1954; Orford, 1985), and now currently under the subject of marketing.

Compulsive buying is one of such destructive compulsive consumer behaviors which

needs to be studied more so as to progress a comprehensive knowledge about the

compulsive buying influences on society and welfare of human beings (Hirschman, 1992;

Wells 1993; Cole and Sherrell, 1995). Different theorists studied this behaviour under

several labels e.g. excessive or irrational buying (Faber et al., 1987; Valence et al.,1988;

D‟Astous, Matais, and Roberge, 1990; D‟Astous, 1990), shopaholism or compulsive

shopping (Krueger, 1988), addictive buying (Krych, 1989; Scherhorn et al., 1990),

compulsive spending (Hanley and Wilhelm, 1992). In some places these names have

been employed synonymously and are used to describe the similar need of buying which

is uncontrollable.

24

Marlatt, Baer, Donovan and Kivlahan (1988) stated that the modern research

development in consumer behavior has favored multi factor theories known as

biopsychosocial models and excluded the single factor cause theories. The supporters of

biopsychosocial model promote that the complicated mixture of causes may lead to

propose the best channel of consumer buying behavior as it exposes simultaneous

involvement of three main aspects i.e. psychological, biological and sociological.

The compulsive buying behavior is also assessed individually regarding these three

aspects (Salzman, 1981; Donegan, Rodin, O'Brien and Solomon, 1983; Rindfleisch, et

al., 1997; Roberts, 1998; 2000; Dittmar, 2005a etc.). Under biological viewpoint the

compulsive buying behavior is deemed like physical dependence (Tabakoff and

Rothstein, 1983), obsessive compulsive syndrome is the same as anxiety syndrome or

disorder (Goldenson and Glanze 1984), genetic tendency (Petrakis, 1985; Donovan,

1988; Hirschman, 1992; Black, 2007), improper performance of neurocircuits (Schmitz,

2005) and a approach of getting a variation in brain chemistry (Faber, 1992; Black,

2007).

Propensities of compulsive buying have been studied in various cultures like Germany

(Scherhorn et al., 1990), Canada (d‟Astous et al., 1990), Mexico (Roberts, 1997; Roberts

and Sepulveda, 1999), Israel (Shoham and Brencic, 2003), and South Korea (Lyi, Lee,

and Kwak, 1997; Kwak, Zinkhan and Crask, 2003). A cross cultural research by Kwak et

al., (2003) explained that in an Eastern culture compulsive buying was not a

unidimensional concept as it was in USA.

25

In psychology, compulsive buying behavior has been explained as uncontrollable push

for buying (Krueger, 1988; McElroy, et al. 1994), with some form of momentary pleasure

occurring after shopping (Glatt and Cook, 1987; Krueger, 1988; McElroy, 1994).

According to social perspective compulsive consumer buying behavior is an approach to

boost social impression (Moschis and Cox, 1989), segment of socialization (Fabien and

Jolicoeur, 1993), enhancement of social position and public self realization (Xu, 2007).

2.2 Spectrum of irrational / non-essential spending drivers

Taking in view the general assessment of literature it is clear that different scholars

recognized and mentioned many important drivers working behind the key factors of

social influences which cause CBB. Deviation in the behavior of consumer buying is due

to numerous drivers positioning on a continuum such as stages of involvement from low

to high (Mittal and Lee, 1989); level of self inspection (Schlosser, Black, Repertinger and

Freet, 1994), from intended to unintended shopping (Rook and Hoch, 1985), level of

excitement (Childers et al. 2002), stimulation of need from rational to irrational (Penman

and McNeill, 2008) and the span or time taken for the process of buying decision also

known as response behavior time (Weun, Jones and Beatty, 1997) etc.

By the changing of such drivers, consumers‟ buying process eventually converts into one

of three kinds of buying behavior i.e. impulsive buying‟/, rational buying and impulsive

ailment or compulsive buying (Rook, 1987; Penman and McNeill, 2008). Among these

types of buying behavior compulsive and impulsive buying behavior have a propensity to

be problematic to people.

26

Furthermore, it is explained that outcomes of impulsive buying are disorders of impulse

control and more results are in the form of CBB development. Kwak et al., (2006)

criticized that intentions are the primary source of behavior hence the intention of buying

results in impulsive buying and buying behavior intention may result into compulsive

buying behavior.

Rook (1987) and Penman and McNeill (2008) proposed first and then form the

continuums of buying behavior as it can be reviewed and assumed that consumer‟s

compulsive buying behavior is produced from impulsive buying intention and behavior.

Mostly impulsive buying intention is induced by the uncontrolled longings to consume

money generally on non-important goods and the act of consuming money turns into the

incentive for purchaser whether he/she can‟t afford such buying (Rook, 1987;

Baumeister, 2002; Gwin, James and Carlos, 2005).

2.3 Diverse constructs of compulsive buying behavior

Numerous scholars added a lot to the compulsive buying behavior literature

quantitatively and qualitatively which provides empirical details for future research.

Work of Faber and colleagues (Faber, O‟Guinn, and Krych, 1987; Faber and O‟Guinn,

1988a; Faber and O‟Guinn, 1989; Faber and O‟Guinn, 1992), work of D'Astous and

colleagues (Valence et al., 1988; Nataraajan and Goff, 1990; D‟Astous et al., 1990;

Nataarajan and Goff, 1990; 1991; Edwards, 1992; 1993; Monahan, Black and Gabel,

1996; and Ridgway, Kukar-Kinney and Monroe, 2008) are the key foundation credits.

Three general attributes between compulsive phenomena and addiction were first

recognized by Faber et al. (1987). Such features are the presence of intense urge for

27

employing in some behavior; repeated failure in trying to control or change it; negation of

the injurious effects of behavior.

Faber and O'Guinn (1989) evaluated that compulsive buying is an addictive behavior.

They also defined that such specific behavior is a response to an irresistible wish for

acquiring, utilizing or practicing awareness, material or action that insists the buyer to

involve frequently in a damaging behavior for self and for others. Faber and O‟Guinn

(1992) again defined the compulsive buying is a chronic, uncontrollable recurring buying

behavior developed from unpleasant occurring or feelings resulting into harmful

consequences.

Definition of compulsive buying given by O'Guinn and Faber (1989) is not only

sufficient to explain compulsive buying but also describes attributes of consumption

which is considered as non-purchase expenditure e.g. gambling. Buying and spending

compulsively can be clearly distinguished by the concept introduced by O'Guinn and

Faber. According to them compulsive buying has a propensity to be stimulated by the

desire of attainment while compulsive spending links to an urge to remove or to take

away.

Valence et al. (1988) made improvement in the work done by Faber et al. (1988a) which

they did in early 1988. Such improvement was made by developing the first scale of

compulsive buying behavior. They introduced four aspects to identify excessive

consumption buyers. These aspects are established on the base of compulsive buying

behavior‟s early philosophy under the perspective of motivation in the comparison of non

compulsive buyers. The “Spending tendency” (compulsive buyer showing more tendency

to buy as compared to a non compulsive buyer), "reactive aspect" (buyers‟ uncontrollable

28

strong desire for buying), “post-purchase guilt” (generally, compulsive buyers feel regret

for such behavior), and “family environment” (relationship with family members). The

mentioned dimensions are related with compulsive buyers (D‟Astous et al., 1990).

In contrast, Valence et al. (1988) described compulsive buying as irresistible urge to

purchase motivated by psychological pressure due to internal influences and pursued by

relief. It is like that the frustration pattern produced from the aggravation caused by

addiction.

2.3.1 Degrees of compulsive buying behavior studied on a continuum:

General literature review has exposed that compulsive buying behavior contained the

factor of addiction in its nature. Literature also explains that addiction to consuming may

increase steadily (Briney, 1989; Scherhorn, 1990; Scherhorn et al., 1990; Hirschman,

1992; Edwards, 1992; 1993; Edward, 1994). According to the literature of early studies,

compulsive buying behavior is considered as dichotomous variable specifically

compulsive buying behavior and non compulsive buying behavior (Faber et al., 1987;

Valence et al., 1988; Faber and O‟Guinn, 1988a; 1989; D‟Astous, 1990). After some

progress in next phase it was encouraged that compulsive buying fluctuates according to

the degrees of behavior and a continuum was introduced (Nataarajan and Goff, 1991;

Hirschman, 1992; Edwards, 1993).

Additionally the continuum was explained through various aspects i.e. degrees of impulse

control (Nataarajan and Goff, 1990; 1991; Hirschman, 1992), motives (Nataarajan and

Goff, 1990), characteristics of personality (Nataraajan and Goff, 1991), degrees of

compulsiveness low to high or behavior‟s range from non compulsive to compulsive

29

(Edwards, 1992; DeSarbo and Edwards, 1996) and behavior‟s range from normal to

impulsive ailment (Rook, 1987).

Figure I: Compulsive buying behaviour as a continuum

Nataraajan and Goff (1990; 1991) indicated that there may be many other reasons for

shopping in addition to motivation for buying. At one time they distinguished the

compulsive buying from impulsive buying then they discriminated compulsive buyers

from compulsive shoppers. Various people may have trouble to find difference between

compulsive buying behavior and impulsive buying behavior. The scholars expressed that

compulsive buying behavior is a propensity of addiction or compulsive characteristic,

persistently occurring quickly, recurring motives for shopping which could or could not

be uncontrollable, relieving or rewarding but certainly it is effectively troubling to normal

performance.

30

There is a significant contribution of Edward (1992) to the compulsive buying literature

by giving details of compulsive buying behavior regarding five key factors. Such five

factors were tendency to spend (buyer's propensity to indulge and spend in episodes),

compulsion or drive to spend (buyer‟s wish, cause for anxiety, compulsion, and

undeliberate patterns of expending and shopping), excitement about spending and

shopping (degree of joy drawn from act of shopping and spending), dysfunctional

spending (overall degree of dysfunction surrounding and findings from buyer‟s buying

behavior) and post-purchase guilt ( buyer‟s guilt, regret, and feeling of humiliation after

purchase).

Edward (1992) and DeSarbo and Edwards (1996) studied that compulsive buying is an

obsessive behavior as the way to get rid of anxiety and stress. They established it into

ratio scale i.e. Likert Scale expressing the aspects of compulsive buying behavior on level

of compulsiveness in a continuum from non compulsive to obsession i.e. (Edwards,

1992); furthermore established the scale from normal to impulsive buying (DeSarbo and

Edwards, 1996). Those types for level of compulsiveness on the continuum of ratio scale

nominated by Edward (1992) were non compulsive (less than 1), recreational (lies

between 1.00 – 1.99), borderline compulsive (lies between 2.00 – 2.99), compulsive (lies

between 3.00 – 3.99) addiction (lies between 4.00 – 4.99).

Monahan et al. (1996) also proposed fundamental constructs to examine the compulsive

buying behavior as an ailment. Those constructs were concerned time, obstruction due to

anxiety/behavior, displeasure related with purchasing, struggle against feelings/behavior,

and level to restrain from the symptoms. In fact, the scholars modified or improved the

31

Obsessive-Compulsive scale of Yale-Brown which evaluated cognitions and behaviors

associated with compulsive buying.

Similarly, Shiffman and Kanuk (2000) obtained the presence of two clusters or groups of

compulsive buyers with reference to their drivers‟ degree of difference and gave details

of those clusters. The investigative group tagged as internal compulsive buying group

showed that compulsive buying looks to be affected by psychological aspects like

depression, low self esteem and anxiety. Another cluster was tagged as external

compulsive buying group showed that buyer‟s behavior disturbed by immediate

surrounding factors rather than the psychological factors. This group involved the factors

like isolation, coping, denial, materialism and impulsiveness.

Additionally, the recent study by Ridgway et al. (2008) established a new estimation tool

improved from Richmond‟s compulsive buying behavior scale to quantify compulsive

buying behavior. Richmond explored compulsive buying for two aspects of anxiety

disorder/obsessive compulsive and impulse control disorder. Formerly, according to the

literature compulsive buying was entirely believed as an impulse control disorder and

consequentially left out factors entailing the compulsivity of the dilemma. Moreover,

Richmond‟s research specifically focused on buying as compared to shopping and

concurred that buyers always shop compulsively without ever buying. As compared to

Faber who put more emphasis on the consequences of compulsive buying Richmond‟s

scale gave more concentration on actual attributes of compulsive buying behavior.

32

Table 2-I: Common measures of compulsive buying

Scale name and Construct Author name Conceptual aspects described

by scale

1

Compulsive Buying

Measurement scale: as

conceptual perspectives

Valence,

D‟Astous and

Fortier (1988)

Tendency to spend, reactive

aspect, post-purchase guilt and

family environment.

2

Compulsive Buying scale: as

behavioural and financial

indicators

Faber and

O‟Guinn

(1992)

Self-esteem, materialism, and

credit card usage.

3

Compulsive Buying scale: as

compulsiveness in buying

behaviour from non-

compulsive to addicted buying

Edwards

(1993)

Drive to spend, feelings about

shopping and spending, tendency

to spend, dysfunctional spending,

and post-purchase guilt.

4

Obsessive-Compulsive scale

(modified the existing Yale-

Brown); shopping Version: To

assess cognitions and

behaviors associated with

compulsive buying.

Monahan et al.

(1996)

Time involved, interference due

to the preoccupations or

behaviors, distress associated

with shopping, the resistance to

the thoughts or behavior, and

degree of control over the

symptoms.

5

Compulsive buying behavior

scale (modified the existing

Richmond‟s compulsive

buying behavior scale)

Ridgway et al.

(2008)

Compulsive buying as partly

obsessive-compulsive (an anxiety

disorder) and partly an impulse

control disorder. Or as actual

characteristics of compulsive

buying instead of its

consequences.

33

2.4 Relationships with other concepts or study variables

This section of literature review gives detailed review of the constructs, definitions

relating to constructs, essential theories for those constructs and association of such

constructs with other linked concepts. Furthermore, key characteristics relating to various

aspects of the construct are also expressed.

2.4.1 Social influences

Bearden and Rose (1990) claimed that individuals who are reflective to the signals of

social comparison relating to their product buying have high probability to bear the

pressure of group. In psychology relating to consumer and society, such adaptation of

group pressure is called as “interpersonal influence” or “social influence”,

interchangeably (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Bearden et al., 1989; Cialdini and

Trost, 1998; Cialdini, 2001; Clark and Goldsmith, 2006). Many scholars in marketing

have made effort to understand the effect of social influences regarding consumers‟

behavior and attitude. Social influence is believed as an important aspect of buyers‟

decision making (Stafford and Cocanougher 1977; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Kiel and

Layton 1981; Gatignon and Roberts on 1985; Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel, 1990) and

individual‟s purchase behavior (Burnkrant and Cousineau, 1975; Bearden and Etzel,

1982; Rose, Boush and Friestad, 1998; Dholakia and Talukdar, 2004; Argo, Dahl and

Manchanda, 2005; Mourali et al., 2005; Spangenberg and Sprott, 2006).

On the whole, many social factors trigger the shopping motivation of consumers which

ultimately leads to compulsive buying behavior.

34

2.4.1.1 Social shopping motivation (SSM)

Motivation can be defined as derive, wish, longing, urge or desire which may result in a

target oriented behavior (Mowen, 2004). Shopping motivation is a feature of motivation

characterized to shop in a market place or in a shopping mall setting. Various studies

(Bellinger, Robertson, & Greenberg, 1977; Bloch et al., 1994; Kim, Kim, & Kang, 2003;

Roy, 1994) have proposed that consumers move to the mall to come into contact with

offers announced by malls and for the benefit of the consumption or buying process.

Shopping motivation implies that shopping at a market place makes buyers concerned not

simply with utilizing products and services but they also get emotional contentment

which may be originated from browsing, enjoying and social encounter outside the

dwelling such as meeting with friends and family or watching people. Thus, shopping

motivation can be widely classified into two aspects i.e. experiential motivation (leisure

activity, aesthetic gratitude) and consumption or utilization oriented motivation (use of

service, eating, value consumption).

In the perspective of shopping, motivation referred to a driving force inside the

consumers that gives rise to buy or shop. In the study of shopping motivations which is

broadly recognized, Tauber (1972) categorized various shopping motivations on the basis

that buyers are motivated by two forms of psychosocial needs i.e. social and personal.

Literature has provided the role of a retail location and surrounding as a channel for

social motivation and encourage for certain people. As indicated by Tauber (1972) that

through shopping individuals can experience social motives (like social meetings outside

the dwellings, interaction with people having related interest) and personal motives (like

self satisfaction, browsing, finding out new trends and recreation). According to Tauber

35

(1972) a person may go to a retailer in quest of leisure time or social connection in his or

her boredom, depression or loneliness. Forman and Sriram (1991) described

depersonalized retailing (like self-service stores) as a negative approach among isolated

people. For such isolated consumers who suffer loneliness, shopping could be more than

an activity essential to attain required products and services; it may be fall in the category

of social activity (Conaway, 1994; Kang & Ridgway, 1996).

When grown up or older people visit a shopping mall with the intention of consumption

they may expend more, consumption can be in the form of eating or acquisition of

goods/services. Moreover, it is said that older people are more expected to interrelate

with sales staff and other consumers during their buying process or utilizing goods or

services to lessen their loneliness (Bloch et al., 1991; Forman & Sriram, 1991). Due to

these communications older lonely consumers may spend more than initially planned.

