1

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
2.4

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

2.4.1

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

2.5

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

2.5.1

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

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

3.6.1

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

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 continuum75
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

_____________________________________________________________
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 individuals 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 persons 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).

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). Peoples 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 individuals 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 individuals internal factors. On the
other hand, the theorists consumers 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

that external effects also play a significant role to develop individuals 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 OGuinn
(1989) explained prime criterion to establish the leniency or potential irregularity of
compulsive buying for example, whether a consumers 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 persons 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).

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 individuals buying behavior hardly ever
go subsequent to the economic theorys 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 nonrational 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 moods status (Faber and
OGuinn, 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 consumers unusual
consumption behavior i.e. compulsive behavior (Faber and OGuinn 1992; OGuinn and
Faber 1989). Compulsive buying shows the propensities to be anxious about buying that

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 OGuinn 1992).
Consumers 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
persons feeling of pushed himself or herself to do and do again an action yet ones 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 1980s but in 1972 Tauber was
previously investigating individuals 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 shoppers 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

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 stores 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

10

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. dAstous (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 (dAstous 1990; Dittmar and Drury 2000; OGuinn 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).

11

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 Laurents
(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, OGuinn 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).

12

To what degree social factors influence consumers CBB. In response to this problem,
research will find the answer of this question and will give explanation to understand the
scope of consumers 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 consumers 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 consumers 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 consumers social influences in the construction of compulsive

buying behavior?

13


1.6

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

Significance of the Study

Pakistan is one of the developing countries on the globe. The countrys 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 consumers behavior.
This study can help the marketers to understand such consumers 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 ones 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

14

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

15

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 buyers 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 buyers compulsive buying behavior in Pakistani context. The
present research will make easy to identify prominent external factors which accelerate
buyers 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 buyers compulsive buying behaviors
taxonomy.

16

(2) Identify the relationship of consumers 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.

17

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 OGuinn 1992; Scherhorn 1990; Valence et al. 1988)
Social Influences
Social influences are the sum of all things that can change or can affect an individuals
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

18

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 persons want to conform to the
beliefs of selected noteworthy others is viewed as susceptibility to interpersonal influence
and the extent to which peoples 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 peoples 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).

19

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 users 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).

20

_____________________________________________________
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 consumers buying behavior theories, models and
methods which are particularly important to analyze consumers 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

21

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 consumers compulsive behavior was known as mental illness,
denoted as impulse disorder, obsession, compulsive buying and buying addiction.
O'Guinn and Faber (1989) analyzed consumers 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

22

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, Hourtan and Ads, 1995), social psychology (Faber and
OGuinn, 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;
DAstous, Matais, and Roberge, 1990; DAstous, 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.

23

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 (dAstous 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.

24

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.

25

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 consumers
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 cant 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, OGuinn, and Krych, 1987; Faber and OGuinn,
1988a; Faber and OGuinn, 1989; Faber and OGuinn, 1992), work of D'Astous and
colleagues (Valence et al., 1988; Nataraajan and Goff, 1990; DAstous 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

26

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 OGuinn
(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
behaviors 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

27

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 (DAstous 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 OGuinn, 1988a; 1989; DAstous, 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 behaviors range from non compulsive to compulsive

28

(Edwards, 1992; DeSarbo and Edwards, 1996) and behaviors 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.

29

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 (buyers 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 buyers buying
behavior) and post-purchase guilt ( buyers 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

30

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

31

Table 2-I: Common measures of compulsive buying

Scale name and Construct

Author name

Conceptual aspects described

by scale

Tendency to spend, reactive

Compulsive
Buying Valence,
aspect, post-purchase guilt and
Measurement
scale:
as DAstous and
family environment.
conceptual perspectives
Fortier (1988)

Compulsive Buying scale: as Faber

and
Self-esteem, materialism,
behavioural
and financial OGuinn
credit card usage.
indicators
(1992)

Compulsive Buying scale: as

compulsiveness in buying Edwards
behaviour
from
non- (1993)
compulsive to addicted buying

Drive to spend, feelings about

shopping and spending, tendency
to spend, dysfunctional spending,
and post-purchase guilt.

