A Clinical Screener for Compulsive Buying

Author(s): Ronald J. Faber and Thomas C. O'Guinn

Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Dec., 1992), pp. 459-469
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489402
Accessed: 01-08-2017 21:50 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489402?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Consumer Research

This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Clinical Screener for Compulsive Buying

RONALD J. FABER
THOMAS C. O'GUINN*

Advancements in understanding problematic behaviors require the ability to identify

affected or at-risk individuals. This article reports the development of a scale to
identify compulsive buyers. Seven items representing specific behaviors, motivations,
and feelings associated with buying significantly contributed to correctly classifying
approximately 88 percent of the subjects. Evidence indicates this screening scale
is unidimensional and possesses good reliability. Validity is demonstrated by com-
paring members of a general consumer sample who are identified as compulsive
buyers by the screener with self-identified compulsive buyers and noncompulsive
consumers on several established correlates and outcomes of compulsive buying.
Evidence of external validity using a separate sample is also presented.

Some researchers have argued that studying negative
aspects of consumer behavior is essential to the
field's fuller development (Faber and O'Guinn 1988;
Moschis 1987; Moschis and Cox 1989; O'Guinn and
Faber 1989a). To study only the "good" and functional
aspects of consumer behavior is incomplete and remiss.
Beyond p'roviding a more complete and honest picture
of consumer behavior, the exploration of various neg-
ative aspects may also help to provide new perspectives
on critical dimensions and processes in the context of
so-called normal behavior (O'Guinn and Faber 1991).
Additionally, as J. Paul Peter (1991, p. 543) has stated,
''one criterion for considering the usefulness of research
concerns its contribution to society and society's wel-
fare." Even though interest in expanding the consumer-
behavior discipline to include the negative appears to
be growing, Peter further notes that most consumer-
behavior research does not score highly on this criterion.
Greater examination of harmful consumer behaviors
would be a step toward remedying this situation.
The study of negative or abnormal consumer behav-
iors would be greatly facilitated by methods that could
easily and correctly identify people with specific con-
sumption problems. Identification of subjects through
a screening instrument would free researchers from their
dependence on self-selected samples. While such sam-
ples are often a way of life in the clinical realm, they
are prone to several problems that can create bias and
lead to erroneous interpretations. Some people may be
*The authors contributed equally to this article. Order of authorship
was determined by flip of a coin. The authors wish to thank and
acknowledge Albert Muniz, Jr., L. J. Shrum, Sunder Narayanan, Ja-
nette Bradley, Ross Crosby, Gary Christenson, Jim Mitchell, Martina
DeZwaan, Carolyn White, and Dawn Owens-Nicholson, as well as
the Personality and Social Ecology Group and the James Webb Young
Fund at the University of Illinois and the three reviewers.
459
too embarrassed, poor, frightened, or unaware of how
to get help. To the extent these people differ demo-
graphically or dispositionally from those who seek
treatment or volunteer for research studies, our under-
standing of a disorder may be limited to the experiences
of only one subgroup. Psychological or experiential dif-
ferences such as level of extraversion, need for catharsis,
or contamination due to therapeutic interventions may
also bias information provided by self-selected infor-
mants (O'Guinn and Faber 1989b). Use of a screener
might also be helpful in research on the development
or etiology of these behaviors since, over time, recol-
lection of early signs and symptoms may be distorted
and the temporal ordering of events confounded. By
identifying clinical subjects through screening instru-
ments, researchers may be able to get a more complete
and accurate understanding of problem behaviors. For
all of these reasons, the development of a screening in-
strument is an important step in both the research and
treatment of any pathology.
Compulsive Buying
Compulsive buying was first identified and described
as 44chronic, repetitive purchasing that becomes a pri-
mary response to negative events or feelings" (O'Guinn
and Faber 1989a, p. 155). While initially providing
some perceived benefits, such chronic behavior typically
"becomes very difficult to stop and ultimately results
in harmful consequences." These consequences are not
only economic but also psychological and societal
(O'Guinn and Faber 1989a).
Researchers have found that compared with other
consumers, compulsive buyers have: lower self-esteem
(d'Astous, Maltais, and Roberge 1990; O'Guinn and
Faber 1989a; Scherhorn, Reisch, and Raab 1990); a
greater tendency to fantasize (O'Guinn and Faber
? 1992 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. * Vol. 19 0 December 1992
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/93/1903-0012$2.00