For many years, researchers and merchants have been informed that shopping is not only

a subject of getting tangible goods but it is also concerned with enjoyment, entertainment

and experience (Martineau 1958; Tauber 1972). Babin et al. (1994) categorized

consumers into “hedonic” who shop as emotional diversion and “utilitarian” who shop

cognitively to attain shopping objectives. According to Bellenger and Korgaonkar, (1980)

utilitarian buyers want to save energy and time during shopping, while excitement and

enjoyment are significant for hedonic buyers. Amusement and gratification are

substantial benefits of buying for purchasers (Sit et al. 2003). Buying is a communal

activity. It also involves the joy of browsing, impulse shopping, finding out new stores,

topic for informal discussion, main features of planned and unplanned actions with

36

others. Researchers have described the significance of social and relationship motivations

or inspirations for shopping (e.g. Shim and Eastlick 1998; Westbrook and Black, 1985).

According to Park and Mittal (1985) motivation is a target-directed stimulation. In the

present study context, the focus and goal is confined to consumer buying activities,

buying behavior and motivations. For some time, the area of shopping motivations and

shopping has been of vital interest in research of marketing. Various typologies have

been introduced for shopping motivations (Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980; Moschis

1976; Westbrook and Black 1985). Motives or intentions have been analyzed comprising

experiential motives, product related motives, buying easiness, information search,

recreational buying and hunting variety (Arnold and Reynolds 2003; Darden and Ashton

1975; Dawson, Bloch, and Ridgway 1990).

Faber and O‟Guinn (1992) described that compulsive buyers wish to get positive

experience of motivational feelings while shopping or want to buy optimistically.

According to Ridgway et al. (2008) when compulsive buyers feel down they can alleviate

the pessimistic feeling and can be temporarily “high” through compulsive buying.

Recognition of motivations relating to buying and shopping is helpful to predict buyers‟

propensities to purchase compulsively. The classified motivations can be utilized in

making cluster buyers into various segments based on their purchase and buying

behaviors. Using survey technique for data collection gives authentication to buying

motivations with definite buying behavior of resulting buyers‟ segments, such method

allows to reduce possible general method bias. The study has significant implications in

different fields relating to consumer and managerial research e.g. customer segmentation,

37

tactics for communication and ways of detecting compulsive buyers and consequently the

study provides implications regarding public policy.

SSM is positively correlated with the aspect of relationship building as relationship

building portrays behaviors linked to going market and spending time collectively with

close friends and referents during shopping. In the same way SSM also involves

satisfaction obtained through socializing with other individuals and observing new

persons at shopping spots (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Hence, it is recognized that the

behavior of meeting people and making friends during buying process is anticipated to be

positively associated to SSM.

Social shopping motivation (SSM) can be expressed as pleasure and satisfaction of

buying items through socializing and connecting with family and friends (Arnold &

Reynolds, 2003). Arnold & Reynolds, (2003) built up the measures of social shopping

motivation on five point Likert scale and determined its high consistency and reliability

by presenting the steady Cronbach's alpha value of 0.88, the scale SSM is evaluated by

three items e.g. I go for shopping for fashion with my friends or family to socialize.

2.4.1.2 Social comparison orientation (SCO)

It is considered to be universal that people wish to realize about themselves by making

comparison with others, there are personal distinctions in the propensity regarding social

comparison. The notion „social comparison orientation’ expresses the degree to which an

individual gives importance that how much a person involves in the process of social

comparison in everyday life (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). Some specific types of people are

more expectedly involved in social comparison as compared to others (Gilbert, Price, &

38

Allan, 1995; Hemphill & Lehman, 1991; Taylor, Buunk, Collins, & Reed, 1992) and

have an extreme need for trend information conversation and communal interaction

(Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006; Goldsmith & Clark, 2008; Polegato & Wall, 1980).

Polegato and Wall (1980) argued that individuals who are more involved in providing

fashion information to other people inclined to contribute more in social interests and are

more cordial than others who are not much engaged. Additionally, people actively

inclined to give fashion information to others (trend opinion leaders) are also very

conscious about social comparison information and people‟s feedback regarding their

behavior of opinion-giving (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006; Goldsmith & Clark, 2008).

The process of social comparison is quick to take place in vogue consumption on the

basis of principle that social comparison is more expected to take place in the

environment where independent standards are not sufficient (Festinger, 1954). In a

certain situation when trend varies rapidly and present day‟s sophisticated retailing

practices and information technology make available a great arrangement of shopping

outlets and product choice, where there is no existence of absolute norms and best

options concerning what to dress in and what to purchase. Specifically in routine

consumption, people repeatedly face uncertainty which rises between traditional values

and personality (Kaiser, 1997). According to Davis, (1985) individuals wish to

experience a feeling of belonging with other people in the society (conformity) and so far

they want to distinguish themselves from other people (individuality) by means of dress

and looks. Due to human desire to settle such types of uncertainty, individuals frequently

interact and discuss with themselves and with others too (Kaiser, 1997).

39

Although, little experimental evidence of the absolute association between social

comparison and buying behavior, this association can be deduced from the significant

number of prior studies. Jones and Gerard (1967) established “co-oriented peers,” whose

presence expected that buyers often buy with comparable and close reference groups

involving peers, and look for their views about trendy products. A buyer group is also

identified by Moschis (1976), expressed as “psycho-socializing shoppers” who inclined

to copy others (i.e. close companions and neighbors) concerning consumption behaviors.

When such buyers bought a latest brand, they wished to prefer friends‟ ideas and gave

more value that what other buyers purchased rather than to rely on salespersons or

advertisements. In the same way, during shopping with dear friends or familiar people,

individuals pay interest to the buying attempts, choice and purchase of their friends or

known people (Luo, 2005; Tauber, 1972). These close friends help buyers to set their

normative view, personal benchmark for selection and purchase of items, and response of

such reference group support the buyer‟s choice as the best one (Mangleburg, Doney, &

Bristol, 2004). These surveys propose that buyers may prefer related people because

social comparison points at social comparison while shopping and such form of social

shopping with dear or close ones may be motivated by a desire of self- assessment.

When a person deliberately or not deliberately compares himself/herself with others, it is

known as a persistent and important social experience for human (Festinger, 1954;

Moschis, 1976; Suls & Wheeler, 2002). During this phenomenon of comparison,

individual tends to opt a person or a cluster as a reference group or this stage is

considered as spot of comparison (Khan & Khan, 2005; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000).

The orientation group might be a familiar one like friends and family or somebody who is

40

not a familiar like celebrities (Schiffman and Kanuk, 2000). Festinger (1954) explained

that the consequences of social comparison might also be employed to express why

buyers attempt to utilize reference groups as a cause of information while making buying

decisions (Moschis, 1976). More precisely, while making the buying decision,

individuals could not energetically compare their selection with others however they are

sensitive to the signs of social comparison related to their selections (Bearden & Rose,

1990). This is the impact of social comparison that individuals are anxious or careful

regarding feedback of reference groups (Bearden & Rose, 1990). Previous studies specify

that this impact of social comparison plays a vital part in influencing the buyer‟s

purchasing decision and leads to impulsive purchases (Luo, 2005; Rook, 1987; Zhang,

Prybutok, Koh, 2006).

In accordance with social comparison theory by Festinger (1954), individuals have an

urge to assess themselves by making comparison with others for accurate self-assessment

when independent ways are not on hand. Scholars doing research on consumer, broaden

the theory to involve the comparison of substantial possessions to clarify people‟s

comparative social status. People can make a decision to contrast themselves with the

people who are not as good as them (downward comparison) to strengthen the self-

esteem, or they may compare themselves with the people who are superior to them

(upward comparison), or with idealized media icons (Schiffman & Kanuk 2004). People

can engage themselves in communal comparison for self-assessment and also for self-

enhancement (Swann, Seroussi & Giesler 1992; Wood 1989). It has been studied that

female respondents frequently compare themselves with fashion models in television

advertisements (Richins 1991). People who involve in communal comparison with

41

distant referents like idealized media icons make overstated and idealistically

extraordinary expectations of their idealized fashion icon‟s living standards. The more

difference between their actual living standard and the ideal generate the wish for

materialistic ownership (Sirgy 1998). A research in Japan obtained that involvement in

upward communal comparison was directly associated with a higher wish for more

ownerships and higher objective of consumption (Ogden & Venkat 2001).

The earlier literature indicates that social comparison takes place in the buying context

particularly fashion shopping. With the assumption of social comparison, the findings of

previous studies show that social buying interests may be motivated by the consumers‟

tendency to compare themselves with community standards so as to assess the self. This

type of social comparison orientation is recognized in the perspective of buyers‟ behavior

like selection of fashion style and possession of goods. Hence, this research hypothesizes

that one‟s buying behavior may be influenced by his/her social comparison orientation.

On the other hand this social comparison orientation is anticipated to be an inspirational

antecedent for social shopping and consumer may buy compulsively.

2.4.1.3 Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence

[Susceptibility to normative influence (SNI) and Susceptibility to informative

influence (SII)]

Buyer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is a personal construct comprising two

aspects: informational influence and normative influence (Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel

1989; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and Gerard 1955; McGuire 1968).

Informative influence is the propensity to believe the information attained from other

42

people and to make it internal as an exact representation of realism (Burnkrant and

Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and Gerard 1955). This transmission of information from

reference group members to a person may happen by means of observation or verbal

communication (Park and Lessig 1977). On the other hand, this aspect has not been

studied comprehensively in the reference of compulsive buying and is not a sound

predictor of consumer buying behavior like normative influence (Schroeder, 1996),

which is the second aspect of susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Normative

influence is the propensity to comply with the standards and expectations of people

(Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel 1989; Burnkrant and Cousineau 1975; Deutsch and

Gerard 1955; Fisher and Ackerman 1998; White, Hogg and Terry 2002).

Depending on people with whom they are shopping, buyers may wish restrict their

impulsive propensities in order to prevent of being supposed as unreasonable, immature,

uncertain, careless and bereft of self-discipline in front of their buying friends, as

compulsive buying is usually deemed normatively wrong (Rook 1987; Rook and Fisher

1995; Rook and Hoch 1985; Hausman 2000).

In fact, only in few situations when people are virtuously stimulated or in certain

perspectives it is considered as norm and accepted in society i.e. recreational areas,

vacation spots, sale fairs, making a bet in casino, craft exhibition and trade encounters

(Rook and Fisher 1995, p.312).

“In these settings, consumers are invited and encouraged to act on their impulses and,

accordingly, their impulsive trait tendencies are likely to be good predictors of their

buying behavior” (Rook and Fisher 1995, p.312).

43

Consumers‟ susceptibility to normative influence (SNI) is identified as the want/wish to

specify with others or make better one‟s view about brands and merchandise or the

interest to be consistent with others‟ beliefs concerning buying decisions (Bearden,

Netemeyer, and Teel 1989). People who are more susceptible to normative influence may

be more definitely convinced to support others for a refusal (Sen, Gurhan-Canli, and

Morwitz 2001). They give more importance to attributes of patent products as compared

to the people of low susceptible to normative influence (Batra, Homer, and Kahle 2001).

The likelihood of users to make compulsive purchase depends on their tendency of

impulsive buying and users‟ susceptibility to interpersonal influence, which is their need

to recognize and to develop their image in front of others by means of purchase and use

of commodities and brands to examine, to find information and to comply with the

prospects of others (Bearden, Netemeyer and Teel 1989). Consumers who are highly

susceptible to interpersonal influence are more influenced by reference groups

concerning compulsive buying (McGuire 1968). To satisfy their wish for admiration and

their urge of belonging, compulsive consumers are more expected to purchase goods and

they suppose that what they desired is approved by reference group (Martin, Wentzel and

Tomczak 2008, p.31). Their act of shopping is like an indicator for possible prominence

and self-esteem improvement (Batra, Homer and Kahle 2001). Usually these consumers

like to avoid from portraying themselves in a manner that can result in social

dissatisfaction (Wooten and Reed 2004).

Rook and Fisher (1995) described the normative evaluations as “consumers‟ judgments

about the appropriateness of making an impulsive purchase in a particular buying

situation”. “When a generally impulsive consumer experiences an impulse buying

44

stimulus, and subsequently evaluates the prospective purchase as appropriate, both trait

and normative influences are harmonious, thereby making an impulsive purchase likely”

(Rook and Fisher 1995, p.305). On the other hand, in circumstances when compulsive

buying is glared up, even the extremist compulsive buyer will defend against his/her

spontaneous wishes to avoid of being disapproved by people (Rook 1987; Rook and

Fisher 1995).

Previous studies show that individuals are specifically responsive to thoughts and

tendencies which are accepted among their friends and family during their teenage years

(Bachmann et al., 1993). Latest study by Liu and Laird (2008) recommends that influence

of friends and family is the most significance contributor towards teenagers‟ compulsive

buying tendency, as family and friends can affect adolescents‟ concerned individuality by

means of influenced adolescents‟ spending (Mangleburg et al., 2004; Dittmar, 2005).

General facts show that teenagers have tendency to buy such products that their family or

friends desire or have. Approval from family and friends play an important role in

adolescents‟ buying decision.

To reduce the chance of being ignored by family and friends, they usually strive to

impress the peers by shopping products continuously which are of their peers‟ wishes and

preferences. A tendency to buy compulsively is expected to occur in such repetitive

process of purchasing.

Relating to social implications of spending frequently influence buyer behavior.

Individuals self-represented with possessions (Solomon 1983), desire reputed brands

(Levy 1959), and take consumption effect from referents (Stafford 1966), particularly for

patent products (Bearden and Etzel 1982). Intelligent marketers misuse buyers‟ wish to

45

self-symbolize by making image attractiveness to promote their commodities (Snyder and

DeBono 1985). Promoting messages through advertisements marketers transfer idealized

icons that amplify consumers‟ desires by emphasizing the unusual communal

expenditures of such ideals (Richins 1991).

According to Fishbein and Ajzen‟s theory of reasoned actions (TRA) individuals act in a

sensible way in order to get beneficial outcomes and also not to let down others‟

expectations (Park and Levine, 1999). Hence, the views of the people‟s referent groups

concerning the behavior being discussed have an immediate effect on person‟s intention

to act in a particular way. Consumers acquire the normative beliefs in conceptual form

and they rely on the person‟s motivation to conform to these beliefs (Hale, 2003). TRA

supports that the acceptance or deny of a specific behavior appearing from reference

groups (family, friends and colleagues) put a pressure on the person‟s intention to involve

in such actions (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). Therefore, normative beliefs are an effective

interpreter of behavioral concentration, jointly with their opinion regarding behavior

(Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005).

Normative beliefs or the communal pressure from friends and family have been examined

in several models of consumer buying behavior (e.g. Khalifa and Limayem, 2003; Choi

and Geistfeld, 2004; Tan et al, 2006; Crespo and Bosque, 2008; Crespo and Bosque,

2010; Lin et al, 2010; Lin et al, 2011). The empirical findings of such studies signify that

social stress, particularly stress from family and all media types (Khalifa and Limayem,

2003) have a considerable direct impact on buyers‟ intention to purchase.

46

2.4.1.4 Social risk towards fashion

Social risk is considered as the individual‟s perception about a product that can result in

condemnation by others (Dowling and Staelin, 1994).

Fashion indicates the extent that people buy to get closer to new styles, fashions and

tastes. Tauber (1972) specified that be well-informed with recent styles, trends and

modernization is a drive for shopping. Parsons (2002) described that digging up the latest

information about trends is an important element for buyers to shop. Alexander (1947)

argued that women have more interest in fashion than men. Additionally, Chyan and Chia

(2006) found that females are very conscious about novel-fashion and have dominance

over idealism which indicates that women are more inclined to take risk toward fashion

while shopping.

Researchers have recognized the reality that style and fashion are visible and significant

mode of nonverbal communication in communal settings (Kaiser, 1997), and buyers may

socialize while purchasing fashion products (e.g., Ellen, 2007; Phau & Lo, 2004;

Piacentini & Mailer, 2004).

It is acknowledged that higher the representative values and communal perception of a

product, consumers may perceive higher social risk (Veloutsou & Xuemei, 2008). Hence,

it is not astonishing that social risk toward fashion is more with trendy products (Halepete

et al., 2009).

Social risk towards fashion perceived by consumers comprises some anxieties like

anxious about what their companions may imagine about his/her dresses and concerning

that whether the dresses bought by a person might not be trendy or not in fashion

(Halepete et al., 2009).

47

2.5 Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is established with the help of literature review. It is the vital

part of social research, highlighting the graphical representation of hypothetical model

developed and used in the study. I use seven variables in order to evaluate compulsive

buying behavior. In this study, dependent variable is compulsive buying behavior and

independent variables include Social comparison orientation, Susceptibility to normative

influence, Susceptibility to informative influence, Social shopping motivation, and Social

risk towards fashion.

Graphical representation is as follows:

Figure II: Theoretical Framework

2.5.1 Research Hypotheses

H0a: There is no relationship between susceptibility to informative influence and social

shopping motivation.

Informative Influence

Social Shopping Motivation

Social Comparison

Orientation

Normative Influence

Consumer‟s Social Influences

Compulsive Buying

Behavior

Social Risk towards

Fashion

Compulsive Buying Behavior

48

H1a: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to informative

influence and social shopping motivation.

H0b: There is no relationship between susceptibility to normative influence and social

shopping motivation.

H1b: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to normative influence

and social shopping motivation.

H0c: There is no relationship between social comparison orientation and social shopping

motivation.

H1c: There is significant relationship exists between social comparison orientation and

social shopping motivation.

H0d: There is no relationship between social risk towards fashion and social shopping

motivation.

H1d: There is significant relationship exists between social risk towards fashion and

social shopping motivation.

H0e: There is no relationship between social shopping motivation and compulsive buying.