Obsessive-Compulsive scale
(modified the existing YaleBrown); shopping Version: To Monahan et al.
assess
cognitions
and (1996)
behaviors associated with
compulsive buying.

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.

Compulsive buying as partly

Compulsive buying behavior
obsessive-compulsive (an anxiety
scale (modified the existing
disorder) and partly an impulse
Ridgway et al.
Richmonds
compulsive
control disorder. Or as actual
(2008)
buying behavior scale)
characteristics of compulsive
buying
instead
of
its
consequences.

and

32

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
individuals 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.

33

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

34

(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

35

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 OGuinn (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,

36

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, &

37

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 peoples 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 days 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).

38

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 buyers 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

39

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 buyers
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 peoples
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 selfesteem, 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 selfenhancement (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

40

distant referents like idealized media icons make overstated and idealistically
extraordinary expectations of their idealized fashion icons 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 ones 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

41

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).

42

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

specify with others or make better ones 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

43

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

44

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 Ajzens 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 peoples referent groups
concerning the behavior being discussed have an immediate effect on persons intention
to act in a particular way. Consumers acquire the normative beliefs in conceptual form
and they rely on the persons 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 persons 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.

45

2.4.1.4 Social risk towards fashion

Social risk is considered as the individuals 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).

46

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:
Consumers Social Influences

Compulsive Buying Behavior

Informative Influence
Normative Influence
Social Shopping Motivation
Social Comparison
Orientation

Compulsive Buying
Behavior

Social Risk towards

Fashion

Figure II: Theoretical Framework

2.5.1

Research Hypotheses

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

shopping motivation.

47

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.

48

_____________________________________________________________
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

49

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 consumers 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.

50

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.

51

Dittmar (2005), OGuinn 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
consumers 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.

52

Table 3.1 Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis #

Specific Hypothesis

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.

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.

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

53

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

54

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

55

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 peoples expectations and to act in accordance with
others 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

56

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

57

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 Cronbachs 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

58

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 Cronbachs 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 consumers 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,
Cronbachs alpha 0.89.
Second aspect of CBB is urge to spend/compulsion symbolized as ZUNP that is
described as the degree of consumers 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 dont need anything with consistent past value of Crobachs
alpha of 0.79. Third aspect of CBB is post purchase guilt represented by ZPP. It can be
expressed as consumers conflicts, emotions or as the degree of consumers 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 Cronbachs 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

59

sometimes feel strong inner push to go for shopping with past consistent Cronbachs
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 Cronbachs 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

60

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
Sr.
Variable name
no.

Codes

Social
motivation

Susceptibility
to
SII
informative influence

Bearden
(1989)

et

al.

Susceptibility
to
SNI
normative influence
Social
risk
towards
SRF
fashion

Bearden
(1989)
Halepete
(2009)

et

al.

et

al

Social
orientation

Compulsive
behaviour

Demographics variables

3
4

shopping

Instrument
No. of
Measurement Scale
author
Items
Arnold
&
1
=
Strongly
Reynolds(2003)
03
Disagree, 5=Strongly
Agree

comparison
buying

SSM

03

1 = SD, 5 = SA

03

1 = SD, 5 = SA

03

1 = SD, 5 = SA

SCO

Gibbons
and
06
Buunk (1999)

1= SD, 5 = SA

CBB

Edwards (1992)

13

1 = SD, 5 = SA

Self-developed

06

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 variables 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

61

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).

62

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

63

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

64

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).

65

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

66

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

67

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 RMSEAs 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.

68

Table 3.4: Adopted goodness of fit statistics

Fit indices

Ranges and acceptance standard/criteria

(1.00< CMIN/DF <5.00)

Relative / Normal chi-square
Best/excellent fit:
1-3
(CMIN/ DF)
Reasonably acceptable: 3-5
Poor fit:
above 5
(0.90< GFI <1.00)
Goodness Fit Index (GFI)
Best/excellent fit:
0.95
Reasonably acceptable: 0.90
(0.80< AGFI <1.00)
Adjusted Goodness Fit Index
Best/excellent fit:
0.90
(AGFI)
Reasonably acceptable: 0.80
(0.90< CFI <1.00)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Best/excellent fit:
0.95
Reasonably acceptable: 0.90
(0.01< RMSEA <1.00)
Root Mean Square Error of Best/excellent fit:
< 0.05
Approximation (RMSEA)
Reasonably acceptable: 0.06 0.08
Poor fit:
above 0.10