This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 460 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER
1989a); greater levels of depression (Scherhorn et al.
1990; Valence, d'Astous, and Fortier 1988); and higher
levels of anxiety reactions and obsessions (O'Guinn and
Faber 1989a; Scherhorn et al. 1990). Additionally, the
motivation for compulsive buying appears to come
more from trying to attain interpersonal and self-esteem
goals rather than from a strong desire to possess things
(O'Guinn and Faber 1989a).
While researchers have provided basic phenomeno-
logical descriptions and some evidence of the underlying
dynamics of compulsive buying, there remain several
important unaddressed questions. Perhaps chief among
them are (1) how one can best identify those at risk for
compulsive buying and (2) just how prevalent is this
type of abnormal consumer behavior. This article re-
ports results of an initial effort to answer these questions
through the development of a clinical screener.
Compulsive Buying Screening Instrument
In an initial effort to develop a screening instrument,
Valence et al. (1988) selected 16 items they felt repre-
sented four basic dimensions of compulsive buying.
These dimensions (a tendency to spend, feeling an urge
to buy or shop, postpurchase guilt, and family environ-
ment) were based on findings from an early exploratory
study (Faber, O'Guinn, and Krych 1987) and anecdotal
observations. The instrument was administered to 38
compulsive buyers (identified from snowball sampling)
and 38 noncompulsive shoppers. A reliability analysis
led to the elimination of the three items representing
family environment. The remaining 13 items had high
internal consistency. Validity was established by show-
ing that the compulsive buying sample scored signifi-
cantly higher on the scale than the control group and
that scale scores were associated with having a higher
level of anxiety and a family history of related disorders
(bulimia, depression, or alcoholism). However, a pre-
dicted negative association between scale scores and
self-esteem was not found.
A modified version of this scale was tested on German
subjects (Scherhorn et al. 1990). Once again, the scale
was found to have high reliability after the family en-
vironmental items were dropped. However, different
factor structures were found for self-identified com-
pulsive buyers and normal subjects. Convergent validity
was demonstrated by a significant relationship between
scale scores and scores on psychasthenia, depression,
and self-esteem.
These early efforts to develop a screening instrument
are an important start in this endeavor, but some critical
questions remain. These efforts have not indicated how
much each scale item contributes, whether all items are
necessary, or whether this is the most predictive set of
discriminating variables. Finally, the items used to val-
idate the scale were all individual difference variables
found to be associated with compulsive buying. How-
ever, these same items have also been shown to relate
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RESEARCH
to several other disorders. To ensure that a screening
instrument is truly tapping compulsive buying, it should
be shown to correctly predict buying behaviors and
consequences as well as associated personality dimen-
sions. The goal of this study was to overcome these pre-
vious limitations and help to develop a set of items that
could provide the best predictive indication that a per-
son had a compulsive buying problem.
METHOD
A survey of both self-identified compulsive buyers
and members of the general population was employed
to develop and test the screening instrument. The sam-
ple of problem consumers was drawn from people who
identified themselves as compulsive buyers and desired,
but had not yet received, help for their problem. The
sampling frame was explicitly chosen to minimize the
number of people already in therapy. This was done to
try to minimize contamination in respondents' answers
and clinical measures due to learned responses from
the particular type of therapy employed and acceptance
of the therapist's explanation for their pathology.
The compulsive strata was obtained from people who
had written to a self-help group for problem consumers
that had received national publicity. In the six months
prior to this study, the organization had received ap-
proximately 1,400 letters. All of these letters were read
and reviewed by the authors, and those that did not
indicate that the letter writer had a personal spending
problem (approximately 200) were eliminated. System-
atic sampling of the remaining letters, selecting two of
every three, yielded a final sample of 808 people.
A questionnaire accompanied by two cover letters
was sent to the compulsive buying sample; one from
the self-help organization assured potential respondents
of the noncommercial and public interest nature of the
request, and a second from the authors asked for co-
operation and explained the research purpose in general.
A total of 388 completed questionnaires were returned,
for a response rate of 48 percent. Because of the sensitive
nature of the data, the researchers were prohibited from
identifying the cases by name or generating a mailing
list. Thus only one mailing, without a follow-up, was
possible.
To serve as a comparison group, a sampling proce-
dure thought to produce general population parameters
approximate to a more systematic sample of the state
of Illinois was used. This sampling procedure repre-
sented a cost-effective heuristic thought appropriate for
the explicit purposes of this particular study (S. Sudman,
personal communication). A large city (Chicago), in-
cluding its suburbs, a smaller city (Springfield), and a
more rural area (Bloomington-Normal and surrounding
rural areas) were employed. One-third of the sample
was drawn from published area directories within each
defined sampling group. A sample of 800 people was
sent questionnaires. The cover letter from the authors
 COMPULSIVE BUYING
was also sent to this sample. The first mailing yielded
129 completed questionnaires. A second mailing yielded
another 121, and a third added 42, for a total of 292,
or an overall response rate of 36.5 percent. As expected,
the demographic makeup of this sample approximates
that of the general population of Illinois adults as well
as that of the entire United States (see Table 1).
A comparison of the demographic characteristics of
the compulsive buying and general consumer samples
indicates that there was no significant difference in the
household income of these groups. However, while
gender was equally proportioned in the general strata
(48.3 percent men; 51.7 percent women), compulsive
buyers were heavily skewed toward female respondents
(92 percent). This gender imbalance is consistent with
other studies of compulsive buyers (d'Astous 1990;
Scherhorn et al. 1990). This is not surprising since
compulsive buying is most likely an impulse control
disorder (Christenson et al. 1992; McElroy et al. 1991),
and all of the impulse control disorders are skewed on
the basis of gender (American Psychiatric Association
1987; Popkin 1989). For example, pathological gam-
bling tends to afflict mostly men, while kleptomania
predominantly affects women (American Psychiatric
Association 1987).
Although compulsive buying is likely to affect more
women than men, it does not exclusively affect women.
Therefore, a scale applicable to both sexes is preferable.
The gender difference among strata was considered ac-
ceptable since previous research has indicated no sig-
nificant gender-by-strata interactions on psychological
or behavioral variables associated with compulsive
buying (O'Guinn and Faber 1989a), and no significant
main effects of gender on potentially confounding vari-
ables such as self-esteem were found here. Only two
gender main effects were observed (on remorse and
emotional lift from shopping), and in these two cases
the amount of variance explained by gender was less
than one-tenth that explained by strata membership.
The survey instrument was designed to cover a wide
range of issues. These included both items that were
chosen specifically for use in developing a screener, as
well as measures of psychological and behavioral cor-
relates and outcomes of compulsive buying to be used
to establish criterion and construct validity.
SCALE-DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
While there are some basic requirements for any use-
ful measurement instrument (American Educational
Research Association et al. 1985), there is no single,