H1e: There is significant relationship exists between social shopping motivation and

compulsive buying.

49

_____________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

_____________________________________________________________

3. Methodology

When the research model is established and particular hypotheses are developed, the

subsequent stage in the course of research is to focus the suggested model to practical

examination. This chapter gives the rationalization for the suggested research

methodology. It also provides the explanation of a research study which was employed to

investigate the planned hypotheses. A comprehensive explanation is given comprises

variables, investigational tasks, research design and investigational procedure.

According to Mingers (2001) research methodology is a prearranged set of activities or

instructions to contribute in generating reliable and valid research findings. There is an

ample range of research techniques to select from. These research techniques can be

assessed regarding three aspects known as precision or accuracy, realism or practicality

and generalizability, such aspects are considered as the “three horned dilemma”

(McGrath 1982). A researcher wants to choose the most appropriate research technique to

justify the research objectives and to optimize the three aspects that such arrangement or

design may work smoothly and efficiently to get maximum advantage (McGrath 1982).

However, it is rationally impracticable. All research techniques have their particular

strengths but these also have flaws in few ways (Dennis and Valacich 2001; McGrath

50

1982). Hence, to select a research method that manages stability between two of three

aspects is the best approach.

The goal of this research study was to establish and investigate structural model of social

factors influencing compulsive buying behavior of consumer, describing Social

comparison orientation, Susceptibility to Normative influence, Susceptibility to

Informative influence, Social Shopping motivation, and Social Risk towards fashion as

strength contributor to the consumer‟s susceptibility to be compulsive.

3.1 Date Collection

For the collection of primary data research survey method makes possible to examine a

large sample size in an economic way. Such methodology of survey facilitates the

investigation of a huge number of people in a vast range of patterns regarding behaviors

(Bloch et al., 1994). Research based on survey methodology is also beneficial to explore

the association among a wide range of variables comprehensively (Sproles, 1981). Hence,

this survey technique was supposed suitable for the current study.

The data for this research was accumulated by distributing questionnaire consumers of

different ages personally and responses were obtained from the survey method. The

questionnaires were circulated to consumers in institutions, community and shopping

malls in various cities of Pakistan.

3.2 Population

Data was collected from shopping malls, universities and communities of Lahore,

Islamabad, Dera ghazi khan and Faisalabad.

51

3.3 Sampling Unit

The sampling unit for this study was individual (teenager or above). Most of the

individuals were graduate and undergraduate students. Such students can make the

availability of homogeneous sample having more internal validity, that was proposed by

prior studies pointing at model testing and theory-based application (Cordell, Wongtada,

& Kieschnick, 1996; Kwon &

Rudd, 2007).Thus graduate and undergraduate students and employees were chosen as

sample of the proposed study. Keeping in view the sample margin, method of random

sampling was applied to improve external validity.

3.4 Sample Size & Sampling Technique

According to (Shavelson 1988) larger sample has higher statistical power. Statistical

power can be influenced by four factors i.e. magnitude of the conduct effect, significance

level, inconsistent population and sample size.

The data for this research was accumulated by distributing questionnaire to 500

consumers personally and a total of 425 responses were obtained from the survey. The

questionnaires were circulated to consumers in institutions, community and shopping

malls in various cities of Pakistan. Sample was selected through convenient sample

technique.

3.4.1 Appropriateness of Sample

It may be criticized the sample drawn from homogeneous people as subjects due to issues

of generalizability but, it is supposed an appropriate sample for this research study on the

basis of previous work of different scholars.

52

Dittmar (2005), O„Guinn and Faber (1989) and Moschis and Churchill (1978) came

across through their studies that younger are more likely to be compulsive buyers.

However, Scherhorn, Reisch and Raab (1990) found that age is not a significant factor to

influence compulsive buying. Many other studies proposed that disease of compulsive

buying starts in late teen and early twenties (Christensen et al. 1994; Schlosser et al.,

1994; Koran, 2002), while McElroy et al. (1994) stated a mean age of 30 years at the

beginning of such disease (Black, 2007).

The major deduction from this research work was to study the impact of social factors on

consumer‟s compulsive buying. Thus, it is considered that the sample selected for this

work is representative of a big population and conclusions of this research work can be

generalized to such group of population of age 16 to 30 years.

3.5 Research Design

The precise hypotheses which are tested in this research study are given in table 3.1.

During experiments conducted in laboratory the researcher may examine predictions

obtained from theory for study the relationship in uncompounded and controlled

conditions (Kerlinger 1986). Impact of social factors on dependent variable is evaluated

while keeping controlled the independent variables. As a result, the investigator has

distinctive control on almost all variables engaged in this research.

53

Table 3.1 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis # Specific Hypothesis

1 H0a: There is no relationship between susceptibility to informative

influence and social shopping motivation.

H1a: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to

informative influence and social shopping motivation.

2 H0b: There is no relationship between susceptibility to normative

influence and social shopping motivation.

H1b: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to

normative influence and social shopping motivation.

3 H0c: There is no relationship between social comparison orientation and

social shopping motivation.

H1c: There is significant relationship exists between social comparison

orientation and social shopping motivation.

4 H0d: There is no relationship between social risk towards fashion and

social shopping motivation.

H1d: There is significant relationship exists between social risk towards

fashion and social shopping motivation.

5 H0e: There is no relationship between social shopping motivation and

compulsive buying.

H1e: There is significant relationship exists between social shopping

motivation and compulsive buying.

3.6 Questionnaire Design and Measures

A significant aspect in the process of research is to decide which measures are useful to

sum up the various constructs or hypotheses in the proposed research model. We cannot

measure such constructs directly and therefore, appropriate replacements or substitutes

54

should be selected to signify them (Straub 1989). The strength of the results depends on

“goodness” of the measures by abstracting the paradigms in the research model (Cook

and Campbell 1979). Invalid results may occur if flawed measures are used (Straub

1989). Consequently, it has been recommended that authenticated measures must be used

in possible ways (Straub 1989). It is considered that a positive and reliable

methodological approach is to employ existing instruments (Boudreau et al. 2001).

On the basis of these grounds, existing tools were utilized to process the constructs

proposed by the research model. Numerous variables were identified (Table 3.2) to

examine the research assumptions, including one dependent variable (compulsive buying

behavior of consumer) and five independent variables (social influences i.e. Social

comparison orientation, Susceptibility to Normative influence, Susceptibility to

Informative influence, Social Shopping motivation, and Social Risk towards fashion).

Table 3.2: Variables used

Independent Variables

SSM: Social Shopping Motivation

SNI: Susceptibility to Normative Influence

SII: Susceptibility to Informative Influence

SRF: Social Risk towards Fashion

SCO: Social Comparison Orientation

Dependent Variable

CBB: Compulsive Buying Behavior

55

A structured questionnaire with established scales is used to explain the research purpose.

A prelude was included in the questionnaire as introduction giving details of the purpose

of research. The questionnaire contained 37 items. There were five independent and one

dependent research variables which divided the questionnaire into seven main parts

comprising social shopping motivation, susceptibility to normative influence,

susceptibility to informative influence, social risk towards fashion, social comparison

orientation and compulsive buying behavior. Some information of demographics is also

included in the questionnaire such as gender, age, occupation, source of money, how

many visits to market in a month and how much time he/she may spent while shopping.

It is explained and instructed to the respondents about specific products (apparel, shoes,

bags, care products, jewelry, toiletry and other accessories) becoming the cause of

compulsive buying tendency and they must record their responses for the question asked

by keeping in view their shopping behaviors while purchasing these products. Except

demographic questions, respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each

statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree).

3.6.1 Social Shopping Motivation (SSM)

Motivation is defined as the urge, drive, want, desire, longing or wish which directed to a

target oriented behavior (Mowen, 1995). Social shopping motivation (SSM) can be

expressed as pleasure and satisfaction of buying items through socializing and connecting

with family and friends (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003). Arnold & Reynolds, (2003) built up

the measures of social shopping motivation on five point Likert scale and determined its

56

high consistency and reliability by presenting the steady Cronbach's alpha value of 0.88.

The scale SSM is evaluated by three items e.g. I go for shopping for fashion with my

friends or family to socialize.

Social shopping motivation is normally the result of other social factors like a consumer

who is more susceptible to interpersonal influence is expected to be more motivated to

buy and to be more compulsive. Similarly a person involved in social comparison is

expected to buy more in the race and increases his/her propensity of compulsiveness.

Another factor under study is social risk towards fashion, people influenced by this factor

want more social visibility and they fear about the products whether those products are in

fashion or not. Such people do shopping to overcome the fear and in this struggle they

often buy in excess which eventually convert into compulsive buying.

3.6.2 Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence

Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence identifies “the need to enhance one's

image in the opinion of significant others and the willingness to conform to the

expectations of others” (Bearden et al., 1989, p. 473). Bearden et al. acquired a valid and

reliable measure of the two aspects of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence:

normative influence and informational influence. Bearden et al., referred that consumer

susceptibility to informational influence (SII) is propensity to get knowledge about goods

and services by noticing others and by updating information from other people; the

propensity to be consistent towards people‟s expectations and to act in accordance with

other‟s beliefs to attain incentive or to prevent penalties is said to be susceptibility to

normative influence (SNI). These two aspects are associated with social browsing means

57

people want to explore or hunt new fashion products/styles well-liked among others,

following such trends of fashion and buying similar goods those others already have

people may indulge themselves into compulsive buying. Bearden et al. (1989) developed

the measures of SII and SNI on five point Likert scale showing consistent Cronbach's

alpha 0.79 for susceptibility to informational influence (SII) and 0.81 for susceptibility to

normative influence (SNI). The scale is measured by three items in each dimension e.g.

To make sure I buy the right fashion product or brand, I often observe what others are

buying and using (SII) and I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my

friends approve them (SNI).

3.6.3 Social risk toward fashion

According to Veloutsou & Xuemei, (2008) higher social visibility and symbolic values of

a product exhibit more elevated social risk perceived by buyers. Hence, it is not

astonishing that social risk towards fashion products is enormous (Halepete et al., 2009).

Social risk towards fashion perceived by consumer comprises some fears and anxieties as

fretting about what people may feel concerning his/her clothes and worrying about the

things he or she purchased might not be according to existing fashion (Halepete et al.,

2009). Since the term social browsing supports chasing and purchasing fashion products

ratified by various people, social risk towards fashion was supposed to be associated with

social browsing resulting in compulsive buying.

Halepete et al., (2009) established the measures of social risk towards fashion (SRF) on

five point Likert scale showing consistent Cronbach's alpha 0.88. The scale of this

58

dimension is measured by three items e.g. I am worried about what others will think of

my fashion sense.

3.6.4 Social comparison orientation

Social comparison orientation (SCO) can be defined as tendency to get into social

comparison in all spheres of life (Festinger, 1954). In this research study, social

comparison orientation was organized as the degree to which a person employs in

comparing his/her opinions and capabilities with people in everyday life. To measure

SCO, INCOM was adapted. Iowa-Netherland Comparison Orientation Measure

(INCOM) by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) was used. INCOM was made of items to

measure two different, but associated dimensions of social comparison (i.e. opinion

comparison and ability comparison). Gibbons and Buunk (1999) determined high

reliability of INCOM by expressing consistent Cronbach‟s alpha across samples (0.78 to

0.85). The scale is measured by six items e.g. If I want to find out my performance, I

compare it with performance of others (ability comparison), If I want to learn more about

something, I try to find out what others think about it (opinion comparison).

3.6.5 Compulsive buying behavior

Irregular form of consumer expenses which affects several people and put them in deep

debt is known as compulsive buying (CBB). It is an odd way of buying and spending, in

which the troubled consumer has an uncontrollable, overwhelming, chronic and recurring

drive to buy and spend. CBB is quantified on five different but associated aspects that are

evaluated by thirteen items. Those five aspects of compulsive buying are drive to

spend/propensity to spend compulsively, post purchase guilt, feeling about buying and

59

spending and dysfunctional spending. To evaluate CBB Edwards‟ (1992) measure is

used. The legitimacy of Edwards‟ (1992) measure is its consistency. The value of

reliability coefficient Cronbach‟s alpha measured by several previous studies varies from

0.76 to 0.91 while assessed on five point Likert scale.

The first aspect of compulsive buying behavior (CBB) denoted by “ZTS” is „tendency to

spend‟. It refers the consumer‟s susceptibility for spending in an undue extreme manner

and to spend in episodes. This aspect containing two items i.e. “I sometimes buy things I

do not need or will not use” has past consistent value of reliability coefficient,

Cronbach‟s alpha 0.89.

Second aspect of CBB is urge to spend/compulsion symbolized as “ZUNP” that is

described as the degree of consumer‟s impulsiveness, annoy desire and compulsion

regarding buying and spending. This dimension is measured by one item e.g. “Sometime,

I buy things even when I don‟t need anything” with consistent past value of Crobach‟s

alpha of 0.79. Third aspect of CBB is post purchase guilt represented by “ZPP”. It can be

expressed as consumer‟s conflicts, emotions or as the degree of consumer‟s feeling in the

concern of their guilt, view of embarrassment and misery after buying the things or such

feelings at the final stage of buying process. Third aspect is also measured by two items

e.g. “Sometimes, When I go shopping and buy in excess, then I feel guilty or ashamed”

with past reliable Cronbach‟s alpha value of 0.76.

The fourth aspect of CBB is dysfunction spending symbolized by “ZDYS” and termed as

the degree of a consumer for general dysfunction surrounding level and degree of

influences of consumers‟ buying behavior, this aspect consists of four items e.g. “I

60

sometimes feel strong inner push to go for shopping” with past consistent Cronbach‟s

alpha value of 0.90.

Fifth aspect of CBB is feeling about shopping and spending. It is expressed by “ZFS” and

as the degree of consumers‟ level of excitement and trance drawn from the act of buying

and expending. This dimension is measured by four items e.g. “I hate to go shopping”

with past consistent Cronbach‟s alpha value of 0.86.

Previous studies generally supposed that compulsive buying is dichotomous as a

consumer is compulsive buyer or a non-compulsive buyer. On the other hand some

researchers consider several differences which may exist on various levels of buying.

There may be a series of compulsive buying from strong to weak (Nataraajan and Golf,

1991). Five levels are considered in which all buyers can be clustered. Such levels are

non-compulsive, recreational, borderline, compulsive and addicted (Edwards, 1993).

Edwards (1993) explained these levels individually. According to him non-compulsive

shoppers tackle their buying as per their needs and make planned purchases. Recreational

buyer makes unplanned and impulsive buying so as to improve their frame of mind

occasionally. Borderline compulsive purchaser has same features but intense affinity of

buying goods to get better state of mind like recreational buyers but they differ from

recreational buyers in sense of post purchase feeling of guilt. Borderline compulsive

buyers may feel such guilt but recreational buyers may not. Compulsive buyers

commonly buy items to lessen anxiety or stress, after purchasing not needed items they

feel guilty and usually experience destructive emotional and financial consequences due

to their buying behavior. Addicted buyers suffer a continuous and vigorous urge to buy

61

things that is too much strong that addicted buyers frequently ignore other commitments

and delay or withdraw other activities to fulfill the urge of buying (Edwards, 1993).

Table 3.3 Summary of instruments and authors regarding variables used

3.7 Data Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was utilized for the analysis of data and to

test the hypotheses by using AMOS 18.0. SEM was chosen as it is appropriate to assess

the causal positioning of variables. SEM makes the availability of measuring errors and

gives an understandable evaluation of each variable‟s effect strength on another (Scarpi,

2006). A two step procedure employed by SEM is generally suggested by SEM

intellectuals: the structural model and the measurement model (confirmatory factor

Sr.

no. Variable name Codes

Instrument

author

No. of

Items Measurement Scale

1 Social shopping

motivation SSM

Arnold &

Reynolds(2003)

03

1 = Strongly

Disagree, 5=Strongly

Agree

2 Susceptibility to

informative influence SII

Bearden et al.

(1989) 03 1 = SD, 5 = SA

3 Susceptibility to

normative influence SNI

Bearden et al.

(1989) 03 1 = SD, 5 = SA

4 Social risk towards

fashion SRF

Halepete et al

(2009) 03 1 = SD, 5 = SA

5 Social comparison

orientation SCO

Gibbons and

Buunk (1999) 06 1= SD, 5 = SA

6 Compulsive buying

behaviour CBB Edwards (1992) 13 1 = SD, 5 = SA

7 Demographics variables Self-developed 06

62

analysis) (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Kline, 2005). Mulaik and Millsap (2000)

recommended a three step more precise method for modeling: common factor analysis to

organize each latent variable number, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out

for the ratification of measurement model, and structural model testing.

SEM facilitates the scholar to “answer a set of interrelated research questions in a single,

systematic, and comprehensive analysis” (Gefen et al. 2000, p. 3). Thus testing of

hypothesis and factor analysis can be carried out in the similar analysis and such

simultaneous analysis makes availability to the investigator of better information

regarding degree that how much the research model is supported by the data.

Byrne (2001) advocated two important types of variables in the SEM model, one is the

latent variable and the other is observed variable. While doing research in social science,

it is difficult to observe or assess the theoretical constructs (Straub 1989). These abstract

or theoretical constructs are identified as latent variables. Then the investigator examines

those variables by employing self descriptive measures. The scores from self descriptive

responses symbolize these basic constructs and these assessed scores are accepted as

observed variables.

On the whole a general fit of both models for both the indicated models (measurement

model and structural model) is assessed at the closing stage of analysis. For such purpose

fit statistics is estimated by means of multiple indices as Relative chi-square (CMIN/DF),

Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit

Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

63

Stage 1: Measurement Model

Measurement model is extended by two methods of analysis known as common factor

analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) after that the conclusive measurement

model is evaluated on the basis of fit statistics indices, reliability and validity of the

measurement model.