69

____________________________________________________
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.

70

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
Male
Female
Total

193
232
425

45.4
54.6
100

Mean
2.67
2.66

St.
Deviation
0.58
0.52

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

71

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

Range (mean
Compulsive
score of
Males Females
Buying Continuum compulsive
buying)
Non-compulsive
0.00-0.99
0
0
Recreational
1.00-1.99
23
20
Borderline
2.00-2.99
110
151
Compulsive
3.00-3.99
57
59
Addictive
4 and above
3
2
Total
193
232

4.1.2

Total
0
43
261
116
5
425

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

72

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

73

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
15- 20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36 40
41 and above
Total

Frequency Percentage
159
130
59
36
21
20
425

37.4
30.6
13.9
8.6
4.9
4.6
100

NonRecreational Borderline Compulsive Addictive

compulsive
0
15
104
37
3
0
8
80
40
2
0
11
32
16
0
0
5
18
13
0
0
1
16
4
0
0
3
11
6
0
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.

74

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.

75

Table 4.4: Samples description

Demographic
variables
Gender

Age
(in years)

Occupation

Major source
of spending

No of market
visit
(in a month)

Time spend
(in hours)

Frequency

% total
sample

Male
Female

193
232

41%
59%

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%

Student
Employee
Housewife
Business
Others

270
126
19
8
2

63.5%
29.6%
4.5%
1.9%
0.5

Parents/Guardian
Job
Personal
Husband/Wife

221
64
117
23

52%
15.1%
27.5%
5.4%

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%

1-3
4-6
7-9
More than 9

310
101
4
10

72.9%
23.8%
0.9%
2.4%

Mean

S.D

1.55

0.50

2.32

1.56

1.46

0.71

2.35

0.94

1.62

1.27

1.33

0.65

76

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

77

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.

78

Figure III: Measurement model specification

79

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.

80

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 () and
beta () 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

81

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 (= 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

82

value of Standard Regression weight 0.34 or (= 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 (= 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 (= 0.28) with p<0.05,
that is showing the significant relationship between SSM and CBB.

83

84

________________________________________________________________________

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.

85

It is considered that social attributes of buyers have the greatest affect on the
development of consumers 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 consumers 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 OGuinn, 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

86

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 buyers
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 consumers 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, consumers
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

87

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 individuals 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 consumers 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 consumers
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.

88

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

89

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.

90

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 buyers compulsive buying behavior.
To add up information in various spheres of knowledge (e.g., buyers social psychology,
buyers psychology, buyers 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 individuals social psychology field
This study is a positive addition to the existing knowledge relating to consumers 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 consumers psychology that
eventually appears in consumers 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,

91

directs a rational expansion of determining this behavior. Exclusively, theoretical

framework of S-O-R model must be employed to learn the process of buyers 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 peoples 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 buyers 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.

92

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 consumers 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.

93

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 consumers 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 precommitment 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).

94

5.3 Direction for Future Research

The basic concentration of this study was on social factors influence on consumers
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 individuals 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). Individuals
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 individuals behavior and understanding of nature
of such responses (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984). Relating with appropriateness individuals
feel social anxiety and fear from peoples 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 persons socio-psychosocial aspects may
help in further awareness about causes behind buying behaviors. In future research

95

understanding of buying process must be enhanced by specifying more certain outcomes

of buying experience in addition to buyers 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

96

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

97

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.

98

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 buyers 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 (OGuinn and Faber,

99

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 consumers 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.

100

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 selfesteem, tension and misery. All these factors must be entailed as the key causes of
consumers compulsive buying behavior.

101

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). "Childrens 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: Selfcontrol failure, impulsive
purchasing, and consumer behavior." Journal of Consumer Research 28(4): 670676.
Bearden, W. O. and M. J. Etzel (1982). "Reference group influence on product and brand
purchase decisions." Journal of Consumer Research: 183-194.

102

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: 473481.
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.

103

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.

104

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 eshopping 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: 419419.

105

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.

106

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: Selfdiscrepancies and
materialistic values as predictors of compulsive buying tendency." Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology 24(6): 832-859.
Dittmar, H. (2005). "Compulsive buyinga 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-imageis 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.