correct approach to the development of psychological
or clinical tests. Rather, what is appropriate depends
on the goal or aims of the specific instrument (Aiken
1985). The goal of this study was to develop a screening
instrument for compulsive buying and, secondarily, to
utilize it to provide an initial prevalence estimate.
Therefore, the logic behind the analysis follows from
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SCREENER 461
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF THE GENERAL SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
WITH THOSE OF ILLINOIS AND U.S. ADULTS
United
Demographic characteristic Sample Illinois States
Mean age 45.6 44 5a 42.6a
Household size 2.3 2.6b 2.6b
Household income (in thousands) 20-30c 22.5d 23.6d
Percent married 50.3 53.3b 59.0b
Gender distribution:
Female 48.3 51.4b 51. 3b
Male 51.7 48.6 48.7
Race (% white) 73.8e 74.8f 80.39
aData are mean age of those 18 and
Population and Housing, Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.
bSource is 1980 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC
Bureau of the Census.
cFigure is median categorical response.
dSource is 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC
Bureau of the Census.
ePercentage white excludes Hispanics.
fPercentage white excludes Hispanics; source is 1990 U.S. Census of Pop-
ulation and Housing, Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.
9Percentage white includes Hispanics; source is 1990 U.S. Census of Population
and Housing, Washington, DC: Bureau of the Census.
commonly accepted procedures in instrument devel-
opment (Cronbach 1990; Fiske 1978; Goldstein and
Hersen 1984; Kline 1986), measurement assessment
(Anastasi 1988; American Educational Research As-
sociation et al. 1985; Nunnally 1978) and prevalence
estimation (Lilienfeld and Lilienfeld 1980; Kaplan and
Saccuzzo 1982). This resulted in five major steps: (1)
to determine and specify the critical elements that define
compulsive buyers and differentiates them from other
consumers; (2) to test these items and build the model
best able to categorize or discriminate between members
of the two strata (distinguishing compulsive buyers from
the general population); (3) to compare the distributions
within both strata and establish a cutoff score for clas-
sifying someone as a compulsive buyer; (4) to assess the
reliability and validity of the screener; (5) to estimate
the prevalence of the at-risk compulsive buying popu-
lation.
Item Development
The items considered potentially useful for a screen-
ing instrument emerged from a series of preliminary
studies with self-identified compulsive buyers involving
both qualitative and survey methods as well as discus-
sions with therapists. Some of these items are essentially
emic, that is, they were derived via the language and
interpretive frame of the compulsive buyers. For ex-
ample, the idea that others "would be horrified" if they
knew of the behavior often kept secret from other family
members or friends came directly from earlier in-depth
interviews, as well as observation and participation in
therapy sessions (O'Guinn and Faber 1989a). Other
items were selected in a more etic manner in that their
 462 JOURNAL OF
inclusion was driven by theory, the researcher's exper-
tise and experience, as well as that of other therapists
and trained observers. For example, feeling an urge or
need to behave, failure to control this feeling, increased
arousal prior to committing the behavior, gratification
while committing the behavior, and regret or depression
after engaging in the behavior are all considered to be
common to a variety of impulse control disorders (Pop-
kin 1989). Items reflecting each of these characteristics
were employed in instrument development.
All items asked respondents to indicate either their
agreement with statements on five-point Likert scales
or their frequency of experiencing a feeling or behavior
on a five-point scale ranging from "very often" to
"never." Initially, 29 items were selected as potential
candidates for use in a screening instrument. Along with
the types of items discussed earlier, these measures in-
clude perceptions of the importance of money, moti-
vations for buying, needs or urges related to buying,
emotions typically felt before, during, and after pur-
chasing, and behaviors involved with the purchase and
use of possessions. Tangible consequences of buying,
along with several other variables, were specifically
omitted from the screener-development set in order to
later use them to examine the criterion validity of the
derived compulsive buying screener.
Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE)
Model
As a second step in the scale-development procedure,
the 29 items chosen to reflect important characteristics
of compulsive buying were entered directly into a lo-
gistic regression in order to develop the best predictive
model. The dependent measure was a dichotomous
variable indicating whether an individual was a member
of the compulsive stratum or the general population
comparison stratum. Logistic regression was chosen
over discriminant analysis because of its fewer assump-
tions and general superiority in the absence of multi-
variate normality (Halperin, Blackwelder, and Verter
1971; Harrell 1983; Press and Wilson 1978). Addition-
ally, unequal sampling rates do not affect the weights
in a logistic regression as they would in a discriminant
analysis (Maddala 1991).
Screener Items
The model reported here comprises those variables
whose contribution (Wald statistic x2) was significant
at the p < .05 level.1 These are listed in Table 2, along
with their parameter estimates.
'The original analysis produced nine items that met this significance
criterion. Two of these items ("I just wanted to buy things and did
not care what I bought" and "I really believe that having more money
would solve most of my problems") had negative weights. However,
further analysis indicated that these items loaded positively on the
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 2
VARIABLES SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTING TO
THE LOGISTIC REGRESSION
Item ,B SE x2 p R
1. Bought things even though
I couldn't afford them. (ca) .50 .15 11.74 .0006 .105
2. Felt others would be
horrified if they knew of
my spending habits. (hor) .34 .12 7.64 .0057 .080
3. Wrote a check when I
knew I didn't have enough
money in the bank to
cover it. (bc) .47 .13 12.51 .0004 .109
4. If I have any money left at
the end of the pay period,
I just have to spend it. (ml) .33 .12 7.99 .0047 .083
5. Made only the minimum
payments on my credit
cards. (minp) .31 .11 8.20 .0042 .084
6. Felt anxious or nervous on
days I didn't go shopping.
(anx) .38 .18 4.25 .0392 .051
7. Bought something in order
to make myself feel better.
(fb) .33 .16 4.36 .0369 .052
NOTE.-Intercept = -9.69; x2 = 483.92, 7 df(-2 log likelihood ratio), p = .0000,
r= .731.
The first item in Table 2, "having bought things one
could not afford," is the most powerful in its discrim-
inating ability. It is reflective of an essential character-
istic of impulse control disorders, the inability to control
a behavior even though rational considerations (such
as not having enough money) would argue against such
conduct. The third item, writing a check with insuffi-
cient funds, also indicates the uncontrollable aspect of
this problem. The fourth item, having to spend leftover
money, and the sixth item, feeling anxious or nervous
on nonshopping days, may reflect a mounting tension
or a felt need to spend that is also characteristic of im-
pulse control disorders (Popkin 1989). It is commonly
held that impulse control behaviors become repetitive
and problematic partly because they can provide tem-
porary feelings of relief (American Psychiatric Associ-
ation 1987; Popkin 1989). This is the likely reason that
the frequency of buying something so as to feel better
also significantly contributes to the model (item 7). Most
likely because of the economic consequences of their
problem, compulsive buyers typically make only min-
same factor with the other seven items and that they had positive
bivariate correlations with the other items. Therefore, their inclusion
was considered to be most likely the result of a statistical artifact,
and thus they were dropped from the calculation of the final model.
All analyses were run with both models, and the results indicate that
there are no differences in the findings using the seven- vs. the nine-
item model, further suggesting that the negatively weighted items
resulted from a statistical artifact.
 COMPULSIVE BUYING SCREENER 463