By this model, the investigator identifies the latent variables employed in the model and

allocates observed variables to all latent variables (Gefen et al. 2000). According to

Byrne (2001) the measurement model presents a bond between self reported scores and

the causal or fundamental constructs and also expresses the hypothetical associations

underlying constructs. Byrne (2001) stated “It is similar to a confirmatory factor analysis

since the researcher specifies which factors will load on which constructs a priori and the

assessment of the measurement model determines the extent to which the observed

variables load on the latent variables.”

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is the second method of measurement model that

gives understanding about the testing part of the model, latent variables and their

observed variables. The measurement model is also recognized as CFA. The CFA is

made to analyze how robustly and understandably the hypothesis of concern is confined

or summed up by the indicators/ statistics of the latent variables (Steenkamp and

Baumgartner, 2000). The SEM models are reasonably adopted for evaluating the role of

measurement error, to endorse a multi-factorial model and to establish the effect of group

64

factor in the model. Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and Arnold and Reynolds (2003)

recommended CFA for improving the scale congenial measurement distinctiveness. Kline

(2005) deduced and suggested that discriminate validity is a requirement for the

progression of structural model as the evaluation of structural model is not achievable

without it.

Analysis of measurement model

For the investigation of decisive measurement model, goodness of fit measures is

employed, subsequently the standardized factor loading (FL), squared multiple

correlations (SMC) composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are

examined.

According to Kline (1998) a complete model includes a structural model and a

measurement model. He directed to signify the measurement model first and then shift to

the second stage only after significant good fit for measurement model is identified.

Additionally, he forbade doing the opposite of it as if the model is not found valid then

the research cannot meet the requirements.

The findings of present study have revealed significant outcomes regarding the final

measurement model that qualifies the first decisive factor for the assessment of structural

model as suggested by Kline (1998).

Stage 2: Structural Model

Second part of SEM identified as structural model explains explicit or implicit impacts

which relate the latent variables. Through the structural model the researcher describes

association among the latent variables treated in the model (Gefen et al. 2000). More

65

particularly, it clarifies how specific latent variables in the model influence other latent

variables in the model directly or indirectly (Byrne 2001). Hence, hypothesis testing is

allowed while using structural model by evaluating hypothesized or assumed

relationships among dependent and independent variables. By the structural model

measurement error can also established for every latent variable.

Steenkamp and Baumgartner (2000) proposed the practice of the structural model test to

examine and discover the structural relationships and correlations among dependent and

independent variables and their stochastic expressions for testing of hypotheses.

While investigating the structural model the standardized regression weight and p-value

are identified for the implication of the structural model. Conclusively the structural

model fit was too measured by multiple indices like relative chi-square CMIN/DF,

Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit

Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

Fit statistics for SEM models (i.e. measurement and structural model)

Fit statistics comprises multiple indices which are utilized to assess the fitness of both

models measurement and structural and the present study has analyzed the following five

multiple indices to achieve the objective of evaluating the model examined by this study.

Conclusively a general measurement model fit is analyzed by means of five vital multiple

indices such as relative chi-square CMIN/DF, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted

Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

66

1. Relative Chi-square (CMIN/DF)

Generally, the chi-square test is not deemed a valuable measure of goodness of fit

because of its limitation as it is extremely influenced by sample size particularly while

sample size surpasses 200 which increase the rejection chances of the model or increase

the probability of type II error (rejection of null hypotheses when phenomena is true).

Weak model fit is due to the cause of very insignificant misspecifications when sample

size boosted specifically by including numerous variables that affects the degree of

freedom. The observed value of chi square rests statistically significant yet the data has

adequately good model fit. More often chi square test necessary for CFA (confirmatory

factor analysis or measurement model) especially with insignificant coefficient indicating

the good enough fit.

To reduce the reliance of chi square on the degree of freedom, chi square fit index is

divided by degree of freedom that is recognized as normal or relative chi square. The

relative chi square is expressed as CMIN/DF 1table range for (chi square/degree of

freedom ratio) by AMOS. According to Carmines and McIver (1981) the acknowledged

fit range is 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 for the sample data and the hypothetical model. While Marsh

and Hocevar (1985) suggested and stated this range in another way as 5 at most and 2 at

least is a sign of good enough fit.

2. Goodness Fit Index (GFI)

Gefen, Straub and Boudreau (2000) stated that the total fit of both the structural and

measurement model is analyzed by GFI. Raykov and Marcoulides (2000) justified that

GFI is the measure of variance and covariance proportion as indicated by the descriptive

ability of the model, additionally, Byrne (2001) viewed it as a definite fit index because

67

of its potential to give difference between hypothesized or assumed model and no model

at all. Value of GFI varies between 0 and 1 where 1 representing the best fit. Hence, for

absolute fitted model the GFI must be near to 1 as its value less than 0.90 gives the proof

to reject the null hypotheses or shows the poor or weak fit.

3. Adjusted Goodness Fit Index (AGFI)

Byrne (2001) described an approach to adjust the number of degree of freedom for the

model and labelled it as AGFI that is absolutely unlike to GFI. AGFI corresponds the

hypothesize model with no model. The range of AGFI for absolute fit is 0 to 1 and for the

specification of good fit AGFI should be greater than 0.80.

4. Comparative fit index (CFI)

Comparative fit index matches forecasted covariance matrix of model with the

investigated covariance matrix of the model. In simple words, CFI compares the existing

model fit with null or unfounded model supposing that there is no correlation between

latent variables. Fan, Thompson and Wand (1999) gave details that CFI examines the

heteroscedastic association among all independent and dependent variables. It fluctuates

with the class of modifier as the influence of sample size on it is very slight, fit tolerance

range lies between 0 and 1 and with the value of 1 it is considered as absolute fit. For the

acceptance or favorable acknowledgment of model CFI coefficient ought to be greater

than 0.90 which demonstrates that the specified model imitated 90% of co-variation in

data.

5. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

An additional renowned measure of fit is RMSEA that indicates the variance per degree

of freedom which does not need/entail the comparison of null model and not the

68

hypothesized statement of probable model by CFI, having complete objectivity of

indicators/statistics. The extent of approximation of model to data is evaluated through

RMSEA. Byrne (2001) supported its simultaneousness for fit statistics that is caused by

its concern with degree of freedom and sample size. Moreover Fan, Thompson and Wang

(1999) also preferred this index by the reason of its stability with larger sample sizes too.

Schumacker and Lomax (2004) explained that RMSEA‟s value is equal to or less than

0.05 it specifies a good fit, it is adequately significant if ≤ 0.08. On the other hand Hu and

Bentler (1999) proposed a threshold value as ≤ 0.06 and according to Byrne (2001) it is

considered to be ordinary or average or even well fitting if the value lies between 0.08

and 0.10. Lastly, MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara (1996) declared a standard value of

RMSEA which is globally recognized for poor fit i.e. when it is equal to or greater than

0.10.

69

Table 3.4: Adopted goodness of fit statistics

Fit indices Ranges and acceptance standard/criteria

1

Relative / Normal chi-square

(CMIN/ DF)

(1.00< CMIN/DF <5.00)

Best/excellent fit: 1-3

Reasonably acceptable: 3-5

Poor fit: above 5

2 Goodness Fit Index (GFI)

(0.90< GFI <1.00)

Best/excellent fit: ≥ 0.95

Reasonably acceptable: ≥ 0.90

3 Adjusted Goodness Fit Index

(AGFI)

(0.80< AGFI <1.00)

Best/excellent fit: ≥ 0.90

Reasonably acceptable: ≥ 0.80

4 Comparative Fit Index (CFI)

(0.90< CFI <1.00)

Best/excellent fit: ≥ 0.95

Reasonably acceptable: ≥ 0.90

5 Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA)

(0.01< RMSEA <1.00)

Best/excellent fit: < 0.05

Reasonably acceptable: 0.06 – 0.08

Poor fit: above 0.10

70

____________________________________________________

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

_____________________________________________________

4. Methods

The objective of present study is to develop and explore the structural equation modeling

(SEM) of CBB (response) with five social influential factors of SSM, SCO, SNI, SII, and

SRF. The data has been collected by questionnaire. After that, data analysis is the next

step and then interpretation of such findings to accept or reject the hypotheses. This

chapter presents a comprehensive explanation about the techniques of data analysis

which has been used for hypotheses testing and attaining the results. Structural equation

modeling (SEM) is used for core data analysis and testing of hypotheses. The analysis of

the findings through measurement model is presented together with the features, analysis

and findings attained through structural model testing. For the description of variable and

sample descriptive statistics has been calculated. By using AMOS 18.0 two SEM models

(measurement model and structural model) were utilized and then the interpretation of

results was obtained.

71

4.1 Descriptive statistics

4.1.1 Gender

Responses from individuals were attained by distributing questionnaires by personal

contact approach. Overall 425 filled questionnaires were obtained out of 500 floated

questionnaires which gave 85% response from consumers. This sample of 425 consumers

consisted of 193 males (45% of sample) and 232 females (55 % of sample).

Table 4.1: Summary of Gender

Gender Frequency Percentage Mean St.

Deviation

Male 193 45.4 2.67 0.58

Female 232 54.6 2.66 0.52

Total 425 100

Group of total 193 male respondents comprised of 23 (11.9% of males) recreational

buyers as their values of compulsive buying mean lie between 1.00 and 1.99, 110 (57%

0f males) borderline buyers as their mean values of compulsive buying lie between 2.00

and 2.99, 57 (29.5% of males) compulsive buyers as their mean values of compulsive

buying lie between 3.00 and 3.99 and 3 (1.6% of males) addictive buyers as their mean

values of compulsive buying are more than 4.

Group of total 232 female respondents comprised of 20 (8.6% of females) recreational

buyers as their mean values of compulsive buying are between 1.00 and 1.99, 151 (65.1%

of females) borderline buyers as their mean values of compulsive buying lie between 2.00

and 2.99, 59 (25.4% of females) compulsive buyers whose mean values of compulsive

72

buying lie between 3.00 and 3.99 and 2 (0.9% of females) addictive buyers having more

than 4 mean value of compulsive buying.

On the whole, total 425 sample respondents include 43 (10.1% of sample) recreational

buyers due to their range of mean score of compulsive buying which lies between 1.00

and 1.99, 261 (61.4% of sample) borderline buyers as their range of mean score of

compulsive buying lies between 2.00 and 2.99, 116 (27.3% of sample) compulsive buyers

as they lie in 3.00 to 3.99 range of mean score of compulsive buying and 5 (1.2% of

sample) addictive buyers who have 4 and above mean score value of compulsive buying.

Table 4.2: Summary of Gender w.r.t Edwards‟ compulsive continuum

Compulsive

Buying Continuum

Range (mean

score of

compulsive

buying)

Males Females Total

Non-compulsive 0.00-0.99 0 0 0

Recreational 1.00-1.99 23 20 43

Borderline 2.00-2.99 110 151 261

Compulsive 3.00-3.99 57 59 116

Addictive 4 and above 3 2 5

Total 193 232 425

4.1.2 Age

Out of 425 respondents, 159 (37.4%) consumers lied between 16 – 20 years of age, 130

(30.6%) were between 21 – 25 years, 59 (13.9%) were between 26 – 30 years, 36 (8.5%)

were between 31 – 35 years, 21 (4.9%) were between 36 – 40 years, 09 (2.1%) were

73

between 41 – 45 years, 06 (1.4%) were between 46 – 50 years, 01 (0.2%) was between 51

– 55 years and 04 (0.9%) were between 56 – 60 years of age.

159 respondents were less than 20 years. On the continuum of compulsive buying, out of

those 159 (37.41% of 425 respondents) 15 respondents (9.43% of 159) were recreational

buyers, 104 respondents (65.41% of 159) were borderline buyers, 37 respondents (23.3%

of 159) were compulsive buyers and 3 respondents (1.88% of 159) were addictive buyers.

130 respondents were lying in the age bracket of 21-25. On compulsive buying

continuum, out of these 130 (30.59% of 425 respondents) 8 respondents (6.15% of 130)

were recreational buyers, 80 respondents (61.54% of 130) were borderline buyers, 40

respondents (30.77% of 130) were compulsive buyers and 2 respondents (1.54% of 130)

were addictive buyers.

59 respondents were lying in the age bracket of 26-30. On compulsive buying continuum,

out of these 59 (13.88% of 425 respondents) 11 respondents (18.64% of 59) were

recreational buyers, 32 respondents (54.24% of 59) were borderline buyers, 16 (27.12%

of 59) respondents were compulsive buyers and no respondent was addictive in this age

group.

36 respondents were lying in the age bracket of 31-35. On compulsive buying continuum,

out of these 36 (8.47% of 425 respondents) 5 respondents (13.89% of 36) were

recreational buyers, 18 respondents (50% of 36) were borderline buyers, 13 respondents

(36.11% of 36) were compulsive buyers and there was also no addictive buyer in this age

group.

41 respondents were above 35 years of age. On compulsive buying continuum, out of

these 41 (9.66% of 425 respondents) 4 respondents (9.75% of 41) were recreational

74

buyers, 27 respondents (65.85% of 41) were borderline buyers, 10 respondents (24.39%

of 41) were compulsive buyers and no addictive buyer was included in this age group.

Table 4.3: Summary of Age w.r.t Edwards‟ compulsive continuum

Age Frequency Percentage Non-

compulsive Recreational Borderline Compulsive Addictive

15- 20 159 37.4 0 15 104 37 3

21-25 130 30.6 0 8 80 40 2

26-30 59 13.9 0 11 32 16 0

31-35 36 8.6 0 5 18 13 0

36 – 40 21 4.9 0 1 16 4 0

41 and above 20 4.6 0 3 11 6 0

Total 425 100 0 43 261 116 5

According to different categories of occupation, 270 respondents (63.5% 0f 425) were

students, 126 respondents (29.6% of 425) were employed in different organizations, 19

respondents (4.5% of 425) were housewives, 8 respondents (1.9% of 425) were holding

their own business and 2 respondents (0.5% of 425) were related to others non-mentioned

categories of occupation.

When respondents were asked about their propensity of visit to market in a month, it was

found that 302 respondents (71.1% of 425) visited market for 1 to 5 times in a months, 67

respondents (15.8% of 425) had 6 to 10 visits to market, 15 respondents (3.5% of 425)

visited market between 11 to 15 times, 16 respondents (3.8% of 425) were found to go

market between 16 to 20 times, only 5 respondents (1.2% of 425) went to market for 21

to 25 times and 20 respondents (4.7% of 425) were used to visit the market on daily basis

i.e. 26 to 30 times.

75

Respondents were also asked about the time spent on a market visit in hours during

shopping. It was noticed that 310 respondents (72.9% of 425) spent more than 3 hours

per market visit, 101 respondents (23.8% of 425) spent 4 to 6 hours for a market visit, 4

respondents (0.9% of 425) spent 7 to 9 hours, 7 respondents (1.6% of 425) took 10 to 12

hours on one market visit and 3 respondents (0.7% of 425) felt comfortable with 13 to 15

hours per market visit.

Responses relating to major source of respondents‟ money to be spend on shopping were

also examined and found that 117 respondents (27.5% of 425) used their personal money

for shopping, 64 respondents (15.1% of 425) get money through their jobs, 23

respondents (5.4% of 425) relied on their husband or wife for their shopping expenditures

and 221 respondents (52% of 425) depended on their parents or guardians for their

expenses.

Overall it is deduced that respondents‟ average age was 25 years, they spent 3 hours on

average for a visit to market and average number of market visits in a month is 6.

76

Table 4.4: Samples description

Demographic

variables Frequency

% total

sample Mean S.D

Gender

Male

Female

193

232

41%

59%

1.55 0.50

Age

(in years)

Less than 20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

Above 40

159

130

59

36

21

20

37.4 %

30.6%

13.9%

8.6%

4.9%

4.6%

2.32 1.56

Occupation

Student

Employee

Housewife

Business

Others

270

126

19

8

2

63.5%

29.6%

4.5%

1.9%

0.5

1.46 0.71

Major source

of spending

Parents/Guardian

Job

Personal

Husband/Wife

221

64

117

23

52%

15.1%

27.5%

5.4%

2.35

0.94

No of market

visit

(in a month)

1-5

5-10

11-15

16-20

More than 20

302

67

15

16

25

71.1%

15.8%

3.5%

3.8%

5.8%

1.62 1.27

Time spend

(in hours)

1-3

4-6

7-9

More than 9

310

101

4

10

72.9%

23.8%

0.9%

2.4%

1.33 0.65

77

4.2 Data Analysis

4.2.1 Examination of Measurement Model

Two types of tests were performed while doing analysis of measurement model. First is

common factor analysis and the other is confirmatory factor analysis.

4.2.1.1 Common Factor Analysis

Common factor analysis is the initial step in measurement model in which the

verification of observed variables (items) is taken place to increase the importance of

model by two methods; firstly by making common factor analysis of every variable

individually, secondly by doing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of latent variables

altogether. Due to involvement of several observed variables the mode turned very

complicated and required the discrete common factor analysis for every variable. For the

confirmation purpose confirmatory factor analysis was also performed.

At the last step of these procedures, factor loading (FL) and squared multiple correlations

(SMCs) had been found to exclude the items of low FL and SMCs. In this study, six

latent variables are employed i.e. susceptibility to normative influence, susceptibility to

informative influence, social comparison orientation, social risk towards fashion, social

shopping motivation and compulsive buying behavior.