107

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 riskhandling 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.

108

Faber, R. J. and T. C. OGuinn (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. OGuinn (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. OGuinn, 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.

109

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.

110

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.

111

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 selfesteem 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, . n. and I. A. Rodr-guez Del Bosque Rodr-guez (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.

112

Inman, J. J. and R. S. Winer (1998). Where the rubber meets the road: A model of instore 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 cognitivebehavioural
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.

113

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. PsychiatricLeipzig, 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.

114

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
wordofmouth communications." Psychology & Marketing 24(12): 10851108.
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. Hourtan, 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.

115

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.

116

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.

117

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

118

ownership and property." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6(6): 307326.
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.

119

Park, C. W. and V. P. Lessig (1977). "Students and housewives: Differences in

susceptibility to reference group influence." Journal of Consumer Research: 102110.
Park, H. S. and T. R. Levine (1999). "The theory of reasoned action and selfconstrual:
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.

120

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. KukarKinney, et al. (2008). "An expanded conceptualization and
a new measure of compulsive buying." Journal of Consumer Research 35(4): 622639.
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.

121

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 buyings 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.

122

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). Nkupn- chovn-, 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.

123

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. GrhanCanli, 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.

124

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). "SelfMonitoring and Susceptibility to the
Influence of SelfProphecy." 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.

125

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.

126

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 crossnational examination of consumer
perceived risk in the context of nondeceptive 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 SelfPresentation." Journal of Consumer Research
31(3): 551-556.

127

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.

128

APPENDICES
____________________________________________________

Annex A
_____________________________________________________
Descriptive Statistics

Occupation
Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

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

1.9

1.9

99.5

Other

.5

.5

100.0

Total

425

100.0

100.0

Valid

Major Source behind spending money/ buying

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

Personal
Job
Valid

Parents/Guardian
Husband/Wife
Total

117

27.5

27.5

27.5

64

15.1

15.1

42.6

221

52.0

52.0

94.6

23

5.4

5.4

100.0

425

100.0

100.0

129

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

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

1-3 hours

310

72.9

72.9

72.9

4-6 hours

101

23.8

23.8

96.7

7-9 hours

.9

.9

97.6

10-12 hours

1.6

1.6

99.3

13-15

.7

.7

100.0

425

100.0

100.0

Valid

Total

130

____________________________________________________

Annex B
_____________________________________________________
Result of Measurement Model
Squared Multiple Correlations: (Default model)

SNI1
SNI2
SNI3
SCO6
ZUNP
ZPP
ZFS
ZDYS
ZTS
SRF3
SCO1
SCO2
SCO3
SCO4
SCO5
SII3
SSM1
SSM2
SSM3
SRF1
SRF2
SII1
SII2

Estimate
.214
.283
.328
.317
.256
.097
.124
.681
.323
.428
.261
.374
.361
.423
.286
.356
.521
.683
.327
.456
.526
.273
.403

131

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

NPAR
61
276
23

CMIN
589.650
.000
2559.755

DF
215
0
253

P
.000

CMIN/DF
2.743

.000

10.118

RMR, GFI

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

RMR
.080
.000
.270

GFI
.884
1.000
.503

AGFI
.850

PGFI
.688

.458

.462

Baseline Comparisons

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

NFI
Delta1
.770
1.000
.000

RFI
rho1
.729
.000

IFI
Delta2
.840
1.000
.000

TLI
rho2
.809
.000

CFI
.838
1.000
.000

RMSEA

Model
Default model
Independence model

RMSEA
.064
.147

LO 90
.058
.142

HI 90
.070
.152

PCLOSE
.000
.000

132

____________________________________________________

Annex C
_____________________________________________________
Result if Structural Model
Regression Weights: (Default model)