FIGURE 1

PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OF COMPULSIVE BUYING

200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120

110 Nra
Number ioo I|
90 Clinical
80 010
70 .
60 %

50 .2128 mean .8345 mean

40I(
20
10

.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .40 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65 .70 .75 .80 .85 .90 .95 1.00
PSCREEN /1

.7002 2 std dev above mean

imum payments on their credit cards (item 5). The sec- of probability (X-axis) of being a compulsive buyer as
ond item, feeling others would be horrified to know of by the proposed screener. The broken line rep-
scored
one's spending behavior, indicates that compulsive resents the distribution within the general population
buyers are aware of the aberrant nature of their behaviorstratum. The solid line indicates the probability distri-
and expresses a common type of social evaluation anx- bution within the self-identified clinical group.
iety. Inspection of the distribution for the general popu-
This seven-item function can be expressed as the lation reveals that this population has a probability dis-
probability (P) of being in the compulsive buying strata: tribution with its mode to the far left or at the lower
probability levels of being a compulsive buyer. The
P = exp(V)/exp(V) + 1,
other tail of this distribution stretches quite far to the
where right into the higher probability range. However, this
tail hovers at a very low prevalence level, never getting
V = a + f1(ca) + 12(hor) + 13(bc) + f4(ml)
above 10 cases at these higher probability levels. This
+ 5(Jlb) + f6(minp) + f7(anx)- is exactly what one would expect to find in the general
population using a screener for an abnormal behavior.
This model was then tested for classification ability.
Looking at the probability distribution for the self-
Results indicated that the MLE model correctly clas-
identified clinical group, the distribution skews far to
sified 89.8 percent of the general population (sensitivity)
the right or to the higher probability levels. In fact, by
and 85.3 percent of the compulsives (specificity) for a
far the largest number of self-identified compulsive
total of 87.9 percent. The specific screener questions
buyers are at a screened score associated with a 95 per-
and the scoring rules are presented in the Appendix.
cent probability of being a compulsive buyer. The
number of people dramatically decreases as we move
Distributions
toward lower probabilities, and once past the p = .5
Figure 1 shows two probability distributions. Each level, this distribution hovers very near the X-axis or
indicates the number of cases (Y-axis) at a given level an incidence of zero.