Results of Common Factor Analysis of Latent Variable

After the completion of these two procedures it was concluded from the model that all

item had more than 0.5 factor loading (FL) and not less than 0.15 value of squared

78

multiple correlation (SMCs). Thus, no item had been excluded from the model as no item

loading presents small sign of validation of variable to the factor and SMCs values.

4.2.1.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with five independent and one dependent variable

was completed to prove the measurement model. In order to obtain the correlation among

variables and to generalize the independent variables, the path factor between the

measurement data and the relevant latent variables was decided as “1” (Kline, 2005).

4.2.1.3 Analysis of fit Statistic for Measurement Model

Model fit test illustrated that all six fit indices were remained in or close to the standard

range. The calculated value of Relative chi-square CMIN/DF was 2.74 (1.00-5.00),

calculated value of Goodness of fit index GFI was 0.90 (0.90 and above), Adjusted

goodness of fit index was 0.85 (0.80-1.00), Comparative fit index CFI was obtained as

0.84 (0.90 or above) and Root mean square error of approximation RMSEA value was

0.064 (0.01-0.08). As all the indices are within or near to the tolerance ranges thus all

indices are accepted. Findings are presented in Appendix B.

79

Figure III: Measurement model specification

80

4.2.2 Examination of Structural Model

With the objective to test the hypothetical model, afterward the analysis of the concluding

measurement model and the suitability of the structural model were approximated to

examine the hypothesized linkages among all endogenous and exogenous variables of

study.

4.2.2.1 Specification of Structural Model

The arrangement of model is expressed by figure (IV). The structural model has six

variables with thirty one indicators. As indicated by the figure () of conceptual model,

five variables i.e. susceptibility to normative influence (SNI), susceptibility to

informative influence (SII), social risk towards fashion (SRF), social comparison

orientation (SCO) and social shopping motivation (SSM) were performed as exogenous

variables and compulsive buying behavior (CBB) is identified as endogenous variable.

Exogenous Variables

Susceptibility to normative influence (SNI) is the first exogenous variable (independent

variable) in the structural model which contained three observed variables. Susceptibility

to informative influence (SII) is the second exogenous variable in structural model and it

comprised three observed variables. Social risk towards fashion (SRF) is the third

variable in structural model and it had also three observed variables. Social comparison

orientation (SCO) is the fourth exogenous variable of structural model and it had six

observed variables. Social shopping motivation (SSM) is the fifth and last exogenous

variable in structural model with three observed variables.

81

Endogenous Variable

Compulsive buying behavior of consumer is the specific single endogenous variable in

structural model along with five observed variables.

According to Kline (2005), while making analysis by means of SEM there are three

factors or parameters which specify three paths; such as path making connection between

indicator with latent variable, path showing associations of dependent latent variables

with independent latent variables and path which inter-relates all dependent latent

variables. These paths are represented by Greek letters i.e. Lambda (£), Gamma (γ) and

beta (ß) correspondingly, during analysis by using structural model testing.

Significance value must be less than 0.05 (P<0.05). Analysis shows that an exogenous

variable named social risk towards fashion (SRF) is excluded from the specification of

structural model as it significance value was not in the accepted range.

Figure IV: Structural model specification

82

4.2.2.2 Examination of fit statistics for Structural Model

Structural model expressed acceptable fitness and on the whole model fit was rational.

The value of Relative chi-square CMIN/DF was 4.22 (1.00-5.00), Goodness of fit index

GFI was 0.85 (0.90 or above), Adjusted goodness fit index AGFI was 0.81 (above 0.80),

comparative fit index CFI was 0.72 (0.90 or above) and Root mean square error of

approximation RMSEA was 0.08 (0.01-0.08). Results are revealed in Appendix C. There

was not any significant difficulty of misfit and did not recommend any addition or

elimination of paths. As a result the hypothesized model was presenting good fit in figure

(IV).

4.3 Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses 1:

H1a: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to informative

influence and social shopping motivation.

It was hypothesized that there is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to

informative influence and social shopping motivation. It is clear from the research

findings that value of Standard Regression weight 0.36 or (γ= 0.36) with p<0.05, that is

showing the significant relationship between SII and SSM.

Hypotheses 2:

H1b: There is significant relationship exists between susceptibility to normative influence

and social shopping motivation.

It was also assumed that there is significant relationship between susceptibility to

normative influence and social shopping motivation. It is verified from the results that

83

value of Standard Regression weight 0.34 or (γ= 0.34) with p<0.05, that is presenting the

significant relationship between SNI and SSM.

Hypotheses 3:

H1c: There is significant relationship exists between social comparison orientation and

social shopping motivation.

It was also assumed that there is significant relation between social comparison

orientation and social shopping motivation. It is clear from the results that value of

Standard Regression weight 0.22 or (γ= 0.22) with p<0.05, that is showing the significant

relationship between SCO and SSM.

Hypotheses 4:

H1d: There is significant relationship exists between social risk towards fashion and social

shopping motivation.

It was hypothesized that there is significant relation exist between social risk towards

fashion and social shopping motivation. Results show that value p>0.05, exhibiting that

there is no significant relationship between SRF and SSM.

Hypotheses 5:

H1e: There is significant relationship exists between social shopping motivation and

compulsive buying.

It was assumed that social shopping motivation triggered by other social variables is

ultimately has a significant relationship with compulsive buying behavior. Findings of the

study reveals that value of Standard Regression weight 0.28 or (γ= 0.28) with p<0.05,

that is showing the significant relationship between SSM and CBB.

84

85

________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE

RECOMMENDATION

________________________________________________________________________

5. Discussion

Rationally obtained analysis of the research findings will be presented in this section.

Furthermore, possible justifications will be described about results between social

influences on consumers and their compulsive buying behavior. Such association will be

clarified along with thorough discussion on various features like restraints, future

suggestions and implications. The chapter is comprised of three parts i.e. interpretation or

analysis of the findings, limitations, future suggestions and implications. First part gives a

thorough detail on the explanation of results reasonably depicted from literature and the

valuable conclusions relating to proposed hypotheses and comprehensive analysis of

findings. While the other two parts give explanation on limitations, probable implications

of results as theoretical and practical suggestions and future recommendations of the

study.

In accordance with the main purpose of this research study i.e. to find the social

influences on the enhancement of compulsive buying behavior and to examine the

configuration of consumers‟ compulsive buying behavior.

86

It is considered that social attributes of buyers have the greatest affect on the

development of consumer‟s compulsive buying behavior. Hence, the variables for this

study were obtained through social comparison and socio-cultural theories.

Additionally, this work also gives evidence for theory of buyers‟ planned behavior in

terms of buyers‟ attitude behavior association because compulsive buying behavior is

also suggested as a target-oriented behavior (Roberts and Pirog, 2004).

Concisely, attitudes and ideas are robust forecaster of consumer‟s compulsive buying

behavior by impulse buying intention directly or indirectly. Various previous studies

provided recommendation for future research to analyze the motivational push behind the

compulsive buying behavior of a consumer. This takes into account to analyze social (e.g.

Faber and O‟Guinn, 1988; Feather, 1996) and psychological factors (e.g. Raab and

Neuner, 2006) and their part in the process of compulsive buying (e.g. Xu, 2008; Kellett

and Bolton, 2009; Workman and Paper, 2011).

Human beings belong to a social group as they are social species and need to relate with

such group. Being a part of a social group a person need to realize and to agree with the

general beliefs and values of that group in order to change their norms of behavior

accordingly. Reference group establishes the normative standards of behavior for its

followers (e.g. Batra et al., 2001). Normally, it is considered that more social

communications is a result of accepting the similar modes of a specific reference group

while making a decision.

Keeping in view the existing culture of consumers, social pressure may influence the

buyers‟ behavior formation. Such external social pressure is due to the social norms of

reference group (e.g. Slama and Celuch, 1994). Usually a persons‟ expectation of his/her

87

reference group to conform particular standards and behavioral formation plays like

social pressure on them.

Previous studies expressed a significant relationship of social values with buyer‟s

attitudes, inclinations, shopping stimulations and fascinations (e.g. Schwartz, 1992;

2006). Hence, social factors have significant influence on buying behavior of a consumer

and these factors also provide reasons for stimulating consumer‟s interests or creating

aspirations that may result in buying products.

Along with the conclusions of previous studies the theory of social comparison speculates

that people realize themselves by social comparisons or by their desire about themselves

while doing comparison with other people. It is considered as worldwide human

phenomenon. In the same way buyers create social comparison as they focus on and

anxious about the responses and remarks by the members of their reference group. Thus,

in the process of purchase decision or in the development of purchasing behavior such

reference groups perform as information source (e.g. Festinger, 1954; Moschis, 1987).

Finally, buyers want to get a sense to belong with other people in society (conformity).

On the other hand, consumers also want to make a distinction from community

(individuality) by manifestation (Davis, 1985) and symbolic expenditure (Moschis et al.,

2009). Hence, consumers‟ shopping stimulations and patterns of buying decision are

significantly verified by the social influences on them (e.g. Palan, 1998). So, consumer‟s

susceptibility to interpersonal influence and social shopping motivation are of significant

importance while studying the effect of social influences on compulsive buying behavior.

This study showed that social comparison orientation is a significant stimulation for

social shopping motivation and then give a pattern of consumer compulsive buying

88

behavior. Two remarkable social comparison aspects are ability comparison and opinion

comparison (Festinger, 1954; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), were noticed to have impacts on

social shopping motivation in several ways. It is an individual‟s wish to be aware of

his/her abilities (e.g., achievement, recognition) by making comparison with others

engaging him/her in social browsing behavior (e.g., to be conscious about wearing of

others and to be familiar with popularity of products what to buy). Additionally, the

results recommend that opinion comparison is specifically significant to various aspects

of social shopping motivation. A consumer‟s wish to assess his/her thoughts and opinions

was observed to enhance his/her propensities to build relationships (e.g., go to the market

with friends and family), opinion showing (e.g., switch over opinions or sharing of

views) and power buying behavior (e.g., to be focused to the attention of sales personnel).

Social shopping motivation is in the result of friendly social shopping. Such type of

shopping transactions‟ setting needs a location and surroundings where individuals can

simply get verbal and non-verbal signals, associate with their family and friends,

unreservedly present their personal thoughts and dynamically relate with other people.

From different associations known between social comparison orientation and social

shopping motivation and between social shopping motivational aspects and consumer‟s

compulsive buying behavior, business experts can prepare strategies to train their sales

personnel and can plan shopping locations that may gratify their target consumers in an

exclusive and efficient way.

89

5.1 Limitations

All research studies have some limitations that perhaps affect the results. This section

explains the limitations of this work which refers the imperfection of chosen

methodology, simplification of outcomes for different surroundings and the chance of

challenging hypotheses.

It is very rare to choose a perfect research method for all situations and study variables.

Generally all research methodologies are not sufficient and perfect in one manner or

other (McGrath, 1982). All probable efforts have been made to control the deficiencies of

methodology. This research work is an initial attempt to study consumer compulsive

buying behavior. So, at an initial stage of study it is not rationally practicable to test all

influential variables relating to compulsive buying behavior.

Nature of the research is cross sectional that may limit the scope of results. Additionally,

it can be taken into account that compulsive buying can create cognitive or sensitive

reactions that increase the senses of guiltiness and ignorance. Such consequences of

behavior, like cognitive difference of opinion might not be included as the limited scope

of study.

5.2 Implications

All over the world, attention of researchers and marketers has increased for compulsive

buying behavior of consumers and various efforts have been completed to recognize

fundamental determinants of such behavior through different perspectives. But in

Pakistan, no research work has been placed to analyze the relation between compulsive

buying behavior and different social factors or association of such consumer behavior

90

with his/her demographics. Therefore, this work is of particular importance due to an

initial study to investigate the relationship between social factors and consumer

compulsive buying behavior.

In spite of several limitations, the study is also creating many significant contributions

theoretically and practically. The study has examined the impacts of some social factors

on the patterns of compulsive buying behavior by developing and testing a model.

Following lines describe the practical and theoretical implications of the results of this

research.

The results of this analysis give some implications for government policy makers and

scholars. After realization that variable of age and gender may trigger compulsive buying,

policy maker can take a better decision on this basis while keeping in view the guidance

to new consumer from parents and society.

5.2.1 Theoretical Implications

Currently in social perspective, the frequent occurrence of compulsive buying has

captured lots of attention of researchers and intellectuals. The key contribution of this

study is to employ a hypothetically driven method to learn and examine S-O-R model in

the perspective of compulsive buying and the use of designed behavior model to explore

and foresee compulsive buying behavior of a consumer. Conclusion of this study presents

a stepping stone for a comprehend phenomenon of compulsive buying behavior in social

environment.

91

5.2.1.1 Better understanding of the phenomena of compulsive buying behavior

It is clear that compulsive buying is common in our social context. As still, there is no

analysis of compulsive buying behavior with these social aspects. The main objective of

this study was to present a significant explanation of social characteristics which may

determine compulsive behavior of a buyer.

Only a few studies have theoretically analyzed and experimentally investigated the

indications and outcomes of compulsive buying behavior. Hence, this study presents a

practically convincing conceptual framework to get better understanding about the

cognitive process of buyer‟s compulsive buying behavior.

To add up information in various spheres of knowledge (e.g., buyer‟s social psychology,

buyer‟s psychology, buyer‟s behavior and cognitive models of buying behavior), the

current thesis may give a way to innovative approach for inquisition.

5.2.1.2 Contribution to individual’s social psychology field

This study is a positive addition to the existing knowledge relating to consumer‟s social

psychology. It is evident that social influences (i.e. social shopping motivation,

susceptibility to interpersonal influences, social risk towards fashion and social

comparison orientation) have a noteworthy impact on consumer‟s psychology that

eventually appears in consumer‟s compulsive buying behavior.

5.2.1.3 Contribution to social learning literature

Literature of consumer behavior shows that several studies have been done to analyze the

phenomenon of compulsive buying regarding social or psychological perspectives.

Development of compulsive buying behavior during the cognitive judgment process,

92

directs a rational expansion of determining this behavior. Exclusively, theoretical

framework of S-O-R model must be employed to learn the process of buyer‟s compulsive

buying. As indicated by social cognitive theory concerned to the S-O-R model, propose

that social influences may result in psychological influences which are probable to

increase the propensity of compulsive buying.

5.2.1.4 Contribution to cognitive buying behavior literature

This study is deemed to take as proof and expansion of people‟s designed buying

behavior theory. In accordance with the theory, buyers‟ attitudes and values show their

intention towards buying which eventually transform into definite buying behavior.

Ultimately with its new results and conclusions, this work broadens mass of knowledge

relating to consumer behavior. As Kellett and Bolton (2009) and Workman and Paper

(2011) explained comprehensively the process of compulsive buying behavior in

perspective of psychological factors and discussed qualitatively rather than quantitatively.

The key assumption taken from the above cited studies presents that social influential

factors create variation.

Hence, internal and external features which may affect the compulsive buying behavior

process are the most important limitations as these were not tested yet.

Finally, this study made out and proved a direction between buyer‟s social attribute and

compulsive buying behavior. Furthermore, it exhibits a valuable involvement/input in the

literature of consumer buying behavior and also provides nourishment for thought

regarding the subject matter.

93

5.2.2 Practical Implications

The most significant practical implications of this research study are specifically for

policy makers, retailers and consumers that are given in following subsections.

5.2.2.1 Implications to the retailer

Results obtained from this study could offer a track to attract buyers by interaction with

their social impacts like influence of SCO and SII. Retailers and sellers could be able to

make better marketing schemes and approaches. Sellers can create perfect social

representations by keeping them in social buying behavior. By a thorough understanding

of social shopping motivation, the study would be beneficial for retailers to get different

aspects of consumer‟s buying decision.

5.2.2.2 Implications to the policy makers

Testing of social influences in the perspective of CBB may also beneficial for policy

makers, sociologists and educational institutions that instruct and demoralize such

unwanted social behavior in consumers like unnecessary use of credit card and

shopaholism.

Taking in view the findings of this study, policy makers can make strategies to lessen the

related social problems created through compulsive buying behavior by noticing main

social influencing factors.

Groups working for consumer interests and benefits or public policy officers can utilize

theses results to make progressive guidelines for sellers so as to control ill practices that

may generate abnormal purchasing behavior.

94

In the same way, public officers, sellers and trade researchers may also utilize the

shopping motivations mentioned in the study to find compulsive buyer as compared to

make inquiries directly concerning to their sensitive matter e.g. social comparison

orientation.

Besides all such implications, the findings are also effective to formulate suitable social

marketing advices and assistance to reduce the increasing consumer debts due to CBB

that eventually appear in economic and monetary instability for consumers.

5.2.2.3 Implications to the consumer

In addition to policy makers and retailers this study is fundamentally useful for common

man or consumer and at large for whole society. Findings of the study provide a useful

path to get information about their behavioral drawbacks concerning impulsive and

compulsive buying behaviors. When the desire to purchase impulsively triggered due to

the major effect of consumer‟s social comparison orientation, social shopping motivation

and susceptibility to interpersonal influence it will ultimately increase the propensity to

be a compulsive buyer.

In the perspective of retailing many restraint strategies are talked about e.g need

reassessment (e.g. Shehryar et al., 2001), psychological ailment assessment or pre-

commitment etc. Pre-commitment is a renowned restraint strategy which refers to a

willful self-imposed restriction on prospect buying behavior (Hoch and Loewenstein,

1991). The monetary cost assessment is another useful restraint strategy that restricts the

buyer not to be indulged in emotions. In the result, conscious price assessment lessens the

susceptibility of buyers to purchase compulsively (Rook and Hoch, 1985).