SSM
SSM
SSM
CBB
SII2
SSM2
SII3
SII1
ZTS
ZFS
ZPP
ZUNP
SCO5
SCO4
SCO3
SCO2
SCO1
SCO6
SNI2
SNI3
SNI1
ZDYS
SSM3
SSM1

<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<---

SNI
SII
SCO
SSM
SII
SSM
SII
SII
CBB
CBB
CBB
CBB
SCO
SCO
SCO
SCO
SCO
SCO
SNI
SNI
SNI
CBB
SSM
SSM

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

.536 .139 3.846 ***
.525 .118 4.446 ***
.298 .088 3.372 ***
.199 .049 4.073 ***
1.329 .211 6.290 ***
1.085 .103 10.510 ***
1.291 .204 6.321 ***
1.000
1.000
.417 .068 6.127 ***
.501 .100 5.000 ***
1.171 .136 8.581 ***
.956 .130 7.358 ***
1.182 .146 8.096 ***
1.215 .151 8.038 ***
1.146 .146 7.857 ***
1.000
1.041 .138 7.530 ***
1.307 .262 4.978 ***
1.207 .241 5.005 ***
1.000
.888 .097 9.161 ***
.739 .080 9.242 ***
1.000

133

Squared Multiple Correlations: (Default model)

SSM
CBB
SNI1
SNI2
SNI3
SCO6
ZUNP
ZPP
ZFS
ZDYS
ZTS
SCO1
SCO2
SCO3
SCO4
SCO5
SII3
SSM1
SSM2
SSM3
SII1
SII2

Estimate
.295
.277
.196
.326
.305
.310
.330
.089
.240
.487
.451
.247
.365
.402
.415
.285
.395
.477
.660
.298
.228
.416

134

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

NPAR
44
210
20

CMIN
699.634
.000
2084.370

DF
166
0
190

P
.000

CMIN/DF
4.215

.000

10.970

RMR, GFI

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

RMR
.170
.000
.268

GFI
.847
1.000
.531

AGFI
.807

PGFI
.670

.481

.480

Baseline Comparisons

Model
Default model
Saturated model
Independence model

NFI
Delta1
.664
1.000
.000

RFI
rho1
.616
.000

IFI
Delta2
.722
1.000
.000

TLI
rho2
.678
.000

CFI
.718
1.000
.000

RMSEA

Model
Default model
Independence model

RMSEA
.087
.153

LO 90
.080
.147

HI 90
.094
.159

PCLOSE
.000
.000

135

____________________________________________________

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 Consumers 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 CareProducts. Therefore, while filling the questionnaire please recall your feelings while
purchasing such items.
(1)
Strongly
Disagree
1
2
3

(2)
Disagree

(3) Neutral

(4)
Agree

(5)
Strongly
Agree

I go for shopping for fashion with

my friends or family to socialize.
I enjoy socializing with others when
I shop for fashion.
Shopping for fashion with others
makes friendship/bonding
experience.

136

12

To make sure I buy the right fashion

product or brand, I often observe
what others are buying and using.
If I have less experience with a
fashion product, I often ask my
friends about the product.
I consult other people to help in
choosing the best alternative
available in fashion market.
It is important that others like the
fashion products and brands I buy.
If other people can see me using a
fashion product, I often purchase the
brand they expect me to buy.
I rarely purchase the latest fashion
styles until I am sure my friends
approve them.
I feel motivated to buy and spend,
even when I dont have the time or
money.
I get little or no pleasure from
shopping
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.
Sometimes, I buy things even when
I dont need anything.
I go for shopping and buy in excess
when I am upset, disappointed or
angry.
I sometimes worry about my
spending habits but still go out to
buy and spend money.
When I go for shopping and buy in
excess, then I feel worried.
I sometimes buy things even though
I cannot afford them.
Sometimes, When I go for shopping
and buy in excess, then I feel guilty
or ashamed
I sometimes buy things I do not need
or will not use.

7
8

10

11

15
16

17

18
19
20

21

137

22
23
24
25
26

27

28
29
30

31

I sometimes feel strong inner push to

go shopping.
I am worried about what others will
think of my fashion sense.
I worry that my friends might think I
look funny with my fashion items.
I fear that what I buy might not be in
fashion.
If I want to find out my
performance, I compare it with
performance of others.
I compare how I am doing socially
(e.g., social skills, popularity) with
how other people are doing socially.
I compare my achievements with
others achievements.
I always like to know what others
will do in a similar situation.
I try to find out the
thoughts/opinions of others who face
problems similar to problems that I
face.
If I want to learn more about
something, I try to find out what
others think about it.

138