This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 464 JOURNAL OF
Comparing the two populations, we can see that the
mean probability of being identified as a compulsive
buyer on the screener is .83 (SD = .237) among the self-
identified compulsive buyers, compared with a mean
of only .21 (SD = .244) within the general population.
The overlay of these probability distributions clearly
shows that the populations are very distinct and the
screening instrument appears to do a very good job of
correctly identifying compulsive buyers. This overlay
will also prove useful in determining a scale cutoff point
for classifying compulsive buyers.
Cut-Point Criterion
The logistic regression analysis is designed to maxi-
mally discriminate compulsive buyers from other con-
sumers. On the graph, this is represented by the number
of people at the p = .5 level or greater. At this prob-
ability level, the screener correctly classifies 88 percent
of the cases. This point balances the likelihood of false
positive and false negatives and could therefore be con-
sidered a good cut point. However, Aiken (1985) has
suggested that the importance of each type of error
should be considered in selecting a cutoff point. When
the goal of using this scale is to correctly identify com-
pulsive buyers for research purposes or to provide an
estimate of the prevalence of compulsive buying in the
general population, it may be preferable to err on the
conservative side and fail to correctly identify a com-
pulsive buyer rather than to falsely include noncom-
pulsive buyers (minimizing false positive). This would
suggest a cut point at some p > .5 level.
Additional guidance may be gained by examining
Figure 1. The distribution of the self-identified clinical
group shows a large number of people at the 95 percent
level and a precipitous dropoff from there. Therefore,
we could establish the 95 percent level as our cut point.
However, to do so would mean a high likelihood of
excluding many people who truly are compulsive
buyers.
An alternative cut point would be at the point at
which the drop in the distribution begins to level off.
Figure 1 shows a continuing decline in the number of
people associated with each probability level from 95
percent until about 70 percent. At this point, the dis-
tribution appears to level off. We, therefore, consider a
.7 MLE level of probability to be a good cut point.
In the general population distribution, a probability
level of .7 is approximately 2 SDs above the mean. A
cut point at 2 SDs above the normal population mean
is not only reasonable given our data but is also the
same criteria used with the Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory and several other clinical scales in
classifying someone as having a psychopathology (An-
astasi 1988). Thus, a cutoff point at 2 SDs is recom-
mended for research purposes. This point is associated
with a scale score of-1.34.
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
Scale Assessment
The next step in scale development is to assess the
reliability and validity of the screener. Ideally, the scale
should be examined for two types of reliability (stability
and internal consistency) and content, criterion, and
construct validity (Aiken 1985; American Educational
Research Association et al. 1985; Anastasi 1988).
Measurement of stability is typically assessed by hav-
ing the same subjects take the test at two separate times
(test-retest reliability). However, for criterion-referenced
tests like this scale, in which the goal is to determine
whether a person fits into a particular group or no.it, the
computation of a c coefficient is a more appropriate
stability measure (Lindeman and Merenda 1979). The
c coefficient also requires the same subjects to fill out
the scale on two separate occasions. Unfortunately, be-
cause of the sensitive nature of compulsive buying, our
agreements to insure confidentiality precluded identi-
fying or recontacting subjects a second time and deter-
mining c.
The second form of reliability, internal consistency,
is concerned with the homogeneity of the items com-
prising the scale. The internal consistency of the com-
pulsive buying scale was assessed in two ways. First, the
seven items were subjected to principal components
factor analysis with varimax rotation. The results
showed only one factor (eigenvalue = 4.45; proportion
of variance = .64), with all seven items having strong
loadings (minimum factor coefficient = .69; average of
factor coefficients = .79). As a second test, Cronbach's
alpha was computed. Alpha was .95, attesting to the
unidimensionality of this scale.
Validity
Ideally, content validity should be ensured by the ap-
proach used to construct the instrument rather than
assessed after the fact (Nunnally 1978). We hope that
this was accomplished by conducting preliminary qual-
itative and survey studies, reviewing the psychiatric lit-
erature, and consulting with psychiatrists and therapists
experienced in dealing with compulsive buying and im-
pulse control disorders when developing the original
list of items. Further support for the content validity
of this scale can be found from the relationship of the
seven significant items with the theoretical expectations
and prior empirical results discussed earlier.
While the scale appears to have content or face va-
lidity, the more crucial issues are criterion and construct
validity. These were assessed in the most conservative
manner possible. To accomplish this, individuals from
the general population who were classified by the
screener as being compulsive buyers were compared to
both the self-identified clinical stratum and the other
members of the general population on variables pre-
viously found to relate to compulsive buying (O'Guinn
and Faber 1989a). If the screener is an accurate instru-
 COMPULSIVE BUYING
COMPARISON OF SCREENED COMPULSIVE BUYERS, SELF-IDENTIFIED COMPULSIVE BUYERS, AND GENERAL CONSUMERS
Dependent measures
Obsessive-compulsive scale* (5 items, a = .85) 15.86a 16.24a 20.68b
Self-esteem (5, a = .84) 17.29a 15.86a 21-05b
Fantasy* (3, a =
Materialism* (24, a = .71) 39.14a 38.41a 45.71b
Envy* (4, a = .72) 1 2.59a 12.05a 15.23b
Object attachment (3, a = .75) 10.91a 10.82a 13.55b
Emotional lift* (3, a = .89) 6.43a 6.18a 10.73b
Remorse* (3, a = .71) 9.64a 8.14a 13.55b,
Credit cards owned (1) 2.14 2.95 2.59
Credit cards paid in full each month (1) 30a .67a 2 00b
Credit cards within $100.00
Percent of monthly income going to debt (1) 52.70a 56.80a 29.50b
NOTE.-For items with an asterisk, a lower score indicates either greater agreement or frequency. Number of items comprising a dependent measure and Cronbach's
alpha for multiitem scales are reported in parentheses. Means with no superscript in common are significantly different at the p < .05 level.
ment, these general population members who were
classified as compulsive buyers should be more similar
to the self-identified compulsive buyers than to the gen-
eral population on these previously identified correlates
and consequences of compulsive buying.
O'Guinn and Faber (1989a) reported significant dif-
ferences between the scores of compulsive buyers and
general consumers on 13 of the 14 different variables
they tested. These dependent variables represented per-
sonality variables, motivations for buying, and conse-
quences of compulsive buying. Each of these variables
had been hypothesized to relate to compulsive buying
on the basis of clinical observations, prior develop-
mental research, or theoretically related findings from
other impulse control disorders (see O'Guinn and Faber
1989a for greater details). Recent research with both