95

5.3 Direction for Future Research

The basic concentration of this study was on social factors influence on consumer‟s

compulsive buying behavior. Such motivational sources which are associated to buying

behaviors are of great worth for analysis. Some social motivational factors and their

amalgamation with individual‟s attributes may drive his/her social shopping behavior

compulsively. For example, the wish to join the companionship with others (Schachter,

1959) and to necessitate the relationship might be influential force for consumer buying

behavior. Theory of affiliation gives explanation about people that they need relationship

and they behave in a manner to attain the target to belong (Maslow, 1970). Individual‟s

loneliness may be reduced by going to shopping centers (Solomon & Rabolt, 2006). One

more motivation indication for shopping is related to appropriateness. Appropriateness

relates to responsiveness of people to individual‟s behavior and understanding of nature

of such responses (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Relating with appropriateness individuals

feel social anxiety and fear from people‟s negative assessment about them (Lennox &

Wolfe, 1984). Association of social browsing with social comparison orientation

describes that sensitivity for appropriateness may affect social browsing and other

possible shopping behaviors. Other than common human attributes or stimulations,

fashion can play as a driving force for shopping. Hence, future works can explore fashion

opinion leadership (c.f., Flynn et al., 1996) or social risks toward fashions (c.f., Halepete

et al., 2009) to find their relationships with social shopping and consumer buying

behavior. In future studies, these motives or person‟s socio-psychosocial aspects may

help in further awareness about causes behind buying behaviors. In future research

96

understanding of buying process must be enhanced by specifying more certain outcomes

of buying experience in addition to buyer‟s perceived pleasure from shopping.

Earlier studies give facts that social relationships or fulfilling social desires during

shopping are expected to increase shopping expenditures, time and other several saving

behaviors (Babin et al., 1994; Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Jones, 1999; Paridon,

2004). So, these marketing and trading results can be important consequences of

shopping. Additionally, other than marketing and trading functioning testing the effect of

social interests on social shopping behavior specifically for under-represented category

(i.e., the old aged female cluster) will explain different but significant and applicable

standards of shopping behavior.

5.3.1 Other associated moderators and mediators

Among the paths of social comparison orientation, social shopping motivation,

interpersonal influences and social risk towards fashion, there may present various

moderators and mediators. Such as, involvement with fashion (O'Cass, 2004; Tigert,

Ring, & King, 1976) as buyers having low involvement with fashion may not buy more

as much as those having high involvement with fashion, moods or sensations induced

while shopping (Ladhari, 2007) as mood performs an important role in making

perceptions just before the entire buying experience (Swinyard, 1993). Interviews in

shopping malls and experiment methods would be possibly effective in these studies.

Some other positional and environmental aspects (e.g. personal relations, internal

environment of a shopping mall and complaint dealing) may affect consumer buying

process. Hence, a simultaneous analysis of social factors and shopping environments may

97

probably to give a more clear description of buying process which is in the result of

consumer buying behavior.

5.3.2 Enhancement of external validity

To enhance the external validity of the model established in this work, it is possible to

repeat an equal process to establish a model of shopping process by taking different

samples and other buying perspectives. Besides, males and females generally exhibit

various patterns and intensities of buying behaviors (Kim & Kim, 2005; Raajpoot,

Sharma, & Chebat, 2008; Seock & Bailey, 2008). In the same way, buyers from different

cultures show uncommon social orientations, different understanding of interpersonal

influences and various buying behaviors (Gibbons, Helweg-Larsen, & Gerrard, 1995;

Kim, Forsythe, Gu, & Moon, 2002). Therefore, concerning to future research culture and

gender can be important moderators in this regard.

5.3.3 Improving generalizability

There are few suggestions for upcoming studies in future. As the scope of this research

work was restricted to the respondents of limited areas which were easy to access. In

future studies, researchers may handle with more expressive pool of respondents showing

more demographic attributes and some other social factors that can increase the

credibility of the results. Another interesting suggestion is to amplify this research work

by analyzing the relationship between cross cultures and different levels of financial

development as it was out of the range of this study.

The nature of this study is cross sectional so the persistent and constant effects of

compulsive purchases cannot be considered in this study that may include consequences

98

of feeling guilt and overlooking aspect. Such gap must be focused by longitudinal studies

which may give expected unending effects of compulsive buying behavior and influence

of such consequences on imminent behavior.

The research about compulsive buying behavior is at the formative phase. A prudent

model was constructed to study major impacts of the variables of this research on

compulsive buying behavior. Then this theoretical model is assisted with data and future

research is required to make more progressive model to elaborate compulsive buying

phenomenon and consumer compulsive buying behavior. That new model will help

researchers to analyze the effect of different moderators and any other interrelated

impacts regarding studied variables.

Furthermore, this study has included several aspects of social factors taking as

independent variables. These various aspects of social factors need more research in this

regard to find which aspect is more responsible to make a compulsive buyer. In this

manner, social comparison trend i.e. downward and upward can give the more precise

reason of consumers‟ depression and anxiety. Such social and psychological attributes

must be examined.

5.4 Conclusions

Generally buyers do shopping as a routine matter. As prior studies hypothesized that

normal consumers do not feel any specific excitement during shopping, and do not spoil

themselves by glancing at advertisements and overall they do not keep compulsive

disorders in family history. On the other hand, purchasing and shopping is an exciting

experience of life. Such buyers have uncontrollable desire for shopping.

99

Pakistan has a collectivist or socialist culture. Due to such type of culture, social factors

(e.g. social standards, their compliance to the norms of reference group) and social

environment stimulate the consumer to comply with specific social needs. As motivation

starts due to the occurrence of outside environmental social factors or due to people

internal motivations which result in stimulating the identification of a need. Such need

may be a basic need or erudite by external situations like social influences generate a

state of determination (O'Shaughnessy, 1987), emotions and practical motivations

influence the shopping behavior.

The level of determination impacts the buyer‟s sentimental position and the level of

association. Higher the level of determination, higher the sensations and feelings, which

ultimately produces high degree of association. It can be said that when consumers‟

behavior is goal-oriented that is originated by their needs, wants or desires they incline to

concern in activities which may support them in the situation of need.

As concerned to consumers‟ compulsive buying behavior, it can also be considered as

object-oriented behavior (Roberts and Pirog, 2004), when strong desires create anxiety

and depression and individual inclines to make more shopping to get rid of those things.

But that is a momentary relief and stress reappears in other types like emotional, financial

and interpersonal outcomes after such shopping. It may result into debts, gloominess,

tension, fear, frustration, feeling of control deficiency, interpersonal clashes and low level

of self esteem.

It is important to note that such consequences of compulsive buying behavior are not

observable at once or cannot be visible immediately and these results are intentionally

distinguished only on the later stage with complexity and severity (O‟Guinn and Faber,

100

1989). The instantaneous relief taken from compulsive buying may increase inner

psychological pressure which results into pathological buying (Faber and Christenson,

1996). It is noticed that if a person is trapped in such ferocious circle of compulsive

buying then he/she cannot run off it.

Consumers who had more oriented with social comparison were generally considered to

be more motivated for shopping. This social shopping motivation enhances consumer

satisfaction. These findings confirm the results of Jiyun Kang, 2002.

Compulsive buying behavior of consumer is also found to be related with other factors of

behavioral effects of shopping i.e. number of market visits and time used for one market

visit. Simply, it is said that individuals who inclined to buy things with friends and family

and enjoy the social communications spent more time on one shopping trip as they enjoy

such extra time in market. Such individuals have greater propensity to buy products based

on their liking rather than their need (e.g. Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980).

In simple words, social factors and consumer‟s consistency with reference group are

anticipated to be the intense motivational factors lead to social shopping motivation that

increases psychological influences. These impacts ultimately give the pattern of

compulsive buying behavior. Because of these social influences (i.e. social comparison

orientation and susceptibility to interpersonal influence), people give more attention to

their social needs. Social comparison typically affects the psychological status of a

consumer which is of vital importance in decision making. Morrison, Kalin and Morrison

(2004) stated that, social comparison is a major antecedent for dissatisfaction of

individuals involved in such comparison.

101

The compulsive buying behavior is more affected by upward social comparison (e.g. Lee

et al., 2000; Phau and Woo, 2008). Such influence can be through media or reference

groups. At the same time individuals have self conception and consciously evaluate

themselves to compare with others. By this way consumers find similarities with the

comparison group and think they are a part of upper class. Normally this process takes

place in fashion conscious people to feel good and to justify their individualities. In such

way they feel association with upper class (e.g. Suls et al., 2002).

Various factors enhance the sensitivity of consumer towards social comparison

orientation that may lead to social anxiety, concern of negative assessment, low self-

esteem, tension and misery. All these factors must be entailed as the key causes of

consumer‟s compulsive buying behavior.

102

REFFERENCES

"Consumer Decision Making: Working Paper." Marketing Science Institute.

Alexander, R. S. (1947). "Some aspects of sex differences in relation to marketing." The

Journal of Marketing 12(2): 158-172.

Anderson, J. C. and D. W. Gerbing (1988). "Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach." Psychological bulletin 103(3): 411.

Argo, J. J., D. W. Dahl, et al. (2005). "The influence of a mere social presence in a retail

context." Journal of Consumer Research 32(2): 207-212.

Arnold, M. J. and K. E. Reynolds (2003). "Hedonic shopping motivations." Journal of

retailing 79(2): 77-95.

Babin, B. J., W. R. Darden, et al. (1994). "Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value." Journal of Consumer Research: 644-656.

Bachmann, G. R., D. R. John, et al. (1993). "Children’s susceptibility to peer group

purchase influence: an exploratory investigation." Advances in Consumer

Research 20(1): 463-468.

Batra, R., P. M. Homer, et al. (2001). "Values, susceptibility to normative influence, and

attribute importance weights: A nomological analysis." Journal of consumer

psychology 11(2): 115-128.

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). "Yielding to temptation: Self―control failure, impulsive

purchasing, and consumer behavior." Journal of Consumer Research 28(4): 670-

676.

Bearden, W. O. and M. J. Etzel (1982). "Reference group influence on product and brand

purchase decisions." Journal of Consumer Research: 183-194.

103

Bearden, W. O. and R. L. Rose (1990). "Attention to social comparison information: An

individual difference factor affecting consumer conformity." Journal of Consumer

Research: 461-471.

Bearden, W. O., R. G. Netemeyer, et al. (1989). "Measurement of consumer

susceptibility to interpersonal influence." Journal of Consumer Research: 473-

481.

Beatty, S. E. and M. Elizabeth Ferrell (1998). "Impulse buying: modeling its precursors."

Journal of retailing 74(2): 169-191.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects,

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bellenger, D. N. and P. K. Korgaonkar (1980). "Profiling the recreational shopper."

Journal of retailing 56(3): 77-92.

Bellenger, D. N., D. H. Robertson, et al. (1978). "Impulse buying varies by product."

Journal of advertising research 18(6): 15-18.

Bellinger, D. N., Robertson, D., & Greenberg, B. (1977). "Shopping center patronage

motives." Retailing 56: 77-92.

Bertrandias, L. and R. E. Goldsmith (2006). "Some psychological motivations for fashion

opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking." Journal of Fashion Marketing

and Management 10(1): 25-40.

Black, D. W. (1996). "Compulsive buying: A review." Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Black, D. W. (2007). "A review of compulsive buying disorder." World Psychiatry 6(1):

14.

104

Blackwell, R. D., P. W. Miniard, et al. (2001). "Consumer behavior 9th." South-Western

Thomas Learning. Mason, OH.

Bloch, P. H., N. M. Ridgway, et al. (1991). "Leisure and the shopping mall." Advances in

Consumer Research 18: 445-452.

Bloch, P. H., N. M. Ridgway, et al. (1994). "The shopping mall as consumer habitat."

Journal of retailing 70(1): 23-42.

Bohrnstedt, G. W. and E. F. Borgatta (1981). Social measurement: Current issues, Sage

Publications, Inc.

Boudreau, M.-C., D. Gefen, et al. (2001). "Validation in information systems research: A

state-of-the-art assessment." Mis Quarterly: 1-16.

Bragg, J. (2009). Digging out from $80,000 in debt, CNN. com.

Briney, A. L. (1989). "An examination of the nature of a problematic consumer behavior:

Compulsive purchasing as a learned adaptive response, addiction, and personality

disorder.".

Burnkrant, R. E. and A. Cousineau (1975). "Informational and normative social influence

in buyer behavior." Journal of Consumer Research: 206-215.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). "Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL:

Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring

instrument." International Journal of Testing 1(1): 55-86.

Campbell, R. D. (1981). "Sales: Part 2." The American Salesman 26(8): 20-22.

Carmines, E. G. and J. P. McIver (1981). "Analyzing models with unobserved variables:

Analysis of covariance structures." Social measurement: Current issues: 65-115.

105

Chelton, L. G. and W. C. Bonney (1987). "Addiction, affects and selfobject theory."

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 24(1): 40.

Childers, T. L., C. L. Carr, et al. (2002). "Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online

retail shopping behavior." Journal of retailing 77(4): 511-535.

Choi, J. and L. V. Geistfeld (2004). "A cross-cultural investigation of consumer e-

shopping adoption." Journal of Economic Psychology 25(6): 821-838.

Christensen, G. A., R. J. Faber, et al. (1994). "Compulsive buying descriptive

characteristics and psychiatric morbidity." J Clin Psychiatry 55: 5-11.

Christenson, G. A., R. J. Faber, M. deZwaan, N. C. Raymond, S. M. Specker, M. D.

Eckern, and et al. (1994). "Compulsive Buying: Descriptive Characteristics and

Psychiatric Comorbidity."

Chyan Y, C. C. (2006). "Gender differences in online shoppers‟ decision-making styles."

2: 99-106.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). "Influence: Science and practice." 4.

Cialdini, R. B. and M. R. Trost (1998). "Social influence: Social norms, conformity and

compliance."

Clark, R. A. and R. E. Goldsmith (2006). "Global innovativeness and consumer

susceptibility to interpersonal influence." The Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice 14(4): 275-285.

Cole, L. and D. L. Sherrell (1995). "Comparing scales to measure compulsive buying: an

exploration of their dimensionality." Advances in Consumer Research 22: 419-

419.

106

Cook, T. D. "Campbell. DT (1979)." Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues

for field settings.

Cordell, V. V., N. Wongtada, et al. (1996). "Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of

lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants." Journal of Business

Research 35(1): 41-53.

Cziko, G. (2000). The things we do [electronic resource]: using the lessons of Bernard

and Darwin to understand the what, how, and why of our behavior, The MIT

Press.

Damon, J. E. (1988). Shopaholics: serious help for addicted spenders, Price Stern Sloan.

Darden, W. R. and D. Ashton (1974). "Psychographic profiles of patronage preference

groups." Journal of retailing 50(4): 99-112.

d'Astous, A. (1990). "An inquiry into the compulsive side of “normal― consumers."

Journal of Consumer Policy 13(1): 15-31.

D'Astous, A., Maltais, J., and Roberge, C. (1990). "Compulsive buying tendencies of

adolescent consumers.".

Davis, F. (1985). "Clothing and fashion as communication." The psychology of fashion:

15-27.

Dawson, S. C., Peter H. Bloch, and Nancy M. Ridgway. (1990). "Shopping Motives,

Emotional States and Retail Outcomes." Retailing 4: 408-427.

Dennis, A. and J. Valacich (2001). "Conducting research in information systems."

Communications of the AIS 7(5): 1-41.

107

Desarbo, W. S. and E. A. Edwards (1996). "Typologies of compulsive buying behavior:

A constrained clusterwise regression approach." Journal of consumer psychology

5(3): 231-262.

Deutsch, M. and H. B. Gerard (1955). "A study of normative and informational social

influences upon individual judgment." The journal of abnormal and social

psychology 51(3): 629.

Dholakia, U. M. and D. Talukdar (2004). "How social influence affects consumption

trends in emerging markets: An empirical investigation of the consumption

convergence hypothesis." Psychology & Marketing 21(10): 775-797.

Disorders, D. a. S. M. o. M. (1985). "American Psychiatric Association.".

Disorders, D. a. S. M. o. M. (1987). "American Psychoanalytic Association." 3: 411-423.

Dittmar, H. (2005). "A new look at “compulsive buying―: Self–discrepancies and

materialistic values as predictors of compulsive buying tendency." Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology 24(6): 832-859.

Dittmar, H. (2005). "Compulsive buying–a growing concern? An examination of

gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors." British

Journal of Psychology 96(4): 467-491.

Dittmar, H. and J. Drury (2000). "Self-image–is it in the bag? A qualitative comparison

between “ordinary― and “excessive― consumers." Journal of Economic

Psychology 21(2): 109-142.

Dittmar, H., J. Beattie, et al. (1995). "Gender identity and material symbols: Objects and

decision considerations in impulse purchases." Journal of Economic Psychology

16(3): 491-511.

108

Dittmar, H., J. Beattie, et al. (1996). "Objects, decision considerations and self-image in

men's and women's impulse purchases." Acta psychologica 93(1): 187-206.

Donegan, N. H., J. Rodin, et al. (1983). "A learning theory approach to commonalities."

Commonalities in substance abuse and habitual behavior: 111-156.

Donovan, D. M. and G. Marlatt (1988). Assessment of addictive behaviors, Guilford

Press.

Dowling, G. R. and R. Staelin (1994). "A model of perceived risk and intended risk-

handling activity." Journal of Consumer Research: 119-134.