clinical and social science methods have found further
support for almost all of these relationships. These
include findings that compulsive buyers have lower
self-esteem (d'Astous 1990; Krueger 1988; Scherhorn
et al. 1990); greater levels of obsessive-compulsiveness
(Scherhorn et al. 1990); greater emotional lift and re-
morse from buying (Christenson et al. 1992; Glatt and
Cook 1987); less object attachment (Krueger 1988) and
a greater use of credit cards and higher debt from buying
(Christenson et al. 1992; d'Astous 1990). The only find-
ing from O'Guinn and Faber's (1989a) study that has
been investigated, but not confirmed, is the nongener-
osity subscale for materialism. Scherhorn et al. (1990)
found that few compulsive buyers could be classified
as nongenerous. However, like O'Guinn and Faber, they
found compulsive buying to be related to envy but not
possessiveness.
Using the operational definition of compulsive buy-
ing here as being 2 SDs above the general consumer
norm on the screener instrument (70 percent probability
level), 22 people in the general sample were classified
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SCREENER 465
TABLE 3
Screened Self-reported
compulsive buyers compulsive buyers General consumers
(n = 22) (n = 22) (n = 22)
.75) 6.86a 7.41a 10.19b
of their limit (1) .71 .71 .32
as compulsive buyers. An equivalent number of self-
identified compulsive shoppers, and 22 people from the
general sample who were classified as noncompulsive
(less than a 70 percent probability of being a compul-
sive) were randomly selected for comparison. The three
groups were compared on the 12 variables that have un-
ambiguously been linked to compulsive buying (nonge-
nerosity was dropped as a validation item because of pre-
vious conflicting findings). Table 3 reports mean scores
on these 12 variables for each of the three groups.
As one can see, the results provide good support for
the validity of the screener. On all of the 12 variables
examined, scores from members of the general popu-
lation who were identified as being compulsive buyers
via the derived screener were not significantly different
from those of the self-identified clinical group. More
important, in all but two cases the scores from this group
were significantly different from those whom the
screener identified as noncompulsive.
The two variables in which the screened group did not
significantly differ from normal consumers were behav-
ioral outcome measures (the number of credit cards
owned and the number that are within $100.00 of their
limits). This could be interpreted as a problem for the
criterion validity of the screener. However, significant
differences do exist on the number of credit cards paid
in full and the percent of monthly income going to retire
debt. Additionally, in the case of number of credit cards
within $100.00 of their limit, the means are in the ex-
pected direction but do not reach statistical significance.
Therefore, the nonsignificant result may be partially due
to the conservative effect of the small sample sizes. Given
the small sample sizes, the overall results are extremely
encouraging with people from the general sample who
were identified as compulsive buyers by the screener dif-
fering significantly from the other general consumer
sample on 10 of the 12 tested variables.
 466 JOURNAL OF
External Validation
While the screening instrument appears to possess
internal validity, whenever an instrument is based on
empirically derived weights it is important to determine
external validity by showing the results are generalizable
to a different sample. To accomplish this, small ads were
placed in the Sunday edition of a Minneapolis news-
paper to recruit both compulsive and noncompulsive
buyers. Each ad requested volunteers to call to make
an appointment for a research study. The ad for com-
pulsive buyers defined this problem as "strong urges to
buy which cannot be controlled." Different phone
numbers were given for each ad to keep callers separate.
Initial screening questions were used to ensure that
all subjects were between the ages of 18 and 65 and that
they were not being treated or taking medication for a
psychotic illness. All eligible callers were then given the
compulsive buying screener over the phone, and scores
on each question were entered directly into a computer
program to calculate their weighted total. People with
positive scores have a probability of .5 or greater of
being a noncompulsive buyer. A score of -1.34 or less
would place a subject 2 SDs beyond the mean, the cri-
terion selected as the cutoff point for being classified as
a compulsive buyer.
The control ad received 57 calls, 53 of which met
inclusion criteria. Among these callers, 44 had scores
above zero (the p = .5 level), five scored between 0 and
-1.34 (less than 2 SDs from the mean), and four had
scores less than -1.34 (more than 2 SDs from the mean).
Thus, 83 percent were correctly classified.
Fifty-one of the 54 callers responding to the com-
pulsive buyer ad met the inclusion criteria. Among these
51 people, 47 had scores of -1.34 or lower. The other
four all had scores between 0 and -1.33. Thus, using a
rigorous (2 SDs from the mean) criteria the screener
correctly classified 92.2 percent of the compulsive buy-
ers. Using less stringent criteria (the p = .5 level) it pro-
duced 100 percent specificity. Overall, the screening in-
strument was able to correctly classify 87.5 percent of
the people using a rigorous criterion and 92.3 percent
using the more relaxed one. Thus, the screening instru-
ment and weights seem to possess a high degree of ex-
ternal validity.
Prevalence Estimate
The final goal of this study was to provide an estimate
of the prevalence of compulsive buying. Although a true
answer to this question must await the administration
of the screening instrument to a much larger population,
sures and significantly different from the other general
an early indication can be inferred from the results
found here in the general sample. Utilizing a cut point
of 2 SDs (a screener level of p = .7), we found 22 in-
dividuals or 8.1 percent of the general sample could be
classified as compulsive buyers or at risk of becoming
compulsive buyers. Using a far more conservative cri-
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
CONSUMER RESEARCH
terion of a probability level of .95, the estimate would
be 1.8 percent of the population, or 18 individuals in
a thousand. While we stress that these are preliminary
prevalence estimates that could be greatly influenced
by a relatively low sample size (for prevalence estimates)
and average response rate, it does suggest the potential
importance of this area of research.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of this study was to develop an
instrument to screen for the problem of compulsive
buying. A logistic regression analysis specified weight-
ings for seven variables that significantly contributed
to distinguishing compulsive buyers from other con-
sumers. These items included specific behaviors, mo-
tivations for buying, and feelings associated with buy-
ing. Although absolute confidence in this scale cannot
come from a single study, several factors enhance our
faith in this instrument.
First, this study examined many more variables, uti-
lized a more sophisticated analysis strategy, and in-
cluded a much larger sample of compulsive buyers than
previous efforts in building a screening instrument
(Scherhorn et al. 1990; Valence et al. 1988). Neverthe-
less, several of the items emerging from this analysis
were similar to those used and validated in earlier re-
search. For example, one item identified here, "Bought