Edwards, E. A. (1992). The measurement and modeling of compulsive consumer buying

behavior, University of Michigan.

Edwards, E. A. (1993). "Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying

behavior." Financial Counseling and Planning 4(1): 67-84.

Edwards, E. A. (1994). Development and test of a theory of compulsive buying, Working

paper. Ypsilanti: Eastern Michigan University.

Ellen, L. (2007). "Social shopping girlfriend."

Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, et al. Consumer Behavior, 2001, NY: Harcourt Inc.

Etzioni, A. (1986). "The case for a multiple utility conception." 2: 159-183.

Faber, R. J. (1992). "Money changes everything: Compulsive buying from a

biopsychosocial perspective." American Behavioral Scientist.

Faber, R. J. and G. A. Christenson (1996). "In the mood to buy: Differences in the mood

states experienced by compulsive buyers and other consumers." Psychology &

Marketing 13(8): 803-819.

109

Faber, R. J. and T. C. O’Guinn (1988). Dysfunctional consumer socialization: A

search for the roots of compulsive buying. Psychology in micro and macro

economics. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Colloquium of the International

Association for Research in Economic Psychology, Leuven, Belgium, September.

Faber, R. J. and T. C. O’Guinn (1989). "Classifying compulsive consumers: advances

in the development of a diagnostic tool." Advances in Consumer Research 16(1):

738-744.

Faber, R. J. and T. C. O'Guinn (1988). "Compulsive consumption and credit abuse."

Journal of Consumer Policy 11(1): 97-109.

Faber, R. J. and T. C. O'Guinn (1992). "A clinical screener for compulsive buying."

Journal of Consumer Research: 459-469.

Faber, R. J., G. A. Christenson, et al. (1995). "Two forms of compulsive consumption:

Comorbidity of compulsive buying and binge eating." Journal of Consumer

Research: 296-304.

Faber, R. J., T. C. O’Guinn, et al. (1987). "Compulsive consumption." Advances in

Consumer Research 14(1): 132-135.

Fabien, L. and D. Jolicoeur (1993). "Socialization as an etiological factor of compulsive

buying behavior among young adult consumers." European Advances in

Consumer Research 1: 262-268.

Fan, X., B. Thompson, et al. (1999). "Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and

model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes." Structural

Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 56-83.

110

Feather, N. T. (1996). "Values, deservingness, and attitudes toward high achievers:

Research on tall poppies."

Festinger, L. (1954). "A theory of social comparison processes." Human relations 7(2):

117-140.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction

to theory and research.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (2005). "The influence of attitudes on behavior." The handbook

of attitudes: 173-222.

Fisher, R. J. and D. Ackerman (1998). "The effects of recognition and group need on

volunteerism: A social norm perspective." Journal of Consumer Research 25(3):

262-275.

Fl, C. (1994). "THE MATURE CONSUMER." Discount Merchandiser 34(5): 150-152.

Flynn, L. R., R. E. Goldsmith, et al. (1996). "Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two

new measurement scales." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24(2):

137-147.

Forman, A. M. and V. Sriram (1991). "The depersonalization of retailing: Its impact on

the" lonely" consumer." Journal of Retailing; Journal of Retailing.

Freud, S. (1962). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence. The Standard

Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume III

(1893-1899): Early Psycho-Analytic Publications: 157-185.

Gatignon, H. and T. S. Robertson (1985). "A propositional inventory for new diffusion

research." Journal of Consumer Research: 849-867.

111

Gefen, D., D. W. Straub, et al. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression:

Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, Citeseer.

Gibbons, F. X. and B. P. Buunk (1999). "Individual differences in social comparison:

development of a scale of social comparison orientation." Journal of personality

and social psychology 76(1): 129.

Gibbons, F. X., M. Helweg-Larsen, et al. (1995). "Prevalence estimates and adolescent

risk behavior: cross-cultural differences in social influence." Journal of Applied

Psychology 80(1): 107.

Gilbert, P., J. Price, et al. (1995). "Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution:

How might they be related?" New Ideas in Psychology 13(2): 149-165.

Glatt, M. M. and C. C. H. Cook (1987). "Pathological spending as a form of

psychological dependence." British Journal of Addiction 82(11): 1257-1258.

Goldenson, R. M. and W. D. Glanze (1984). Longman dictionary of psychology and

psychiatry, Longman New York.

Goldsmith, R. E. and R. A. Clark (2008). "An analysis of factors affecting fashion

opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking." Journal of Fashion Marketing

and Management 12(3): 308-322.

Gwin, C. F., J. A. Roberts, et al. (2005). "Nature vs. nurture: the role of family in

compulsive buying." Marketing Management Journal 15(1): 95-107.

Hale, J. L., B. J. Householder, et al. (2003). The theory of reasoned action: Developments

in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

112

Halepete, J., M. Littrell, et al. (2009). "Personalization of fair trade apparel consumer

attitudes and intentions." Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 27(2): 143-160.

Hanley, A. and M. S. Wilhelm (1992). "Compulsive buying: An exploration into self-

esteem and money attitudes." Journal of Economic Psychology 13(1): 5-18.

Hausman, A. (2000). "A multi-method investigation of consumer motivations in impulse

buying behavior." Journal of Consumer marketing 17(5): 403-426.

Hemphill, K. J. and D. R. Lehman (1991). "Social comparisons and their affective

consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual

difference variables." Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10(4): 372-394.

Herrero Crespo, A. and I. Rodriguez del Bosque "The influence of the commercial

features of the Internet on the adoption of e-commerce by consumers." Electronic

Commerce Research and Applications 9(6): 562-575.

Herrero Crespo, Ã. n. and I. A. Rodríguez Del Bosque Rodríguez (2008). "Explaining

B2C e-commerce acceptance: An integrative model based on the framework by

Gatignon and Robertson." Interacting with Computers 20(2): 212-224.

Hirschman, E. C. (1992). "The consciousness of addiction: Toward a general theory of

compulsive consumption." Journal of Consumer Research: 155-179.

Hoch, S. J. and G. F. Loewenstein (1991). "Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer

self-control." Journal of Consumer Research: 492-507.

Howard, J. A. and J. N. Sheth (1969). The theory of buyer behavior, Wiley New York.

Hu, L. t. and P. M. Bentler (1999). "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives." Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1-55.

113

Inman, J. J. and R. S. Winer (1998). Where the rubber meets the road: A model of in-

store consumer decision making, Marketing Science Institute Cambridge, MA.

Jacoby, S. (1986). "Compulsive shopping." Glamour 84: 318.

Jones, E. E. and H. B. Gerard (1967). Fundamentals of social psychology, John Wiley

and Sons Inc.

Jones, M. A. (1999). "Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation."

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 6(3): 129-139.

Kaiser, S. B. (1997). "The Social Psychology of Clothing." 2.

Kang, Y.-S. and N. M. Ridgway (1996). "The importance of consumer market

interactions as a form of social support for elderly consumers." Journal of Public

Policy & Marketing: 108-117.

Kapferer, J.-N. and G. Laurent (1985). "Consumer involvement profiles: a new practical

approach to consumer involvement." Journal of advertising research 25(6): 48-56.

Kaufman, W. (1976). "Some Emotional Uses of Money,” in The Psychoanalysis of

Money."

Kellett, S. and J. V. Bolton (2009). "Compulsive buying: A cognitive–behavioural

model." Clinical psychology & psychotherapy 16(2): 83-99.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research . Fort Worth, TX: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Khalifa, M. and M. Limayem (2003). "Drivers of Internet shopping." Communications of

the ACM 46(12): 233-239.

114

Khan, G. and N. Khan (2005). "Susceptibility to informational social influence on

purchase decisions of designer label apparel: The mediating role of gender." The

Business Review 4(1): 32-37.

Kiel, G. C. and R. A. Layton (1981). "Dimensions of consumer information seeking

behavior." Journal of Marketing research: 233-239.

Kim, E. Y. and Y.-K. Kim (2005). "The effects of ethnicity and gender on teens' mall

shopping motivations." Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 23(2): 65-77.

Kim, J.-O., S. Forsythe, et al. (2002). "Cross-cultural consumer values, needs and

purchase behavior." Journal of Consumer marketing 19(6): 481-502.

Kim, Y. K., E. Y. Kim, et al. (2003). "Teens' mall shopping motivations: functions of

loneliness and media usage." Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal

32(2): 140-167.

Kline, R. B. "Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 1998." Guilford,

New York, NY.

Kline, R. B. (2005). "Principles and practice of structural equation modeling Guilford."

New York: 366.

Koran, L. M., K. D. Bullock, et al. (2002). "Citalopram treatment of compulsive

shopping: an open-label study." Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Kraepelin, E. Psychiatric—Leipzig, 1915, Bd.

Krueger, D. W. (1988). "On compulsive shopping and spending: a psychodynamic

inquiry." American Journal of Psychotherapy.

Krych, R. (1989). "ABNORMAL CONSUMER-BEHAVIOR-A MODEL OF

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS." Advances in Consumer Research 16: 745-748.

115

Kwak, H., G. M. Zinkhan, et al. (2003). "Diagnostic screener for compulsive buying:

Applications to the USA and South Korea." Journal of Consumer Affairs 37(1):

161-169.

Kwak, H., G. M. Zinkhan, et al. (2004). "Compulsive comorbidity and its psychological

antecedents: a cross-cultural comparison between the US and South Korea."

Journal of Consumer marketing 21(6): 418-434.

Kwak, H., G. M. Zinkhan, et al. (2006). "Revisiting normative influences on impulsive

buying behavior and an extension to compulsive buying behavior: A case from

South Korea." Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18(3): 57-80.

Kwon, W.-S. and N. A. Rudd (2007). "Effects of psychological and physical self-image

on perceptions of salesperson performance and nonstore shopping intention."

Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 25(3): 207-229.

Ladhari, R. (2007). "The effect of consumption emotions on satisfaction and

word―of―mouth communications." Psychology & Marketing 24(12): 1085-

1108.

Lee, S. H., S. J. Lennon, et al. (2000). "Compulsive consumption tendencies among

television shoppers." Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 28(4):

463-488.

Lejoyeux, M., M. Hourtané, et al. (1995). "Compulsive buying and depression."

Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.

Lennox, R. D. and R. N. Wolfe (1984). "Revision of the self-monitoring scale."

Levy, S. J. (1959). "Symbols for Sale." Harvard Business Review 37: 117-124.

116

Lin, H.-C., C.-L. Wu, et al. "A Productivity Review Study on Theory of Reasoned Action

Literature Using Bibliometric Methodology."

Lin, W.-B., M.-K. Wang, et al. "The combined model of influencing on-line consumer

behavior." Expert Systems with Applications 37(4): 3236-3247.

Liu C, L. R. (2008). "Parenting, peer influence, and role model on compulsive buying

tendencies of early adolescent consumers." 35: 1036-1038.

Loudon, D. L. and A. J. Della Bitta (1993). "Consumer behaviour." Concepts and

Applications,(4th Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.

Luo, X. (2005). "How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing?"

Journal of consumer psychology 15(4): 288-294.

MacCallum, R. C., M. W. Browne, et al. (1996). "Power analysis and determination of

sample size for covariance structure modeling." Psychological methods 1(2): 130.

Magee, A. (1994). "Compulsive buying tendency as a predictor of attitudes and

perceptions." Advances in Consumer Research 21(1): 590-594.

Mangleburg, T. F., P. M. Doney, et al. (2004). "Shopping with friends and teens’

susceptibility to peer influence." Journal of retailing 80(2): 101-116.

Marlatt, G. A., J. S. Baer, et al. (1988). "Addictive behaviors: Etiology and treatment."

Annual review of Psychology 39(1): 223-252.

Marsh, H. W. and D. Hocevar (1985). "Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the

study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance

across groups." Psychological bulletin 97(3): 562.

Marshall, A. (1890). "1920Principles of Economics." London: Mac-Millan.

117

Martin, B. A. S., D. Wentzel, et al. (2008). "Effects of susceptibility to normative

influence and type of testimonial on attitudes toward print advertising." Journal of

Advertising 37(1): 29-43.

Martineau, P. (1958). "The personality of the retail store."

Maslow, A. H., R. Frager, et al. (1970). Motivation and personality, Harper & Row New

York.

McElroy, S. L., A. Satlin, et al. (1991). "Treatment of compulsive shopping with

antidepressants: A report of three cases." Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.

McElroy, S. L., H. G. Pope, et al. (1991). "Kleptomania: a report of 20 cases." Am J

Psychiatry 148(5): 652-657.

McElroy, S. L., P. E. Keck, et al. (1994). "Compulsive buying: a report of 20 cases." The

Journal of clinical psychiatry 55(6): 242-248.

McGrath, J. E. (1982). "Dilemmatics: The study of choices and dilemmas in the research

process." Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McGrath, J. E., J. Martin, et al. (1982). Judgment calls in research, Sage Publications.

McGuire, W. J. (1968). "Personality and susceptibility to social influence." Handbook of

personality theory and research 2: 1130-1187.

Milkman, H. and S. Sunderwirth (1982). "Addictive processes." Journal of Psychoactive

Drugs 14(3): 177-192.

Mingers, J. (2001). "Combining IS research methods: towards a pluralist methodology."

Information systems research 12(3): 240-259.

Mittal, B. and M.-S. Lee (1989). "A causal model of consumer involvement." Journal of

Economic Psychology 10(3): 363-389.

118

Monahan, P., D. W. Black, et al. (1996). "Reliability and validity of a scale to measure

change in persons with compulsive buying." Psychiatry research 64(1): 59-67.

Morrison, T. G., R. Kalin, et al. (2004). "Body-image evaluation and body-image

investment among adolescents: a test of sociocultural and social comparison

theories." Adolescence.

Moschis, G. P. (1976). "Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information."

Journal of retailing 52(2): 61-70.

Moschis, G. P. (1987). "Consumer socialization: A life-cycle perspective."

Moschis, G. P. and D. Cox (1989). "Deviant consumer behavior." Advances in Consumer

Research 16(1): 732-737.

Moschis, G. P. and G. A. Churchill Jr (1978). "Consumer socialization: A theoretical and

empirical analysis." Journal of Marketing research: 599-609.

Moschis, G. P., P. Hosie, et al. (2009). "Effects of family structure and socialization on

materialism: a life course study in Malaysia."

Mourali, M., M. Laroche, et al. (2005). "Individualistic orientation and consumer

susceptibility to interpersonal influence." Journal of Services Marketing 19(3):

164-173.

Mowen, J. C. (1995). "Consumer Behavior.-4-th ed." Macmillan Publishing Co 862: 13.

Mulaik, S. A. and R. E. Millsap (2000). "Doing the four-step right." Structural Equation

Modeling 7(1): 36-73.

Mundis, J. (1986). "A way back from deep debt." New York Times Magazine: 22-26.

Nataarajan, R. and B. G. Goff (1991). "Compulsive buying: Toward a

reconceptualization. Special Issue: To have possessions: A handbook of

119

ownership and property." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6(6): 307-

326.

Nataraajan, R., and Goff, B. G. (1990). "Shopping or Buying? Does it Matter? Paper

presented at the Annual conference proceedings."

O'Cass, A. (2004). "Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of

fashion clothing involvement." European Journal of Marketing 38(7): 869-882.

Ogden, H. J. and R. Venkat (2001). "Social comparison and possessions: Japan vs

Canada." Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 13(2): 72-84.

O'Guinn, T. C. and R. J. Faber (1989). "Compulsive buying: A phenomenological

exploration." Journal of Consumer Research: 147-157.

O'Guinn, T. C. F., R.J. (1987). "Purchasing not possessing: Aspects of materialism and

compulsive consumption.".

Orford, J. (1985). "Excessive Appetites: A Psychological View of Addictions."

O'Shaughnessy, J. (1987). Why people buy, Oxford University Press New York.

Palan, K. M. (1998). "Relationships between family communication and consumer

activities of adolescents: An exploratory study." Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science 26(4): 338-349.

Paridon, T. J. (2004). "Retail opinion sharing: conceptualization and measurement."

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 11(2): 87-93.

Park, C. W. and B. Mittal (1985). "A theory of involvement in consumer behavior:

Problems and issues." Research in consumer behavior 1.

120

Park, C. W. and V. P. Lessig (1977). "Students and housewives: Differences in

susceptibility to reference group influence." Journal of Consumer Research: 102-

110.

Park, H. S. and T. R. Levine (1999). "The theory of reasoned action and self―construal:

Evidence from three cultures." Communications Monographs 66(3): 199-218.

Parsons, A. G. (2002). "Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click."

Journal of Consumer marketing 19(5): 380-392.

Penman, S. and L. S. McNeill (2008). "Spending their way to adulthood: consumption

outside the nest." Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers

9(3): 155-169.

Petrakis, P. L. and W. Clearinghouse (1985). Alcoholism: An inherited disease, US

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

and Alcoholism.

Phau, I. and C. Woo (2008). "Understanding compulsive buying tendencies among young

Australians: the roles of money attitude and credit card usage." Marketing

Intelligence & Planning 26(5): 441-458.

Phau, I. and C.-C. Lo (2004). "Profiling fashion innovators: A study of self-concept,

impulse buying and Internet purchase intent." Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management 8(4): 399-411.

Piacentini, M. and G. Mailer (2004). "Symbolic consumption in teenagers' clothing

choices." Journal of Consumer Behaviour 3(3): 251-262.

121

Polegato, R. and M. Wall (1980). "Information seeking by fashion opinion leaders and

followers." Home Economics Research Journal 8(5): 327-338.

Raab, G., and Neuner, M. (2006). "Fascination eBay: Compulsive buying, internet

addiction and the thrill and adventure seeking- motive.".

Raajpoot, N. A., A. Sharma, et al. (2008). "The role of gender and work status in

shopping center patronage." Journal of Business Research 61(8): 825-833.

Raykov, T. and G. A. Marcoulides (2000). "A method for comparing completely

standardized solutions in multiple groups." Structural Equation Modeling 7(2):

292-308.

Richins, M. L. (1991). "Social comparison and the idealized images of advertising."

Journal of Consumer Research: 71-83.

Ridgway, N. M., M. Kukar―Kinney, et al. (2008). "An expanded conceptualization and

a new measure of compulsive buying." Journal of Consumer Research 35(4): 622-

639.

Rindfleisch, A., J. E. Burroughs, et al. (1997). "Family structure, materialism, and

compulsive consumption." Journal of Consumer Research: 312-325.

Roberts, J. (2000). "Consuming in a consumer culture: College students, materialism,

status consumption, and compulsive buying." Marketing Management Journal

10(2): 76-91.

Roberts, J. A. (1997). "The Emerging Consumer Culture in Mexico: An Exploratory

Investigation of Compulsive Buying in Mexican Young Adults." 10: 7-31.

122

Roberts, J. A. (1998). "Compulsive buying among college students: an investigation of its

antedecents, consequences, and implications for public policy." Journal of

Consumer Affairs 32(2): 295-319.

Roberts, J. A. and C. J. Sepulveda M (1999). "Money attitudes and compulsive buying:

an exploratory investigation of the emerging consumer culture in Mexico."

Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11(4): 53-74.

Roberts, J. A. and C. R. Martinez (1998). "The emerging consumer culture in Mexico: an

exploratory investigation of compulsive buying in Mexican young adults."

Journal of International Consumer Marketing 10(1-2): 7-31.

Roberts, J. A. and S. F. Pirog Iii (2004). "Personal goals and their role in consumer

behavior: the case of compulsive buying." Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice: 61-73.

Rook, D. W. and M. P. Gardner (1993). "In the mood: impulse buying’s affective

antecedents." Research in consumer behavior 6(7): 1-28.

Rook, D. W. and R. J. Fisher (1995). "Normative influences on impulsive buying

behavior." Journal of Consumer Research: 305-313.

Rook, D. W. and S. J. Hoch (1985). "Consuming impulses." Advances in Consumer

Research 12(1): 23-27.

Rookh, D. W. (1987). "The buying impulse." The Journal of Consumer Research 14(2):

189-199.

Rose, G. M., D. M. Boush, et al. (1998). "Self-esteem, susceptibility to interpersonal

influence, and fashion attribute preference in early adolescents." European

Advances in Consumer Research 3: 197-203.

123

Rotter, J. B. (1954). "Social learning and clinical psychology."

Roy, A. (1994). "Correlates of mall visit frequency." Journal of retailing 70(2): 139-161.

Rycroft, C. (1968). "A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis."

Salzman, L. (1981). Psychodynamics of the Addictions, New York: Free Press.

Scarpi, D. (2006). "Fashion stores between fun and usefulness." Journal of Fashion

Marketing and Management 10(1): 7-24.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources

of gregariousness, Stanford University Press.

Scherhorn, G. (1990). "The addictive trait in buying behaviour." Journal of Consumer

Policy 13(1): 33-51.

Scherhorn, G., L. A. Reisch, et al. (1990). "Addictive buying in West Germany: an

empirical study." Journal of Consumer Policy 13(4): 355-387.

Schiffman, L. G. and L. L. Kanuk (2000). Consumer Behavior, 7th, Prentice Hall, Inc.

Schiffman, L. G. and L. L. Kanuk (2004). Nákupní chování, Computer Press.

Schlosser, S., D. W. Black, et al. (1994). "Compulsive buying: demography,

phenomenology, and comorbidity in 46 subjects." General Hospital Psychiatry

16(3): 205-212.

Schmitz, J. M. (2005). "The interface between impulse-control disorders and addictions:

Are pleasure pathway responses shared neurobiological substrates?" Sexual

Addiction & Compulsivity 12(2-3): 149-168.

Schroeder, J. E. (1996). "An analysis of the consumer susceptibility to interpersonal

influence scale." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 11(3): 585-599.

124

Schumacker, R. E. "Lomax. RG (2004)." A beginner's guide to structural equation

modeling 2.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). "Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries." Advances in experimental social

psychology 25(1): 1-65.

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). "A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and

applications." International Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology 104:

33.

Sen, S., Z. Gürhan―Canli, et al. (2001). "Withholding consumption: a social

dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts." Journal of Consumer Research

28(3): 399-417.

Seock, Y. K. and L. R. Bailey (2008). "The influence of college students' shopping

orientations and gender differences on online information searches and purchase

behaviours." International Journal of Consumer Studies 32(2): 113-121.

Shavelson, R. J. (1988). "Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences."

Shim, S. and M. A. Eastlick (1998). "The hierarchical influence of personal values on

mall shopping attitute and behavior." Journal of retailing 74(1): 139-160.

Shoham, A. and M. M. Brencic (2003). "Compulsive buying behavior." Journal of

Consumer marketing 20(2): 127-138.

Sirgy, M. J. (1998). "Materialism and quality of life." Social indicators research 43(3):

227-260.

125

Sit, J., B. Merrilees, et al. (2003). "Entertainment-seeking shopping centre patrons: the

missing segments." International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

31(2): 80-94.

Slama, M. and K. Celuch (1994). "Assertion and attention to social comparison

information as influences on consumer complaint intentions." Journal of

Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour 7: 1994.

Snyder, M. and K. G. DeBono (1985). "Appeals to image and claims about quality:

Understanding the psychology of advertising." Journal of personality and social

psychology 49(3): 586.

Solomon, M. R. (1983). "The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic

interactionism perspective." Journal of Consumer Research: 319-329.

Solomon, M. R. (2006). Consumer behavior, Pearson Education.

Spangenberg, E. R. and D. E. Sprott (2006). "Self―Monitoring and Susceptibility to the

Influence of Self―Prophecy." Journal of Consumer Research 32(4): 550-556.

Sproles, G. B. (1981). Perspectives of fashion, Burgess Publishing Company.

Stafford, J. E. (1966). "Effects of group influences on consumer brand preferences."

Journal of Marketing research: 68-75.

Stafford, J. E. and A. B. Cocanougher (1977). "Reference group theory." Selected

Aspects of Consumer Behavior: 361-380.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. and H. Baumgartner (2000). "On the use of structural equation

models for marketing modeling." International Journal of Research in Marketing

17(2): 195-202.

126

Stern, H. (1962). "The significance of impulse buying today." The Journal of Marketing:

59-62.

Stone, E. M. (1988). American psychiatric glossary, American Psychiatric Publishing,

Inc.

Straub, D. W. (1989). "Validating instruments in MIS research." Mis Quarterly: 147-169.

Suls, J., R. Martin, et al. (2002). "Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what

effect?" Current directions in psychological science 11(5): 159-163.

Swann, W. J., Seroussi, A.L. & Giesler, R.B. (1992). "Why people self verify."

Personality and Social Psychology 5: 857-869.

Swinyard, W. R. (1993). "The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store

experience on shopping intentions." Journal of Consumer Research: 271-280.

Tabakoff, B. and J. D. Rothstein (1983). Biology of tolerance and dependence. Medical

and social aspects of alcohol abuse, Springer: 187-220.

Tan, F. B., L. Yan, et al. (2006). Explaining actual online shopping behavior: evidences

from two distinct national cultures, Conference on Information Science

Technology and Management.

Tauber, E. M. (1972). "Why do people shop?" The Journal of Marketing: 46-49.

Taylor, S. E., B. P. Buunk, et al. (1992). "Social comparison and affiliation under threat."

Life crises and experiences of loss in adulthood: 213-227.

Tigert, D. J., L. Ring, et al. (1976). "Fashion involvement and buying behavior: A

methodological study." Advances in Consumer Research 3(1): 46-52.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism, Westview Press.

127

Valence, G., A. d'Astous, et al. (1988). "Compulsive buying: Concept and measurement."

Journal of Consumer Policy 11(4): 419-433.

Veloutsou, C. and X. Bian (2008). "A cross―national examination of consumer

perceived risk in the context of non―deceptive counterfeit brands." Journal of

Consumer Behaviour 7(1): 3-20.

Weinberg, P. and W. Gottwald (1982). "Impulsive consumer buying as a result of

emotions." Journal of Business Research 10(1): 43-57.

Wells, W. D. (1993). "Discovery-oriented consumer research." Journal of Consumer

Research: 489-504.

Westbrook, R. A. a. B., W. C. (1985). "A motivation-based shopper typology." Retailing

61: 78-103.

Weun, S., M. A. Jones, et al. (1997). "A parsimonious scale to measure impulse buying

tendency." AMA Educators's Proceedings: Enhancing Knowledge Development

in Marketing: 306-307.

White, K. M., M. A. Hogg, et al. (2002). "Improving attitude-behavior correspondence

through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup." Basic and Applied

Social Psychology 24(2): 91-103.

Wood, J. V. (1989). "Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal

attributes." Psychological bulletin 106(2): 231.

Wooten, D. B. and A. Reed Ii (2004). "Playing It Safe: Susceptibility to Normative

Influence and Protective Self―Presentation." Journal of Consumer Research

31(3): 551-556.

128

Workman, L., and Paper, D. (2011). "Compulsive buying: A theoretical framework."

Business Inquiry 9: 89-126.

Xu, Y. (2008). "The influence of public self-consciousness and materialism on young

consumers' compulsive buying." Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for

Responsible Marketers 9(1): 37-48.

Zhang, X., V. R. Prybutok, et al. (2006). "The Role of Impulsiveness in a TAM-Based

Online Purchasing Behavior." Information Resources Management Journal

(IRMJ) 19(2): 54-68.

129

APPENDICES

____________________________________________________

Annex A _____________________________________________________

Descriptive Statistics

Occupation

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Student 270 63.5 63.5 63.5

Employee 126 29.6 29.6 93.2

House wife 19 4.5 4.5 97.6

Business 8 1.9 1.9 99.5

Other 2 .5 .5 100.0

Total 425 100.0 100.0

Major Source behind spending money/ buying

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Personal 117 27.5 27.5 27.5

Job 64 15.1 15.1 42.6

Parents/Guardian 221 52.0 52.0 94.6

Husband/Wife 23 5.4 5.4 100.0

Total 425 100.0 100.0

130

How many times do you visit market in a month? (No. of visits:

approximately)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1-5 302 71.1 71.1 71.1

6-10 67 15.8 15.8 86.8

11-15 15 3.5 3.5 90.4

16-20 16 3.8 3.8 94.1

21-25 5 1.2 1.2 95.3

26-30 20 4.7 4.7 100.0

Total 425 100.0 100.0

How much time do you spend in shopping on each visit to market? (In hours)

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

1-3 hours 310 72.9 72.9 72.9

4-6 hours 101 23.8 23.8 96.7

7-9 hours 4 .9 .9 97.6

10-12 hours 7 1.6 1.6 99.3

13-15 3 .7 .7 100.0

Total 425 100.0 100.0

131

____________________________________________________

Annex B _____________________________________________________

Result of Measurement Model

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Default model)

Estimate

SNI1

.214

SNI2

.283

SNI3

.328

SCO6

.317

ZUNP

.256

ZPP

.097

ZFS

.124

ZDYS

.681

ZTS

.323

SRF3

.428

SCO1

.261

SCO2

.374

SCO3

.361

SCO4

.423

SCO5

.286

SII3

.356

SSM1

.521

SSM2

.683

SSM3

.327

SRF1

.456

SRF2

.526

SII1

.273

SII2

.403

132

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 61 589.650 215 .000 2.743

Saturated model 276 .000 0

Independence model 23 2559.755 253 .000 10.118

RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .080 .884 .850 .688

Saturated model .000 1.000

Independence model .270 .503 .458 .462

Baseline Comparisons

Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .770 .729 .840 .809 .838

Saturated model 1.000

1.000

1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .064 .058 .070 .000

Independence model .147 .142 .152 .000

133

____________________________________________________

Annex C _____________________________________________________

Result if Structural Model

Regression Weights: (Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

SSM <--- SNI .536 .139 3.846 ***

SSM <--- SII .525 .118 4.446 ***

SSM <--- SCO .298 .088 3.372 ***

CBB <--- SSM .199 .049 4.073 ***

SII2 <--- SII 1.329 .211 6.290 ***

SSM2 <--- SSM 1.085 .103 10.510 ***

SII3 <--- SII 1.291 .204 6.321 ***

SII1 <--- SII 1.000

ZTS <--- CBB 1.000

ZFS <--- CBB .417 .068 6.127 ***

ZPP <--- CBB .501 .100 5.000 ***

ZUNP <--- CBB 1.171 .136 8.581 ***

SCO5 <--- SCO .956 .130 7.358 ***

SCO4 <--- SCO 1.182 .146 8.096 ***

SCO3 <--- SCO 1.215 .151 8.038 ***

SCO2 <--- SCO 1.146 .146 7.857 ***

SCO1 <--- SCO 1.000

SCO6 <--- SCO 1.041 .138 7.530 ***

SNI2 <--- SNI 1.307 .262 4.978 ***

SNI3 <--- SNI 1.207 .241 5.005 ***

SNI1 <--- SNI 1.000

ZDYS <--- CBB .888 .097 9.161 ***

SSM3 <--- SSM .739 .080 9.242 ***

SSM1 <--- SSM 1.000

134

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Default model)

Estimate

SSM

.295

CBB

.277

SNI1

.196

SNI2

.326

SNI3

.305

SCO6

.310

ZUNP

.330

ZPP

.089

ZFS

.240

ZDYS

.487

ZTS

.451

SCO1

.247

SCO2

.365

SCO3

.402

SCO4

.415

SCO5

.285

SII3

.395

SSM1

.477

SSM2

.660

SSM3

.298

SII1

.228

SII2

.416

135

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 44 699.634 166 .000 4.215

Saturated model 210 .000 0

Independence model 20 2084.370 190 .000 10.970

RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model .170 .847 .807 .670

Saturated model .000 1.000

Independence model .268 .531 .481 .480

Baseline Comparisons

Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .664 .616 .722 .678 .718

Saturated model 1.000

1.000

1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .087 .080 .094 .000

Independence model .153 .147 .159 .000

136

____________________________________________________

Annex D _____________________________________________________

Questionnaire

Dear Participant,

Thank you for agreeing to fill out this questionnaire.

I Frah Rasheed, M.phil Scholar at Minhaj University Lahore conducting a study for my

thesis “Consumer’s Social influences towards compulsive buying”. You can help me

in my research by filling out this questionnaire.

In order to help us better interpret your responses to the questionnaire please

encircle the appropriate response.

1. Gender: (1) Male (2) Female

2. Age: ________

3. Occupation: (1) Student (2) Employee (3) House wife(4) Business (5)

_______

4. Major Source behind spending money (appearance related products especially):

(1) Personal (2) job (3) Parents/Guardian (4) husband/wife (5) _________________

5. How many times do you visit market in a month? (No. of visits: approximately)

_______

6. How much time do you spend in shopping on each visit to market? (In

hours)________

Please note that the survey intends to measure buying behavior while purchasing

appearance related products that may include

“Apparel (cloths), Shoes, Toiletries, Cosmetics, Jewelry, Cell phones and Care-

Products”. Therefore, while filling the questionnaire please recall your feelings while

purchasing such items.

(1)

Strongly

Disagree

(2)

Disagree

(3) Neutral (4)

Agree

(5)

Strongly

Agree

1 I go for shopping for fashion with

my friends or family to socialize.

2 I enjoy socializing with others when

I shop for fashion.

3 Shopping for fashion with others

makes friendship/bonding

experience.

137

4 To make sure I buy the right fashion

product or brand, I often observe

what others are buying and using.

5 If I have less experience with a

fashion product, I often ask my

friends about the product.

6 I consult other people to help in

choosing the best alternative

available in fashion market.

7 It is important that others like the

fashion products and brands I buy.

8 If other people can see me using a

fashion product, I often purchase the

brand they expect me to buy.

9 I rarely purchase the latest fashion

styles until I am sure my friends

approve them.

10 I feel motivated to buy and spend,

even when I don‟t have the time or

money.

11 I get little or no pleasure from

shopping

12 I hate to go shopping.

13 I go for shopping and buy in excess.

14 When I feel excited then I go for

shopping and buy in excess.

15 Sometimes, I buy things even when

I don‟t need anything.

16 I go for shopping and buy in excess

when I am upset, disappointed or

angry.

17 I sometimes worry about my

spending habits but still go out to

buy and spend money.

18 When I go for shopping and buy in

excess, then I feel worried.

19 I sometimes buy things even though

I cannot afford them.

20 Sometimes, When I go for shopping

and buy in excess, then I feel guilty

or ashamed

21 I sometimes buy things I do not need

or will not use.

138

22 I sometimes feel strong inner push to

go shopping.

23 I am worried about what others will

think of my fashion sense.

24 I worry that my friends might think I

look funny with my fashion items.

25 I fear that what I buy might not be in

fashion.

26 If I want to find out my

performance, I compare it with

performance of others.

27 I compare how I am doing socially

(e.g., social skills, popularity) with

how other people are doing socially.

28 I compare my achievements with

others‟ achievements.

29 I always like to know what others

will do in a similar situation.

30 I try to find out the

thoughts/opinions of others who face

problems similar to problems that I

face.

31 If I want to learn more about

something, I try to find out what

others think about it.