things even though I could not afford them," is similar
to a statement used in the earlier scale, "I have often
bought a product that I did not need, while knowing
that I had very little money left." In total, four of the
seven items emerging in our scale (items 1, 2, 4, and 7
in Table 2), resemble statements included in the Ca-
nadian or German scales. The similarity in the scale
elements, given the differences in samples and methods,
is indeed encouraging.
Additional items in our scale that were not contained
in the earlier works reflect elements common in other
impulse control disorders. These include a building
tension when the behavior is absent ("Felt anxious or
nervous on days I did not go shopping") and engaging
in the behavior for short-term gratification ("Bought
something in order to make myself feel better"). It
would therefore seem that the proposed scale possesses
a relatively high degree of face validity.
The examination of the 22 members of the general
sample who were identified as compulsive buyers by
the screener provides the strongest evidence of validity.
These people were similar to the self-identified com-
pulsive buyers on all of the behavioral outcome mea-
consumers on half of these. Since one outcome of com-
pulsive buying is likely to be greater usage of credit and
increased debt, this scale seems to possesses a reasonable
level of criterion validity. Additional evidence of cri-
terion validity comes from the 88 percent correct clas-
sification achieved by the logistic model using the orig-
 COMPULSIVE BUYING
inal sample and the 87.5 percent correct classification
found when these items and weights were applied to a
new sample.
While the screened compulsive buyers resembled the
self-identified compulsive buyers on the outcome mea-
sures, it is also necessary to demonstrate that the scale
is not just a measure of indebtedness or a proclivity for
spending. The range tests on the psychological correlates
and motivations previously associated with compulsive
buying showed that the screened compulsive buyers did
not significantly differ from the self-identified compul-
sive group on any of these variables, but these people
differed significantly from the other general consumers
on all eight of the items. This fact along with the percent
correctly classified (same construct measured two ways)
provides evidence of construct validity for the scale.
While the results of this study are encouraging, a few
limitations must be acknowledged. Unfortunately, no
assessment of stability was feasible in this study because
of the single contact required by the confidentiality re-
striction. A direct measure of stability represents a
needed step in the future assessment of this scale.
Nonetheless, two factors suggest that stability may not
be a major problem. First, the extremity in the distri-
butions for the self-identified compulsive buyers and
the general population suggests that scores for these two
samples differ greatly. This extremity would not be the
case if the results were simply due to random error.
Second, validity is adversely affected if a measure has
poor reliability (Aiken 1985; Nunnally 1978). The en-
couraging results from the validity tests suggest that this
scale may possess an acceptable level of reliability.
However, future research is needed to directly assess
the stability of this screener.
Another limitation of this study is that separate items
to determine social desirability were not included in
the questionnaire. This too should be examined in fu-
ture studies.
The samples here may impose a third limitation on
this study. As with virtually all research, nonrespon-
dents in the survey and those who did not respond to
the ads may differ from those who did. This possibility
is particularly important here since self-selected com-
pulsive buying respondents may be very different from
those who are unable or are unwilling to identify them-
selves. Although the validity assessment examining
members of the general strata who were identified as
compulsive buyers by the screener suggests the scale is
effective, future research needs to further assess its abil-
ity to identify people who do not recognize, or are un-
willing to admit, they are compulsive buyers. Further-
more, while Table 1 indicates that the particular
procedure used to sample the Illinois population pro-
duced a demographically representative sample, it must
be acknowledged that it is not truly random and thus
may be biased in some unknown manner. Ideally, this
screener should be tested with a broad random sample.
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SCREENER 467
Finally, the relationship between compulsive buying
and gender needs to be explored more fully, particularly
in terms of its social construction.
A secondary aim of this study was to make a very
preliminary attempt at prevalence estimation. Given
the possibility of nonresponse error and the small size
of the general population sample, any prevalence esti-
mate might be unstable. Therefore, a very conservative
estimate is most desirable. Using an extremely re-
strained criterion of an MLE probability of .95, we
found that 1.8 percent of our general Illinois sample
would be classified as compulsive buyers. Thus, a prev-
alence of between 1 and 2 percent would seem to,be a
reasonable initial estimate at this time. While this scale
needs to be administered to a much larger and broader
general population before we would feel completely
confident of this estimate, it does provide practitioners
and policymakers a starting point for addressing this
problem.
As noted earlier, the ability to identify compulsive
buyers in the general population may be important for
a full and accurate understanding of this problem.
Screening instruments for other negative consumer be-
haviors are similarly needed. The development of ap-
propriate and accurate screening instruments for var-
ious disorders may be particularly helpful in future
research attempting to determine co-morbidity. Several
studies have reported that people who suffer from one
form of negative consumer behavior may be particularly
susceptible to other forms. For example, researchers
have found that compulsive buying is associated with
alcoholism (Glatt and Cook 1987; Valence et al. 1988),
obesity and binge eating (Glatt and Cook 1987), and
bulimia (Krueger 1988; Valence et al. 1988). Similar
relationships between bulimia and shoplifting (Crisp,
Hsu, and Harding 1980; Norton, Crisp, and Bhat 1985)
and bulimia, alcoholism, and drug abuse (Mitchell et
al. 1985) have also been reported. However, most of
these studies rely on self-report measures for some or
all of the behaviors. Both confidence in the veracity of
these interrelationships and the ability to further ex-
amine them would be greatly enhanced with the de-
velopment of valid screening instruments for each of
these behaviors.
A greater understanding of negative consumption
behaviors is important for the field of consumer behav-
ior as well as for society as a whole. The harmful effects
of these behaviors are not just isolated to the individuals
affected but extend also to their families, friends, and
co-workers as well as the public at large through in-
creased costs for health care, crime control, products,
and credit (Krych 1989). If, as Peter (1991) contends,
one criterion for measuring the usefulness of research
is its contribution to society and society's welfare, then
expanded study of negative consumption behaviors is
clearly called for, and the development of useful
screening instruments is an important first step.
 468 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

APPENDIX

Compulsive Buying Scale ? 1992 R. Faber and T. O'Guinn

1. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the statements below. Place an X on the line which
best indicates how you feel about each statement.

neither
strongly somewhat agree nor somewhat strongly
agree agree disagree disagree disagree

a. If I have any money left at the end of

the pay period, I just have to spend it. (1) (2) 14)
2. Please indicate how often you have done each of the following things by placing an X on the appropriate line.

Very Some-
Often Often times Rarely Never

a. Felt others would be horrified if they knew of my

spending habits. L (3i4)
b. Bought things even though I couldn't afford
them.
c. Wrote a check when I knew I didn't have
enough money in the bank to cover it.
d. Bought myself something in order to make my-
self feel better.
e. Felt anxious or nervous on days I didn't go shop-
ping.-
f. Made only the minimum payments on my credit
cards.

Scoring equation =-9.69 + (Qla X .33) + (Q2a X .34) + (Q2b X .50) + (Q2c X .47)
+ (Q2d X .33) + (Q2e X .38) + (Q2f X .31).

If score is < -1.34, subject is classified as a compulsive buyer.

[Received October 1991. Revised May 1992.]
REFERENCES
Aiken, Lewis R. (1985), Psychological Testing and Assess-
ment, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
American Educational Research Association, American Psy-
chological Association, and National Council on Mea-
surement in Education (1985), Standards for Educational
and Psychological Testing, Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association (1987), Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
Anastasi, Anne (1988), Psychological Testing, New York:
Macmillan.
Christenson, Gary A., Ronald J. Faber, Martina DeZwaan,
Nancy C. Raymond, Shelia M. Specker, and James E.
Mitchell (1992), "A Descriptive Study of Compulsive
Shoppers," paper presented at the American Psychiatric
Association Conference, Washington, DC.
Crisp, A. H., L. K. G. Hsu, and Britta Harding (1980), "The
Starving Hoarder and Voracious Spender: Stealing in
Anorexia Nervosa," Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
24 (3), 225-231.
Cronbach, Lee J. (1990), Essentials of Psychological Testing,
St. Louis: Harper & Row.
d'Astous, Alain (1990), "An Inquiry into the Compulsive Side
of Normal Consumers," Journal of Consumer Policy, 13
(March), 15-31.
, Julie Maltais, and Caroline Roberge (1990), "Com-
pulsive Buying Tendencies of Adolescent Consumers,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, ed. Marvin
E. Goldberg, Gerald Gorn, and Richard W. Pollay, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 306-312.
Faber, Ronald J. and Thomas C. O'Guinn (1988), "Expanding
the View of Consumer Socialization: A Nonutilitarian
Mass-mediated Perspective," in Research in Consumer
Behavior, Vol. 3., ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Jagdish
N. Sheth, Greenwich, CT: JAI, 49-77.
, Thomas C. O'Guinn, and Raymond Krych (1987),
"Compulsive Consumption," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 14, ed. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul An-
derson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
132-135.
Fiske, Donald W. (1978), Strategies for Personality Research,
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glatt, Max M. and Christopher C. Cook (1987), "Pathological
Spending as a Form of Psychological Dependence,"
British Journal ofAddiction, 82 (November), 1257-1258.

This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMPULSIVE BUYING
Goldstein, Gerald and Michael Hersen eds. (1984), Handbook
of Psychological Assessment, New York: Pergamon.
Halperin, Max, William C. Blackwelder, and Joel I. Verter
(1971), "Estimation of the Multivariate Logistic Risk
Function: A Comparison of the Discriminant Function
and Maximum Likelihood Approaches, Journal of
Chronic Diseases, 24 (July), 125-158.
Harrell, Frank E., Jr. (1983), "The LOGIST Procedure,"
SUGI Supplemental Library User's Guide, Cary, NC: SAS
Institute, 181-202.
Kaplan, Robert M. and Dennis Saccuzzo (1982), Psycholog-
ical Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues, Mon-
terey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Kline, Paul (1986), A Handbook of Test Construction, New
York: Methuen.
Krueger, David W. (1988), "On Compulsive Shopping and
Spending: A Psychodynamic Inquiry," American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 42 (October), 574-585.
Krych, Raymond (1989), "Abnormal Consumer Behavior: A
Model of Addictive Behaviors," in Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 16, ed. Thomas K. Srull, Provo, UT: As-
sociation for Consumer Research, 745-748.
Lilienfeld, Abraham M. and David E. Lilienfeld (1980),
Foundations of Epidemiology, New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Lindeman, Richard H. and Peter F. Merenda (1979), Edu-
cational Measurement, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Maddala, G. S. (1991), "A Perspective on the Use of Limited
Dependent and Qualitative Variables Models in Ac-
counting Research," Accounting Review, 66 (4), 788-80 1.
McElroy, Susan L., Andrew Satlin, Harrison G. Pope, Jr.,
Paul E. Keck, Jr., and James I. Hudson (1991), "Treat-
ment of Compulsive Shopping with Antidepressants,"
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 3, 199-204.
Mitchell, James E., Dorothy Hatsukami, Elke D. Eckert, and
Richard L. Pyle (1985), "Characteristics of 275 Patients
with Bulimia," American Journal of Psychiatry, 142
(April), 482-485.
Moschis, George (1987), Consumer Socialization, Lexington,
MA: Lexington.
This content downloaded from 190.131.251.192 on Tue, 01 Aug 2017 21:50:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SCREENER 469
and Dena Cox (1989), "Deviant Consumer Behavior,"
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, ed. Thomas
K. Srull, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,
732-737.
Norton, K. R. W., A. H. Crisp, and A. V. Bhat (1985), "Why
Do Some Anorexics Steal? Personal, Social and Illness
Factors," Journal of Psychiatric Research, 19 (2/3), 385-
390.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
O'Guinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber (1989a), "Com-
pulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (September), 147-157.
and Ronald J. Faber (1989b), "Methodological Con-
siderations of the Clinical Depth Interview," paper pre-
sented at the American Marketing Association Winter
Educators' Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
and Ronald J. Faber (1991), "Mass Communication
Theory and Research," in Handbook of Consumer Be-
havior, ed. Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kas-
sarjian, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 349-400.
Peter, J. Paul (1991), "Philosophical Tensions in Consumer
Inquiry," in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, ed.
Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 533-548.
Popkin, Michael K. (1989), "Impulse Control Disorders Not
Elsewhere Classified," in Comprehensive Textbook of
Psychiatry, ed. Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Sadock,
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1145-1155.
Press, S. James and Sandra Wilson (1978), "Choosing between
Logistic Regression and Discriminant Analysis," Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 73 (December),
699-705.
Scherhorn, Gerhard, Lucia A. Reisch, and Gerhard Raab
(1990), "Addictive Buying in West Germany: An Em-
pirical Study," Journal of Consumer Policy, 13 (Decem-
ber), 355-388.
Valence, Gilles, Alain d'Astous, and Louis Fortier (1988),
"Compulsive Buying: Concept and Measurement,"
Journal of Consumer Policy, 11 (September), 419-433.